Not going out with opposite sex without spouse

[Tanaqui]

OK, so let's say that some handyman guy is in your house, doing work for you under a contractor. You are old enough to be his mother.  And he comes on to you, to *completely* understate it.  And you're alone with him in the house.  Tell you what, that contractor now makes sure that his employees are *never* alone in the house with a female homeowner.  Because one of his guys turns out to be a creep.  And now you have rules about who can be in your house.  It's not the old-enough-to-be-his-mother's fault...or was she getting sexy by going into her bedroom to get some shoes?

 

So in your world, sexual assault is ALWAYS male on female - never male on male, female on female, or female on male. And all "handyman jobs" are done by straight, cisgender men?

[DesertBlossom]

This demonstrates just how little trust/respect some folks have for professionals and partners/spouses.

I never said anything about imposing these rules on a spouse or colleague. These are just general guidelines that one can choose for him/herself.

 

I get that there are times when men and women will have to work one on one with each other. But it can still be prudent to avoid those situations when possible, without making a big deal of it like a PP mentioned upthread when her boss constantly brought it up.

[LucyStoner]

I never said anything about imposing these rules on a spouse or colleague. These are just general guidelines that one can choose for him/herself.

 

I get that there are times when men and women will have to work one on one with each other. But it can still be prudent to avoid those situations when possible, without making a big deal of it like a PP mentioned upthread when her boss constantly brought it up.

If that's prudent, wouldn't it just be more prudent not to hire anyone of the wrong gender for your personal general guideline? Because you might come into contact with them one on one?

 

Do people not see why or how this rule that seems sensible and prudent to you would, if widely practiced, limit many people from equal opportunity to employment?

 

Or do people just not care? Is it really ok for someone to refuse to hire your husband because they would rather hire a woman to make sure they aren't alone with any men?

Edited April 1, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Guest]

But you had a rule for that professor for a reason. Did you also refuse to be alone with any other professor regardless of reputation and tendencies? A blanket policy?

You know, in thinking back on it, I'm pretty sure I did. For three reasons.

 

I'm not perfect.

It is unreasonable to expect another person to be perfect.

I can't control what other people will say or think or do. All I can do is my best to not give a toehold for inaccurate speculation or accusation.

 

Thing is, I think that whether or not it prevented harm, it hasn't caused harm.

[Guest]

You're describing what sounds to be sexual assault.

 

So if there's one bad guy, what's not to say the other handyman with him is another bad guy? Then the woman is in her home with two bad guys. If a business wants to set a policy that they never send anyone out alone, that's their right. They're going to have to figure out how to make that work in practice. I'm not going to pay the hourly rate for two plumbers. I don't think most people would.

 

Did you have that rule about all male professors or just the sexual assaulting one? If it was just for Dr. Grabass, you're making decisions based on individual reasoning and not blatant sex discrimination. Would you have worked with a female professor without first ascertaining whether she was a lesbian?

I ended up working for a lesbian who was coming out. She hired only females and she did tell me one day in a 1:1 that she was looking for relationships.

 

I changed jobs.

 

The response to the another part of your question is fairly recent upthread. Short answer: it did me no harm to be careful.

 

The situation with the contractor: I don't have to hire a contractor who is willing that one of his employees was...inappropriate. It wasn't sexual assault. It was inappropriate. The contractor took care of it and completely agreed with the rule.

 

Two might be worse than one...but I doubt it. People want to keep their jobs.

[Guest]

The bad guy wins because he's not reported/fired and is allowed to continue being a jack ass. Saying, I have boundaries so I didn't get hurt, just means it's ok as long as it only happened to the last woman/next woman, not me.

The guy got fired.

[Guest]

Or the contractor lets the creepy dude go and doesn't assume that all of his employees or subcontractors are creepy (or guys, for that matter.)

 

I don't know many home service/repair type jobs where they come in groups. There are some, but that's because the job is for more than one dude work wise. Not because one dude needs to babysit the other dude. No contractor or average householder can afford to pay two dudes for a one dude job.

