It seems to me that a lot of women are left with pretty much two options in a lot of these situations: the lethal option, and submission. Calling the police or going to HR is the "lethal" option, meaning that, in all likelihood, there is going to be a big problem, and somebody is going to suffer.
I think the following scenario should be easy to understand (if not familiar) for most people:
A person is walking down the street, when somebody approaches them and tells them to surrender their wallet.
What would most people recommend in this situation?
"Let them take your wallet, there's no point in risking your life"?
What if the person being mugged revealed they were carrying a weapon capable of deadly force?
Would you recommend that they use it to defend themselves?
Would your recommendation change if the threatening person in question had a position of default trust (e.g. a police officer), or a member of a powerful gang?
Now imagine a person in a scenario where, instead of just walking down the street, they are approached _in their office_ by somebody they trust, and instead of being asked for their wallet, they are asked for something incredibly more traumatic and unrecoverable, under the threat of complete financial destruction or possibly even physical harm.
I would never want to find out which way I would decide, in any of these situations. It's abominable that anyone should have to make that kind of choice, and it's worse still that it seems to be happening under our very noses and nobody can see it.
I think this article sets forth some very powerful, actionable ideas that are not only gender-neutral, but generally applicable in many other industries for many other classes of people who need options.