This creates a perverse set of incentives to hide all misbehavior even if you're a victim of it.
So I don't know where you're getting this idea that lawyers would automatically defend themselves in those kinds of situations when the incentives are heavily weighted towards ignoring the situations and moving on.
As a software engineer in the tech industry though (especially at a place like Google), you can tell your employer to fuck off and you can find a new high-paying job tomorrow.
My point is that the Overton window is in a different place: whether it's okay for supervisors to date underlings, with all the problems that causes, is a settled debate in law as well as most of the rest of corporate America (it's not). Tech seems out of the mainstream to me in still entertaining the idea that it's okay.
I actually didn't consider it from that perspective e.g. it's a settled debate in other professions but a seemingly recurring debate in tech. That's an interesting point you raise and I think it's a valid one.
A white or asian man can do that, sure. But that's not necessarily true for women and other marginalized groups in the tech industry. Especially if this means they won't get a reference from their current employer.
If you're a software engineer, woman, and at Google, you'll obviously still face challenges but getting hired is less likely to be one of them. That's a powerful wind in a person's back when standing up to a company - especially when others are willing to band together with you (because the others can easily find new jobs too). It's a compounding effect.
I presume the dynamic is far different in law or investment banking even if you're highly skilled in the respective industry.
I think you would be terribly surprised.
Most of the people sitting in politics come from the legal profession.
You don't magically start harassing people simply because you get elected. The fact that you harass people is already well established before that.