 

The repair person at my building is a man. I don't make my husband take off work so that the repair man and I aren't alone incidental to him checking or fixing something in our home.

Typically, I don't either.

 

And I've done a LOT of work with remodels, contractors and so on and have been overall super impressed with the employees. I'm not an alarmist. Really.

 

It just takes one screwball to make it a bad situation.

 

But when I think about it, most of the time, the workers came in pairs. And the day I walked out of the shower wrapped in a towel and ran smack into one of the guys, we both jumped about a Mike and turned the other direction. I have no problem with that. It's going to happen. But ...there was another worker in the house, and that was a safety. We all had a good laugh over it.

 

I don't understand why it is so wrong to be careful when there are people out there who will do anything to destroy one's career for political, personal, or business gain.

[luuknam]

I don't understand why it is so wrong to be careful when there are people out there who will do anything to destroy one's career for political, personal, or business gain.

 

 

It's wrong if you single out one gender to be careful about. People of any gender can make up false accusations to hurt your political career, or can assault you, etc. 

 

ETA: not saying you're doing that (I don't remember everything everyone has said in this thread). But there are plenty of people who are only careful about people of the opposite gender.

Edited April 1, 2017 by luuknam

[Guest]

It's wrong if you single out one gender to be careful about. People of any gender can make up false accusations to hurt your political career, or can assault you, etc.

 

ETA: not saying you're doing that (I don't remember everything everyone has said in this thread). But there are plenty of people who are only careful about people of the opposite gender.

Working the odds, I wouldn't call that stupid. And I've had the issue on both sides. But it's very heavily weighted toward opposite sex.

 

I will add this: i don't think it is only women OR men who need to be watchful. I do think that 90% of who each need to be watchful ABOUT is the opposite sex. But it is not exclusively so.

[LucyStoner]

Typically, I don't either.

 

And I've done a LOT of work with remodels, contractors and so on and have been overall super impressed with the employees. I'm not an alarmist. Really.

 

It just takes one screwball to make it a bad situation.

 

But when I think about it, most of the time, the workers came in pairs. And the day I walked out of the shower wrapped in a towel and ran smack into one of the guys, we both jumped about a Mike and turned the other direction. I have no problem with that. It's going to happen. But ...there was another worker in the house, and that was a safety. We all had a good laugh over it.

 

I don't understand why it is so wrong to be careful when there are people out there who will do anything to destroy one's career for political, personal, or business gain.

 

I'm very careful about my physical safety.  

 

People who will do anything to destroy you for their personal gain don't have much compunction about telling straight up lies.  If they have nothing they can point to, they will make something up.  And often can work around precautions the target has taken to indemnify themselves from such malicious intent. 

 

Never working alone with just one other person is just not feasible for many jobs and fields.  That it has worked out for you in the past doesn't mean it's doable for others in the present.   Many people, including myself, have given specific examples of times they or their spouse are working with just one other person.  I can't imagine that you think only workers of one gender should be assigned to any and all two-person shifts.  

 

These sorts of attitudes have and will continue, to stall workplace equality.  

[Twolittleboys]

Yes and yet we still have rules of proper bookkeeping, filing and so forth just in case they ever have a question about their accounting conduct. No one says the bookkeeping is some silly outmoded concept honest people don't need.

Well, but embezzling etc. is illegal. Cheating on your spouse isn't. Now there may be a point when it comes to sexual harrassment but eating in a restaurant?

[kewb]

I was also shocked a number of times when my kids were little and another mother would say, "Bobby would really like to play more with your son; we are going to the park Friday morning, would you like to meet us there?" I would respond that my son would probably enjoy that, I was working Friday morning, but I would check with DH and see if they could make it. Then I would get a response of, "Oh I don't know if that will work; I don't think my husband can come, too, then."

 

What??? You have a couple of kids in tow? DH will have a couple of kids in tow? You would be going to a public park to let the children play? It didn't occur to me that that would be an issue.

