> The number of people here who don’t take sexual harassment in the workplace by the CEO of a world-leading company to be a serious, fireable offense—and the fact that so many of you claim to care about things like women’s rights and social justice—is mind-boggling to me.
It's mindboggling that you describe an apparently completely consensual affair as "sexual harassment". That's absurd.
Maybe you should expand your understanding of the term, then. It's a well-known thing, especially when it comes to extreme power imbalances.
The term already has a well-established meaning; we shouldn't change our understanding of it. If you mean something else then use different terminology.
Also, I don't think there was an "extreme power imbalance". If anything, she had far more power over him than the other way around, since he had much more to lose and she could blackmail him with making the affair public or other allegations.
loading story #50469508