The 60% number refers to "unwanted sexual advances", not sexual harassment. Only 30% received unwanted sexual advances more than once, so that seems like a solid upper bound on actual sexual harassment.
If you consider even a single unwanted sexual advance to be harassment then you get silly conclusions which I expect you don't endorse. For example, I've been "harassed" repeatedly by fatties and gay guys in the past few weeks - they approach me and go away when I display disinterest. Pune and Bombay are so unsafe for men!
> The 60% number refers to "unwanted sexual advances", not sexual harassment.
Right, this is why I stopped reading the article after the first sentence and flagged it. One-off unwanted sexual advances are not only not sexual harassment, they're specifically exempted by law from being so.
> The EEOC has defined sexual harassment in its guidelines as:
> Unwelcome sexual advances ..
> Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment
It's right in the first two lines - what am I missing?
Which is why I quoted the third point, as it covers both the OP and the Women In Tech survey
It would be an extremely narrow definition to attempt to carve out unwanted sexual advances, especially from a superior, in a workplace not being sexual harassment.
I definitely agree that unwanted sexual advances sometimes constitute sexual harassment. I don't think it's at all clear that all the incidences talked about in the survey constitute sexual harassment. I don't mind if you disagree on this point, which is a less weird position than the one you stated earlier.
If you consider even a single unwanted sexual advance to be harassment then you get silly conclusions which I expect you don't endorse. For example, I've been "harassed" repeatedly by fatties and gay guys in the past few weeks - they approach me and go away when I display disinterest. Pune and Bombay are so unsafe for men!