Thathomeschooldad and I used to talk about how he would get shunned at homeschool events. I was shunned when I would spend time with him. It was quite eye opening.

[zoobie]

no it doesn't. All he has to do is have a third person present. Even doctors have to do that.

Some facilities might require a "chaperone" when a doctor is doing a pelvic or rectal exam, but doctors across the board aren't required to do this. And if the facility requires it, it's required for all genders and isn't sex discrimination.

 

If you come across a doctor for whom a chaperone is mandatory, s/he might be under a disciplinary order to do so. We came across one recently who had been touching himself naked in front of women and minors. After a license suspension, he had to have a chaperone to see patients. That's all public board records you can check online easily now.

Edited April 1, 2017 by zoobie

[creekland]

Musing here... I wonder if those who are more concerned about it are more naturally attracted to others, so feel the need to be super careful.  We all know it certainly can and does happen.

 

I know for myself, I've yet to see another guy (or lady) and even remotely think about them as a partner.  I grew up (teen years) living with my dad.  I went to college for a major that is really male dominated - to the point where I was sometimes the only female in my class (Physics).  In college I was part of the Corps of Cadets (at VT) and that was male dominated.  As an adult now it seems I have an equal number of guys and ladies in my circle IRL (work, friends, church), but I never grew up thinking of guys as objects of affection.  They were merely friends - just as close (and far away) as female friends.  It's stayed that way.  Right now I feel quite fortunate.

 

It just makes me wonder if those who are concerned are wired differently - by natural causes or environment and upbringing.

[regentrude]

Musing here... I wonder if those who are more concerned about it are more naturally attracted to others, so feel the need to be super careful.  We all know it certainly can and does happen.

 

I know for myself, I've yet to see another guy (or lady) and even remotely think about them as a partner.  I grew up (teen years) living with my dad.  I went to college for a major that is really male dominated - to the point where I was sometimes the only female in my class (Physics).  In college I was part of the Corps of Cadets (at VT) and that was male dominated.  As an adult now it seems I have an equal number of guys and ladies in my circle IRL (work, friends, church), but I never grew up thinking of guys as objects of affection.  They were merely friends - just as close (and far away) as female friends.  It's stayed that way.  Right now I feel quite fortunate.

 

It just makes me wonder if those who are concerned are wired differently - by natural causes or environment and upbringing.

 

yes, I don't know either.

In college, all my friends were guys. I have hiked, climbed, and slept in tents with guys.

When I was a postdoc (married, but DH was 1,000+ miles away), I lived with a male room mate for 1.5 years. My first room mate was a complete stranger I met on my first day in this country, who happened to work in the same lab, and I did not think twice about going to rent an apartment together the next day.  Nothing about it felt weird.

 

It was just normal. The fact that they were men never made a difference.

ETA: Thinking more about it, maybe my cultural views are different because I did not grow up here. I have not encountered medieval attitudes like "women and men cannot ever be friends" before coming here to this board.

Edited April 1, 2017 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

Without having read all the comments, because my own personal dh is out of the house for awhile and I am going to watch The Sound of Music ON BLURAY which might be grounds for divorce after 35 years...

 

When I was a manager at a software firm, my boss, who was no prude, and with whom I travelled all over the world, told me that we would never meet unless there was another party present and then only in public places.  I was kind of insulted, as in, "Seriously?  I'm not that kind of gal...and you aren't that kind of guy."  But he went on to explain that the this was for MY sake.  He said he thought I could be the first female bigshot in the company, and he didn't want anyone to think that it was by anything but by my own merits that I had done that.  If there WAS that impression(that I had slept my way to the top), it would make it hard for me to be an EFFECTIVE first female bigshot and would take all the fun out of it.  I completely agreed with his assessment.

 

I appreciated his interest in my reputation and in his own, for that matter, and I would go through fire for this guy, who showed himself a class act in every way over the years we worked together.  When he retired, a lot of the love for my job and even for the company went out of the window...and I hadn't worked for him for 2 years by that time.  

