So setting aside your ad hominem attack, do you have an actual counter argument?
> It seems no matter how loud the chorus of women who complain about this behavior is, some men still feel like they are the ones who get to define what sexual harassment is.
Women don't get to define what sexual harassment is either.
You see, sexual harassment (in the US) is a LEGAL issue with LEGAL consequences. It's defined as "...unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.
Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general." [1]
Granted that while the EEOC definition really only pertains to the work, it's not hard to extend that definition to scenarios outside employment (such as any professional setting).
Any unwanted behavior is not okay. However, I believe that politely asking a woman for a date (given the right circumstances [see my list prior]), is not sexual harassment, even if a woman is not interested.
My response in my earlier comment was very specific to the OP's contrived scenario: an investor meets a female founder, he likes her, he feels that she likes him back (this was the key) so he should quit his job before making a move.
Quitting his job has no bearing on whether the women would find his "asking her out for a date" welcome or not, because there wouldn't be any way for her to know he quit, unless he told her, and in that case she'd probably think he's crazy (rightly so).
That of course presupposes the investor did not misread the situation, given he is a potential investor, and she is a female founder.
> It seems no matter how loud the chorus of women who complain about this behavior is, some men still feel like they are the ones who get to define what sexual harassment is.
Women don't get to define what sexual harassment is either.
You see, sexual harassment (in the US) is a LEGAL issue with LEGAL consequences. It's defined as "...unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.
Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general." [1]
Granted that while the EEOC definition really only pertains to the work, it's not hard to extend that definition to scenarios outside employment (such as any professional setting).
Any unwanted behavior is not okay. However, I believe that politely asking a woman for a date (given the right circumstances [see my list prior]), is not sexual harassment, even if a woman is not interested.
My response in my earlier comment was very specific to the OP's contrived scenario: an investor meets a female founder, he likes her, he feels that she likes him back (this was the key) so he should quit his job before making a move.
Quitting his job has no bearing on whether the women would find his "asking her out for a date" welcome or not, because there wouldn't be any way for her to know he quit, unless he told her, and in that case she'd probably think he's crazy (rightly so).
That of course presupposes the investor did not misread the situation, given he is a potential investor, and she is a female founder.
[1] http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm