Not going out with opposite sex without spouse

[Barb_]

Right, a chaperone.

 

I think it's obvious that the fact Pence's political subgroup is exclusively male , and that Pence's political subgroup will not 1:1 mentor women is not a coincidence.

Good point. I think a lot of glass ceiling politics can be explained by quiet discrimination like the kind we're discussing. Even though I'm the mom of six daughters, the possibility that a man wouldn't want to work closely with one of them because of his religious beliefs wasn't something that was even on my radar before today. This isn't something that happens in my world, so it never occurred to me. Edited March 31, 2017 by Barb_

[DesertBlossom]

The vast majority of the time, having a meeting one-on-one with with a colleague or client of the opposite sex is not going to be a problem. But as I said earlier, if you're spending a lot of time working closely with another person, the potential to "catch feelings" for that person is greater.  That's just being realistic.  And even if you think that one-on-one meetings with the opposite sex are just fine, everyone has a limit somewhere. Meeting once a week together for dinner? What about meeting every day for weeks with a colleague on a big project? Indefinitely? What about an out-of-town business trip with just the 2 of them? If there is casual drinking involved? 

 

IMO it's just easier to say "I don't spend time one-on-one with the opposite sex unless it's my husband" then to draw that line farther on, or after one person has already developed inappropriate feelings for another. 

[regentrude]

IMO it's just easier to say "I don't spend time one-on-one with the opposite sex unless it's my husband" then to draw that line farther on, or after one person has already developed inappropriate feelings for another. 

 

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.

Edited March 31, 2017 by regentrude

[Guest]

It actually can be a problem for home school dads trying to be involved in home school groups.

 

I would and have meet men for play dates or whatever with our kids. I'm not "meeting alone". I have a few mini tattle tales in tow.

I wouldn't consider that alone and neither would my husband. It's just one on one behind closed doors or off hours that neither of us will do. In a group or public it's not a big deal.

[Barb_]

The vast majority of the time, having a meeting one-on-one with with a colleague or client of the opposite sex is not going to be a problem. But as I said earlier, if you're spending a lot of time working closely with another person, the potential to "catch feelings" for that person is greater. That's just being realistic. And even if you think that one-on-one meetings with the opposite sex are just fine, everyone has a limit somewhere. Meeting once a week together for dinner? What about meeting every day for weeks with a colleague on a big project? Indefinitely? What about an out-of-town business trip with just the 2 of them? If there is casual drinking involved?

 

IMO it's just easier to say "I don't spend time one-on-one with the opposite sex unless it's my husband" then to draw that line farther on, or after one person has already developed inappropriate feelings for another.

If a specific situation becomes a problem then I would address it head on. Avoiding the opposite sex in a work context isn't an appropriate or even legal blanket policy.

 

ETA: regentrude said it better than I

Edited March 31, 2017 by Barb_

[Murphy101]

I imagine being a stay at home dad can be terribly socially isolating.

Yes. There's extremes everywhere these days. I don't think I have ever been "alone" with a man not my husband since I got married. A park day with a dad and all our kids is not alone. A company dinner at a restaurant while traveling is not alone. An office meeting with the door open or a view window to the office is alone but not "private". I'd say I have not and don't foresee ever having a meeting or whatever alone with another man. And yet here I am going about life not being a jerk to men or presuming they are all out to harass me.

[LucyStoner]

The vast majority of the time, having a meeting one-on-one with with a colleague or client of the opposite sex is not going to be a problem. But as I said earlier, if you're spending a lot of time working closely with another person, the potential to "catch feelings" for that person is greater. That's just being realistic. And even if you think that one-on-one meetings with the opposite sex are just fine, everyone has a limit somewhere. Meeting once a week together for dinner? What about meeting every day for weeks with a colleague on a big project? Indefinitely? What about an out-of-town business trip with just the 2 of them? If there is casual drinking involved?

 

IMO it's just easier to say "I don't spend time one-on-one with the opposite sex unless it's my husband" then to draw that line farther on, or after one person has already developed inappropriate feelings for another.

And what if setting that line means you aren't considering one entire sex for jobs in the first place?

 

Political staffers frequently have to staff their employer one-on-one for events etc. If the position can't be filled by a man or a woman, that is sex discrimination. And it means that he's only mentoring and raising up male political talent. Tangentially that may well be part of why we have all these dude politicians saying boneheaded stuff like "why do men have to pay for reproductive health?"

 

It's also potentially lecherous and just profoundly troubling from a moral standpoint to read that subtext into a professional relationship. I was 19 when my boss was going on and on about it. He was 45 and married with a family. I was dating a 20 year old (my husband). It was gross of him to act like that could just happen, you know? Yeah, I know there are 19 year olds involved with 45 year olds but for me? Oh hellz no. I always felt my creep boss was rather delusional about the even vague possibility. Uh, imagine that. A 19 year old who isn't interested in a middle aged man with logorrhea. Who would have guessed?!

Edited April 1, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Pawz4me]

It's an absurd policy that has no place in most modern work environments. If someone is so  lacking in self control that they can't be trusted alone with a member of the opposite sex then they need to find some type of solitary job, not one where their character flaw can have a negative impact on others or be a detriment to carrying out their job duties in an efficient manner.

 

And especially this --

 

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

 

[Murphy101]

My best friend's husband has spent the last two weeks redoing my kitchen for me. Took out the drop ceiling, dry walled where needed, took down old lights and installed canned LED lighting and a pendulum light over the sink, cut crown moulding for the tops of cabinets and ceiling... Most of the time he came without my friend/his wife. And he did it all for free, though I bought all the materials, which he took me to go buy and never once comp,aimed about my taking forever to decide which lights and moulding and paint colors I wanted.

 

Despite my teasing my husband by commenting about how happy I am with my brother husband, I still wouldn't say we were ever alone. I always had kids with me.

[Rebel Yell]

I imagine being a stay at home dad can be terribly socially isolating.

Or a widowed working dad.

 

One of my girls was in a performance group and had a close friend there. Often after shows they wanted to go out to eat. Sometimes the entire group at the same place, sometimes various smaller groups scattered at various places. Many times it was just DD, Friend, Friends Dad, and me. If the girls wanted to sit at their own table I'd sit at another with the dad. Sometimes we all sat at one table. We had some great times. Nothing weird at all. Public places. (DH was usually not with us, likely driving another child to her activity)

[DesertBlossom]

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.

 

I will admit that I don't have any personal experience in the matter, but it seems like it would be easy to work around it. What needs to be done alone, in private, that can't be done at least semi-publicly? (In a windowed conference room, for example)

[Sneezyone]

I will admit that I don't have any personal experience in the matter, but it seems like it would be easy to work around it. What needs to be done alone, in private, that can't be done at least semi-publicly? (In a windowed conference room, for example)

Easy. When I worked in weatherization, I had to train a new monitor on two separate occasions. Both were male. Our job was to drive to and from different parts of the state in the same state vehicle for work purposes. We had one car, for two people in remote areas of the state. Yes, I ate with them. Duh. At night too. Ooohhhh so scary. It was never an issue for my husband or I.

 

DH is also military. He works with and around women constantly. He supervises and counsels women and delivers their performance appraisals. As a recruiter, he recruited women for the service, picked them up, took them to processing appts., etc. He did his damn job. They were colleagues and recruits, not prospective sex partners.

 

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

Edited April 1, 2017 by Sneezyone

[bettyandbob]

And now I have to consider there's another subtle way for someone to discriminate against my dd. ugh.

 

I have had male colleagues. I have eaten meals with male colleagues. I have worked one on one with male colleagues. If I didn't that would be one more project I was not involved, building my experience and skills. 

 

Do people who come up with such principles think with their pants more than their heads. 

[Reefgazer]

I would have no problem with either DH or I going out with a member of the opposite sex, for business or casual socialization. In fact, I do it regularly. DH doesn't because he's introverted with no outside friends.

Edited April 1, 2017 by reefgazer

[Jane in NC]

My husband is a software engineer who is employed by a utility, i.e. a 24/7 business.  It is not unusual for people to be called into work at odd times or for people to be crammed into small server rooms to replace equipment together.  It would be unprofessional if my husband said that he would only work with men (although the business is male dominated).  It would be unprofessional if he said he could not travel to a conference with a colleague who is female--in the same way that it would be unprofessional to say that he would not have lunch or travel to a conference with a man who is gay.

 

I recently attended a function for a non-profit with which I am involved that was two hours away. I could have driven by myself but put the word out that I would like to carpool.  A man who lives near me said he'd be happy to drive.  It did not occur to me that it was "inappropriate" to be alone in a vehicle with a married man for for four hours.  We have a common denominator in that we are advocates for the same organization.  Our relationship is professional.  Even if it was personal, why does that suggest to some people that it would be intimate? 

[historically accurate]

I will admit that I don't have any personal experience in the matter, but it seems like it would be easy to work around it. What needs to be done alone, in private, that can't be done at least semi-publicly? (In a windowed conference room, for example)

 

Two examples I have run into back when I was working. 

 

When I was an auditor, they sometimes put us in an office. I don't recall whether all of them had windows. Discussing some things required a closed door since we were on the auditee's site.

 

When I traveled, I drove around with a colleague to building sites and future building sites. Sometimes, it was just a big empty space in the middle of nowhere that would be a suburban housing development soon.

[Reefgazer]

Our church actually requires windows in all offices for just this purpose- so the pastor can have confidential discussions with someone without being in a closed off session with a single individual.

If it's that important to have a chaperone, get windows?

[Guest]

And now I have to consider there's another subtle way for someone to discriminate against my dd. ugh.

 

I have had male colleagues. I have eaten meals with male colleagues. I have worked one on one with male colleagues. If I didn't that would be one more project I was not involved, building my experience and skills.

 

Do people who come up with such principles think with their pants more than their heads.

No, that's not it at all.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It actually can be a problem for home school dads trying to be involved in home school groups.

 

I would and have meet men for play dates or whatever with our kids. I'm not "meeting alone". I have a few mini tattle tales in tow.

 

I admit I probably would not go and hang out at his home alone (like I would with another woman).  I'm not entirely sure why I feel this way. 

 

However, if it were my husband and he wanted someone to come over (say he was a home school dad), I wouldn't mind.  I'd understand 100%. 

[Guest]

Our church actually requires windows in all offices for just this purpose- so the pastor can have confidential discussions with someone without being in a closed off session with a single individual.

Ours too. It's to protect everyone involved.

[debinindy]

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.

 

So he's "discriminating against female employees" by not being alone with them?

 

Is there any evidence this public employee paid by the taxpayer actually "sacrificed" any female employees' advancement on the "altar of his personal beliefs?"

Edited April 1, 2017 by debinindy

[LucyStoner]

I will admit that I don't have any personal experience in the matter, but it seems like it would be easy to work around it. What needs to be done alone, in private, that can't be done at least semi-publicly? (In a windowed conference room, for example)

Political aides often brief their bosses one on one, moving from place to place (forum, drive and talk, donor meeting, drive and talk, gala event, drive and talk). Sure, governors and VPs have deeper levels of staffing and things could be done in groups. But city council people and county executives? Not so much.

 

I think it's telling how Pence doesn't seem to have female staffers.

 

Not ok. And in my opinion, immoral.

[Janeway]

I would not be ok with my husband going out with another woman one on one. There is nothing in business or government that has to be handled away from the office AND without a third person along. Considering all the sexual harassment and other such stuff going on in the Clinton administration, it is better that things be kept more on the up and up.

[MrsMommy]

Look, if a man wants to have the right to refuse to have a one-on-one meal with a woman, that's his prerogative. But his job should suffer for it, not hers. And if it's really that big of a deal to him, then he should look for a different job. One where he's alone all the time preferably.

 

Also, doesn't the VP have a secret service detail? Seriously, is he ever really alone with anyone in a public setting? Please.

 

I get annoyed when my husband travels and goes out to dinner...with anyone. Why? Because he gets to go to exotic places for work, and eats at really nice places, and I'm jealous, because I never go anywhere. But that's my problem, not his, and certainly not his coworkers. He works with men and women, and sometimes, he is with only one other person because that's the way it works. I don't care who the person is...I just care that I'm missing out on fancy foods in cool restaurants.

[dirty ethel rackham]

So he's "discriminating against female employees" by not being alone with them?

 

Is there any evidence this public employee paid by the taxpayer actually "sacrificed" any female employees' advancement on the "altar of his personal beliefs?"

If it creates an inequality in access and opportunities between male employees and female employees, it is discrimination. 

[Murphy101]

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.

Has it occurred to anyone that it was the subordinates decisions and they simply keep that decision as they moved up the ranks? Because that's my dh. He held that view when he was bottom rung and kept it as he moved up. It didn't change anything bc he didn't discriminate about it. Turns out being extra professional in social interactions at work and outside of work is just a good CYA policy in general.

[bettyandbob]

I would not be ok with my husband going out with another woman one on one. There is nothing in business or government that has to be handled away from the office AND without a third person along. Considering all the sexual harassment and other such stuff going on in the Clinton administration, it is better that things be kept more on the up and up.

A business is not going to send a third person to a conference just so there is a chaperone. Or another person to clients offices across the country so there is a chaperone. Too expensive. Not happening.

 

Work gets done sometimes in closed door meetings. Work gets done sometimes in remote locations. Work gets done sometimes in places where there are just two people.

[Wheres Toto]

Dh's best friend came up to visit us and I picked him up from the airport since dh had to work.  We are about 45 minutes away from the airport.   No kids along.

 

Would some of you really not do something like this because it meant being alone with a man?  It wouldn't even occur to me to think that way.

[Tanaqui]

I can see not meeting in closed off offices late at night. But seriously, what's gonna happen in a busy restaurant?

[Barb_]

A business is not going to send a third person to a conference just so there is a chaperone. Or another person to clients offices across the country so there is a chaperone. Too expensive. Not happening.

 

Work gets done sometimes in closed door meetings. Work gets done sometimes in remote locations. Work gets done sometimes in places where there are just two people.

Or late at night after everyone has gone home. Maybe there is a project deadline. Or maybe you work in a lab and your mentor or lab partner is of the opposite sex. Some trials have to be run at specific times.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Has it occurred to anyone that it was the subordinates decisions and they simply keep that decision as they moved up the ranks? Because that's my dh. He held that view when he was bottom rung and kept it as he moved up. It didn't change anything bc he didn't discriminate about it. Turns out being extra professional in social interactions at work and outside of work is just a good CYA policy in general.

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. 

[Barb_]

Has it occurred to anyone that it was the subordinates decisions and they simply keep that decision as they moved up the ranks? Because that's my dh. He held that view when he was bottom rung and kept it as he moved up. It didn't change anything bc he didn't discriminate about it. Turns out being extra professional in social interactions at work and outside of work is just a good CYA policy in general.

It's hard to say. Do his personal rules mean he treats his female subordinates differently? If so, that's not really ok.

[Janeway]

If it creates an inequality in access and opportunities between male employees and female employees, it is discrimination.

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

[Janeway]

Or late at night after everyone has gone home. Maybe there is a project deadline. Or maybe you work in a lab and your mentor or lab partner is of the opposite sex. Some trials have to be run at specific times.

. That is not the case with the Vice President or president. They never get to be alone with anyone without taking extra measures. Too busy of a job with too much staff and security. It is a non-issue.

[Sneezyone]

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

It is not reasonable to do this. It costs business money to accommodate this personal conviction. If you need a personal minder, you should hire one, not the govt. If one of the men I trained had been unable or unwilling to travel with me, alone, to various agencies in our state, he would be out of a job, not me.

[Barb_]

. That is not the case with the Vice President or president. They never get to be alone with anyone without taking extra measures. Too busy of a job with too much staff and security. It is a non-issue.

This thread isn't really about Pence. The OP asked whether it was reasonable to want one's spouse to avoid being alone with the opposite sex.

[Selkie]

Reading through this thread, it seems that many are assuming it is strictly males who have a policy against being alone with colleagues of the opposite sex. However, I'm sure there are many women who have this policy as well.

 

For those of you who are equating this with discrimination against women, what about women who won't be alone with male colleagues? Is that discrimination against males?

[Sneezyone]

Reading through this thread, it seems that many are assuming it is strictly males who have a policy against being alone with colleagues of the opposite sex. However, I'm sure there are many women who have this policy as well.

 

For those of you who are equating this with discrimination against women, what about women who won't be alone with male colleagues? Is that discrimination against males?

Yes. You are a professional or you are not. For me there is no in between. If you are using gender to deny equal opportunities re: mentorship, learning, training or access on the basis of gender, you are Discriminating. Edited April 1, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Janeway]

This thread isn't really about Pence. The OP asked whether it was reasonable to want one's spouse to avoid being alone with the opposite sex.

The very first post, the OP, in the very first sentence, referenced Pence. So yeah, this thread is about him.