 

I think it is a completely rational policy for anyone who might find their career damaged or their reputation attacked.  We live in strange times.

Yeah, I don't think this sort of thing is necessaril all that strange, or actually imples we think people have no self-control as some are suggesting.

 

Anywhere I've seen this type of practice, it's usually about liability - making sure that an kind of accusation doesn't turn into a he said/she said.

 

Given the kinds of controversies that are making headlines in some workplaces (the RCMP for example) I'm not surprised to see that kind of thing.  I don't think its great for male-female relations or the work environment, but organizations don't want to be on the hook for complaints they have no real way of evaluating.

[KarenC]

:lol: :lol: I guess you haven't seen any photo ops of the current WH administration.

LOL.  Every time I see a picture of the current WH administration I think, Wow!  That's a lot of old white men!

[FaithManor]

As a professional musician who must rehearse with soloists, a rule like this is completely laughable, and in something like 35 years in this gig (I have been professionally accompanying since the age of 13) it has also never been a problem.

[FaithManor]

yes, I don't know either.

In college, all my friends were guys. I have hiked, climbed, and slept in tents with guys.

When I was a postdoc (married, but DH was 1,000+ miles away), I lived with a male room mate for 1.5 years. My first room mate was a complete stranger I met on my first day in this country, who happened to work in the same lab, and I did not think twice about going to rent an apartment together the next day. Nothing about it felt weird.

 

It was just normal. The fact that they were men never made a difference.

ETA: Thinking more about it, maybe my cultural views are different because I did not grow up here. I have not encountered medieval attitudes like "women and men cannot ever be friends" before coming here to this board.

Same.

 

I did come from quite a medieval background when it came to gender ideas and treatment, but completely rejected it as an adult.

 

I did "Three's Company" in Austria. One tiny apartment, two gals, one guy, and all quite preoccupied with our study abroad and not each other. All three of us were engaged back home to others. No worries. No romances. Just two people performing, and me running around as the teaching assistant of a male professor on lecture tour. (He had a huge, amazing flat. We were so jealous. The three of us lived in what felt like the human equivalent of an American walk in closet!)

 

So I just have a hard time wrapping my brain around such intense rules of interaction.

[Bootsie]

I would have missed many opportunities if I had followed such rules in my life.  In both my undergraduate and graduate work I never had a female professor in my field.  I would have closed off some educational and professional opportunities.  More importantly to me, I would have shut out many enriching moments in my life; I would have missed out on many great friendships. I have written a book with a male coauthor.  I have learned a great deal from him.  He is a great friend to my entire family--he is like a grandfather to my kids.  It would have been sad for them to miss out on this relationship because I was afraid of either becoming involved with him, him attacking me, or other people spreading rumors about him.  

[8circles]

If that's prudent, wouldn't it just be more prudent not to hire anyone of the wrong gender for your personal general guideline? Because you might come into contact with them one on one?

 

Do people not see why or how this rule that seems sensible and prudent to you would, if widely practiced, limit many people from equal opportunity to employment?

 

Or do people just not care? Is it really ok for someone to refuse to hire your husband because they would rather hire a woman to make sure they aren't alone with any men?

 

I'm equally flummoxed by the number of people that can't imagine why a man & woman would be alone together at work. Are these people equally unable to imagine that 2 men would be alone together at work?

[Bluegoat]

yes, I don't know either.

In college, all my friends were guys. I have hiked, climbed, and slept in tents with guys.

When I was a postdoc (married, but DH was 1,000+ miles away), I lived with a male room mate for 1.5 years. My first room mate was a complete stranger I met on my first day in this country, who happened to work in the same lab, and I did not think twice about going to rent an apartment together the next day.  Nothing about it felt weird.

 

It was just normal. The fact that they were men never made a difference.

ETA: Thinking more about it, maybe my cultural views are different because I did not grow up here. I have not encountered medieval attitudes like "women and men cannot ever be friends" before coming here to this board.

