So basically, if the problem is endemic, you're screwed and you should be happy about it.
If someone continues to do business (and thus helps) with a bad actor, that action of doing business and taking money speaks much louder than any words they may have.
If you genuinely care about sexual harassment but you still take the money, the net effect of that is the bad guy gets another portfolio company and grows stronger. It conveys a childish attitude - a wish for the world to be perfect while taking actions only in your interest, that help the bad guy in this case.
All talk and no action doesn't freaking help anyone, except perhaps the authors reputation. As a society we are all supposed to applaud these people as heroes? Sorry I will save my applause for those who take action - the others have my sympathy the same as millions of other people dealing with bad people.
I'm sorry, but what you are describing seems, if not childish, incredibly naïve. It presumes a scenario where there is always ample access to opportunity without facing sexual harassment.
From the article - "The only thing more timeless than the abuse of power is the tolerance of abuse by those who most need the money.". Many people want the funding bad enough to keep interacting with unpleasant people and tolerate the abuse and hence ensure it continues.... they do have at least the choice to walk away, same as men, or better yet bring it to public awareness. Yet many choose to take the money and then complain - at that point they have no right to complain, because they have actively perpetuated the cycle of abuse in exchange for money and helped the abuser grow a little more powerful.
If any founder desperate for money took money from a terrorist group, we would condemn them for colluding with the enemy, not give them sympathy for how hard it is to get funding.
You can't take the bad guys money, knowing full well what it cost you AND complain about it. That is the problem. I explained more in another comment here.