[Barb_]

Reading through this thread, it seems that many are assuming it is strictly males who have a policy against being alone with colleagues of the opposite sex. However, I'm sure there are many women who have this policy as well.

 

For those of you who are equating this with discrimination against women, what about women who won't be alone with male colleagues? Is that discrimination against males?

That's a good question. I've never heard of a female with this policy though. Maybe because females are usually in the less powerful position and therefore unable to make these sorts of policies.

[Murphy101]

It is not reasonable to do this. It costs business money to accommodate this personal conviction. If you need a personal minder, you should hire one, not the govt. If one of the men I trained had been unable or unwilling to travel with me, alone, to various agencies in our state, he would be out of a job, not me.

It costs businesses money to not do it and risk being accused of something that could cost them more. Should it? Nope. It shouldn't even be an issue but the fact is that accusations do happen and therefore people, and businesses, have to give consideration to how to avoid that.

[Selkie]

That's a good question. I've never heard of a female with this policy though. Maybe because females are usually in the less powerful position and therefore unable to make these sorts of policies.

 

I don't think it's true anymore that women are usually in less powerful positions, at least in many areas of business and government.

[Barb_]

The very first post, the OP, in the very first sentence, referenced Pence. So yeah, this thread is about him.

Sigh. She used him as a jumping off point to ask a related question. You quoted my post and it definitely had nothing to do with Mike Pence. I was actually musing about a situation my oldest is regularly in.

[Sneezyone]

It costs businesses money to not do it and risk being accused of something that could cost them more. Should it? Nope. It shouldn't even be an issue but the fact is that accusations do happen and therefore people, and businesses, have to give consideration to how to avoid that.

What costs businesses money is ignoring complaints and hostile working conditions. Accusations happen whether precautions are taken or not. Beginning with the idea that your employees are incapable of exercisibg personal restraint is inviting them to live down to your expectations. Government doesn't have money to waste doubling up staff to salve a spouse's feelings. Get a new job.

[Barb_]

I don't think it's true anymore that women are usually in less powerful positions, at least in many areas of business and government.

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

[EmseB]

Everyone assumes this is a male decision. I mean, in this case it is, but I know plenty of women who have this policy too.

 

I had this policy when I worked. I didn't spend alone time with members of the opposite sex in anyway that could be construed as private or as a "date". I was in a male dominated career, I went on business trips...it was never a problem.

 

I know a lot of people who have open/door window policies for various reasons, male and female. From SAHMs to career professionals...It doesn't even register on my radar of weird. Like saying I don't go on dates with other guys. Not a shocker even when I worked out of the home.

Edited April 1, 2017 by EmseB

[Murphy101]

It's hard to say. Do his personal rules mean he treats his female subordinates differently? If so, that's not really ok.

They are his personal rules but most places he and I have worked (granted mine was 15 years ago) it has also been a smart company policy that was created due to past litigated events, either with their own company or to avoid the pitfalls other companies have dealt with.

 

So no, it's not discriminated. Women follow it and so do men.

[Wheres Toto]

Or late at night after everyone has gone home. Maybe there is a project deadline. Or maybe you work in a lab and your mentor or lab partner is of the opposite sex. Some trials have to be run at specific times.

 

I did occasionally work until 9 or 10 at night with my male supervisor.  We had to upload pitch documents to client servers before a deadline that was usually either the middle of the night or super-early in the morning our time.  I had to handle the actual download and fixing any spreadsheets or documents prior to the upload, while he was the one getting the finance information together.  There were probably other people working late but not in our general area usually.   We would usually order dinner since it's a company policy that you can order in food when working late.  

 

Again, never considered it an issue.

 

Dh works in a biopharma lab, and yes sometimes he has to run back into the office at specific times to check results or switch samples.

[Barb_]

They are his personal rules but most places he and I have worked (granted mine was 15 years ago) it has also been a smart company policy that was created due to past litigated events, either with their own company or to avoid the pitfalls other companies have dealt with.

 

So no, it's not discriminated. Women follow it and so do men.

I think that's a different scenario. When someone with power prevents equal access because the subordinate is of the opposite sex, that is a problem.

[Janeway]

That's a good question. I've never heard of a female with this policy though. Maybe because females are usually in the less powerful position and therefore unable to make these sorts of policies.

I know of plenty who have this policy. I do not know of any women who do not have this policy in fact.