 

I'm not sure anyone said that, though.

 

I'm surprised you haven't encountered anyone in the academic world who has concerns around this.  Not so much with collegues as with students.  It isn't like a student making a claim against a staff member is unheard of, or even just made-up gossip circulating.

[DesertBlossom]

Musing here... I wonder if those who are more concerned about it are more naturally attracted to others, so feel the need to be super careful. We all know it certainly can and does happen.

 

I know for myself, I've yet to see another guy (or lady) and even remotely think about them as a partner. I grew up (teen years) living with my dad. I went to college for a major that is really male dominated - to the point where I was sometimes the only female in my class (Physics). In college I was part of the Corps of Cadets (at VT) and that was male dominated. As an adult now it seems I have an equal number of guys and ladies in my circle IRL (work, friends, church), but I never grew up thinking of guys as objects of affection. They were merely friends - just as close (and far away) as female friends. It's stayed that way. Right now I feel quite fortunate.

 

It just makes me wonder if those who are concerned are wired differently - by natural causes or environment and upbringing.

No, that's not fair assumption at all. It's definitely not true for me. Tbh, this situation just rarely comes up for dh and I. I am an introverted sahm and would rather spend time with dh than anyone else in the world. And dh works with all men. (Because of the nature of his work and not because of discrimination)

 

Years ago DH taught middle school and I know he didn't allow students to come in his classroom alone while he was the only one in there. You just have to be careful about being in a situation where you could later be falsely accused. However, there was a fellow teacher of his who allowed students to come into the classroom before and after school and developed quite close relationships with some of them. Even former students came back to hang out with this teacher. Even the principal had taken notice and there were some raised eyebrows. Sure, there was no solid evidence that anything inappropriate was going on. But there was room for doubt. Especially when the teacher's behavior had crossed that professional line that a teacher ought to have with students.

[zoobie]

No, that's not fair assumption at all. It's definitely not true for me. Tbh, this situation just rarely comes up for dh and I. I am an introverted sahm and would rather spend time with dh than anyone else in the world. And dh works with all men. (Because of the nature of his work and not because of discrimination)

 

Years ago DH taught middle school and I know he didn't allow students to come in his classroom alone while he was the only one in there. You just have to be careful about being in a situation where you could later be falsely accused. However, there was a fellow teacher of his who allowed students to come into the classroom before and after school and developed quite close relationships with some of them. Even former students came back to hang out with this teacher. Even the principal had taken notice and there were some raised eyebrows. Sure, there was no solid evidence that anything inappropriate was going on. But there was room for doubt. Especially when the teacher's behavior had crossed that professional line that a teacher ought to have with students.

Teachers and students have a power imbalance. It's not about sex. It's about age and power. Very different from sex discrimination between adults.

[8circles]

I'm not sure anyone said that, though.

 

Not on this thread, but it's the majority view on this board when the topic comes up.

[FaithManor]

It is fine if the subordinate makes this decision and sacrifices her own career.

It is not fine if the boss makes this decision and discriminates against an employee because she is female and thus sacrifices her career advancement on the altar of his personal beliefs.

It is most definitely not fine if this boss is a public employee and paid by the taxpayer.

Hear hear!!

[Jane in NC]

yes, I don't know either.

In college, all my friends were guys. I have hiked, climbed, and slept in tents with guys.

When I was a postdoc (married, but DH was 1,000+ miles away), I lived with a male room mate for 1.5 years. My first room mate was a complete stranger I met on my first day in this country, who happened to work in the same lab, and I did not think twice about going to rent an apartment together the next day.  Nothing about it felt weird.

 

It was just normal. The fact that they were men never made a difference.

ETA: Thinking more about it, maybe my cultural views are different because I did not grow up here. I have not encountered medieval attitudes like "women and men cannot ever be friends" before coming here to this board.

 

As I think about this, I wonder if family culture is at play.  Those of us who have shared tents, sailboats and sleeping porches of funky cottages probably don't think twice about men and women in close quarters--or about situations like co-ed suites in dorms.

[Selkie]

Musing here... I wonder if those who are more concerned about it are more naturally attracted to others, so feel the need to be super careful.  We all know it certainly can and does happen.

 

I know for myself, I've yet to see another guy (or lady) and even remotely think about them as a partner.  I grew up (teen years) living with my dad.  I went to college for a major that is really male dominated - to the point where I was sometimes the only female in my class (Physics).  In college I was part of the Corps of Cadets (at VT) and that was male dominated.  As an adult now it seems I have an equal number of guys and ladies in my circle IRL (work, friends, church), but I never grew up thinking of guys as objects of affection.  They were merely friends - just as close (and far away) as female friends.  It's stayed that way.  Right now I feel quite fortunate.

 

It just makes me wonder if those who are concerned are wired differently - by natural causes or environment and upbringing.

 

Maybe -- or it could be that they have been subject to unwanted advances from colleagues and want to prevent that from happening again.

 

Or they may have seen it happen to others and witnessed how damaging it can be to the company/organization.

[FaithManor]

No one is saying that you don't behave in a professional manner. What we are saying is that treating men and women differently in the workplace can have adverse effects on the careers of women, and that is NOT professional. Treating women as potential sexual partners to be avoided rather than colleagues is definitely not professional.

This.

 

It absolutely smacks of an individual who does not think above his waist!

 

Seriously stop sexualizing women. Period.

[brehon]

Thathomeschooldad and I used to talk about how he would get shunned at homeschool events. I was shunned when I would spend time with him. It was quite eye opening.

My dh is a SAHD who does the bulk of the teaching. Shunning by homeschool moms is absolutely something he deals with, unfortunately.

[zoobie]

As I think about this, I wonder if family culture is at play. Those of us who have shared tents, sailboats and sleeping porches of funky cottages probably don't think twice about men and women in close quarters--or about situations like co-ed suites in dorms.

We aren't outdoorsy, close-quarters people and think the Billy Graham rules are bizarre.

 

I believe it boils down to legalistic thinking. DH was raised by legalistic parents but wound up not following [pretty much any of] their mindsets. I would assume there's going to be a pretty strong correlation to bias against feminism (definition women = men) as well. Hidden/passive for some. I can't think of the exact terminology right now for that...

[zoobie]

Maybe -- or it could be that they have been subject to unwanted advances from colleagues and want to prevent that from happening again.

 

Or they may have seen it happen to others and witnessed how damaging it can be to the company/organization.

These rules and compartmentalizations and over-sexualizing of people make it more likely for abuse to happen IMO. We should focus more on treating everyone professionally and equally, and we should not tolerate or condone harassment and abuse.

[TravelingChris]

The one person who I know who made a big thing about it was a Muslim man who came to my church to talk to our class about Islam.  He talked about how when he was in the US military and was invited to the base commander's house, he wouldn't go inside the house until the base commander returned because he wouldn't go into a house without the man of the house there.  I didn't think to ask the questions about how his household deals with workers coming to the house to repair something or do the yearly heating inspection,  I do have men come to the house alone- plumbers, pest control men, chimney sweeps, appliance repair men, electricians, etc.  I even have had male acquaintances come or even stay here with my husband and son gone.  My house cleaner is a male.  I sometimes get a ride from a male friend when my husband isn't at Wednesday night classes.  Since I have no issues with males- I used to be in a class at church where I was the only female- it was a poker and Bible study class, I don't tell dh who he can have rides with or who he eats with.  In his line of work, it is predominately male.

 

I know that ministers have strict rules about personal contact,  My doctors get their nurses for some things but not others.  When I have a pelvic exam, the doctor has a nurse there not only to chaperone but to assist in handing items to him.  I believe my female gynecologists also had a nurse present.  My rheumatologist has a nurse sometimes present when he is doing injections but not always,  All I know is that I would never again go to a doctor who does a pelvic exam without a nurse.  I had that happen when I was in my 20's and it was a bad situation.  Not true molestation but definitely inappropriate.   

[FaithManor]

My father in law was a gay man with a wife and three children. Numerous affairs with other men occurred over the years. So the whole assumption of heterosexuality in this discussion is kind of cracking me up actually.

 

It happens a lot more than you think. My father in law's problem was not horror of horrors working with members of the same gender. It was a character flaw plain and simple. He made a vow, he violated it because he wanted to, period. Setting a policy of only working with other women, never being alone with a male co-worker would NOT have fixed his underlying weak willed character. Self control or simply getting a divorce would have been more honest and saved a lot of personal distress on himself and his wife.

 

If a person has to have the rule, I think he/she needs to admit they are the problem or their religion is and not other people. Admit it. Own it. At least be honest instead of casting aspersions on another gender.

 

It has cause massive problems in my parent's church. The pastor has a draconian rule like this so refuses to have a female Secretary. For the $9.00 an hour offered for 25 hours per week, they have been unable to hire a male secretary. Most of the men in the area need full time work at a better wage, and college students are mostly working internships in their fields so are uninterested. It is the kind of job that is mostly looked at by someone as a way of bringing a second income into the home but with some flexibility which means it tends to only be looked at by moms with school age kids. So the office work is not getting done. He whines about this all the time from the pulpit.

[EmseB]

Teachers and students have a power imbalance. It's not about sex. It's about age and power. Very different from sex discrimination between adults.

Politicians also have a power imbalance, bosses and subordinates have a power imbalance.

 

I mean it's almost cliche at this point...the drunk congressman taking advantage of a pretty staffer. And some other politician has the audacity to try and set himself apart from that culture?! The nerve of that guy, opressing women!

 

The point is that because someone is setting standards for their own conduct it doesn't necessarily follow that they are objectifying the other party.

[EmseB]

And while so many use their Christian views to explain this, I wonder if they've ever realized how alike they are to the extreme Muslims who have similar views of separating males and females?

Seeing as they worship the same God, I suppose it makes sense.

Where's that pot stirring smiley when you need it? Good troll, though. Subtle and yet, not.

[TCB]

Personally, I think it is stupid. If DH wanted to fool around, this policy wouldn't stop him. And, I don't view every male I meet as a possible sex partner so why would I be concerned about being alone with them?? If I wanted to have an affair, promising DH I'd never be alone with another man wouldn't mean much.

 

The thing is that many affairs start at work these days. Just read an article about it. If you reduce the intimacy of the work situation as much as you can, surely that will make it less likely that situations arise that make it easier to get into those kinds of relationships. I think things often kick off with someone over sharing with a member of the opposite sex. If the opportunities for this to happen are less than I think that is a good thing.

[DesertBlossom]

And while so many use their Christian views to explain this, I wonder if they've ever realized how alike they are to the extreme Muslims who have similar views of separating males and females?

Seeing as they worship the same God, I suppose it makes sense.

 

But see if Pence was Muslim the media would be ignoring this.

[Selkie]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about this topic, but it's been interesting reading the discussion and the various opinions. Dh and I own our own businesses and I'm his only female coworker, so it's not even something we need to consider.

 

However, I worked for a large firm in the past and there were plenty of extramarital goings-on, including women actively pursuing married male colleagues and trying to start affairs (and vice versa). Having witnessed that, I can understand why some people think this policy is a good idea.

 

 

[Twolittleboys]

Yes, lots of affairs start at work but a) I don't think having dinner together alone has much to do with it (it is more likely spending long periods of time together and going through stressful experiences even if more people are present) and b) I think it is up to everyone to ensure their own behaviour. If I am married and do not want to cheat, I won't cheat. It doesn't matter whether I am alone with the other person or if I am attracted to him/her - cheating still needs action and THAT is where in my opinion the boundary is. I mean cheating doesn't just happen, it needs two people actively engaging in it.

[Barb_]

The point is that because someone is setting standards for their own conduct it doesn't necessarily follow that they are objectifying the other party.

The point is, someone is setting standards for their own conduct that negatively affects others. The standards are applied in a general sense and do not take into account the individuality of each person affected. That is pretty much the definition of objectification.

[Barb_]

But see if Pence was Muslim the media would be ignoring this.

There should be some thing called the "If This, Then This" fallacy. You cannot argue a side from a hypothetical.

 

Edited for unnecessary rudeness.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Barb_

[Amira]

The media most certainly does not ignore gender segregation within Muslim communities, either in the US or in other countries. I cannot imagine the media ignoring this type of gender segregation if a Muslim elected official in the US were talking about it.

[historically accurate]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about this topic, but it's been interesting reading the discussion and the various opinions. Dh and I own our own businesses and I'm his only female coworker, so it's not even something we need to consider.

 

However, I worked for a large firm in the past and there were plenty of extramarital goings-on, including women actively pursuing married male colleagues and trying to start affairs (and vice versa). Having witnessed that, I can understand why some people think this policy is a good idea.

 

Good Lord, woman! What kind of crazy companies did you work for? 

 

I worked at 5 different large firms, largest was Motorola corporate offices. I have seen some single people date at work; I've suspected two affairs (I will say I do not know for sure of any). I wouldn't say that people were actively pursuing affairs or it was rampant. Not even close. DH has worked at 3 different firms, 1 multi-national large, 1 small, and 1 in-between. None of his jobs have ever had him running scared from female co-workers, subordinates, or superiors.

[Bluegoat]

Not on this thread, but it's the majority view on this board when the topic comes up.

 

Oh, I wouldn't have said that - I'd say a good deal less than half think that way.

 

But this question is different, in my mind, because it isn't so much about thinking something will happen, as a precaution against outside gossip or possibly a CYA in case of something untoward happening.

[Barb_]

Good Lord, woman! What kind of crazy companies did you work for?

 

.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tanaqui]

But see if Pence was Muslim the media would be ignoring this.

 

Not a chance. Muslims in politics in the US have to be extra careful and squeaky clean, because there's always people wanting to jump on them for their religion.

 

Which brings up another point: If he was Muslim, he wouldn't be VP. We've got a long streak of only Christians in that role. He's not the one to break it.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Tanaqui

[FaithManor]

The point is, someone is setting standards for their own conduct that negatively affects others. The standards are applied in a general sense and do not take into account the individuality of each person affected. That is pretty much the definition of objectification.

This.

 

And the subject in question, an employee of the taxpayers, has an all male staff. Are we to seriously believe that not one fully qualified female applied to work for him? That seems like quite a far fetched assumption.

 

His statements can be taken to indicate that as a public employee he has engaged in gender discrimination in the workplace which is a violation of federal law. This should bother everyone very much.

 

But much like the discussion of the county clerk who refused to do her job in Kentucky violating state laws in her refusal because she blurred the lines between personal belief and the requirements of her job while being paid on the tax payers dime, there seem to be people who are okay with that.

 

I don't get it. I must admit that I am never going to get it and would not want to anyway because I prefer to work towards a world in which both genders thrive equally as well with full protection under the law, full acceptance in society, and people accept and own their own character defects instead of blaming others and acting noble while doing it.

 

If Pence and Graham can't go over a memo with a female staffer unless chaperoned, that says a heck of a lot about their own moral failings.

[zoobie]

But see if Pence was Muslim the media would be ignoring this.

 

You have got to be kidding me. People would be out there with pitchforks chanting about Sharia Law. He would never be VP of the United States in 2017 if he were Muslim. 

[Tanaqui]

You have got to be kidding me. People would be out there with pitchforks chanting about Sharia Law. He would never be VP of the United States in 2017 if he were Muslim. 

 

Seriously, we just finished up eight straight years of "Obama is a secret Muslim" which a. he's not and b. I don't care.