Not going out with opposite sex without spouse

[wathe]

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

 

A bit of a tangent here:  I think this is a false comparison. Here (Canada) doctors are alone, behind closed doors, with patients all the time.  Most will have a chaperone for pelvic exams only.  But not for interviews and general physical exams.  In my mind, male /female professional relationships and the need for a chaperone for medical examination are not comparable.

[EmseB]

And to add to my previous post, the men and women I knew who did spend a lot of alone time together? The couple that always paired off at conferences to hang out? I would say 3 times out of 5 it turned into a relationship or a fling. These were, of course, not always married people, or people who shouldn't date, but just people that hooked up because they worked together, spent a lot of time together, and liked each other. Not a big deal, but it's not like it doesn't happen.

[Barb_]

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

Are these women subordinates? Or are they in charge? That's the important question, I think.

[Sneezyone]

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

This policy never occurred to me. I've never been attracted to a coworker. Old white guys and pockmarked black ones do nothing for me. When at work, I'm about business. Nothing more. Edited April 1, 2017 by Sneezyone

[LucyStoner]

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?

 

Absolutely.  And I've called women out when I felt they were discriminatory to men with whom we each worked.  

 

My husband works in a department with mostly women.  If his boss refused to give him the same sort of projects and opportunities as his female counterparts, that would be discrimination.  Recently he filed a grievance against his supervisor based in part of gender bias, and he prevailed.  He had been discriminated against, and his employer had to remedy the situation.  

 

So your little attempt at "gotcha!" doesn't carry water here.  

[Barb_]

And to add to my previous post, the men and women I knew who did spend a lot of alone time together? The couple that always paired off at conferences to hang out? I would say 3 times out of 5 it turned into a relationship or a fling. These were, of course, not always married people, or people who shouldn't date, but just people that hooked up because they worked together, spent a lot of time together, and liked each other. Not a big deal, but it's not like it doesn't happen.

Sure, it happens. In the case of young singles, well, it's supposed to :) In the case of marital infidelity, that's sort of like embezzlement or theft of merchandise. The opportunity may present itself, it may be easy, but it's on the individual to practice self-control.

[QueenCat]

I would think it was strange if dh DIDN'T have dinner with a female colleague when traveling, even if they were the only two traveling. Who wants to eat alone, after business all day? They'd be likely to find themselves in the same hotel restaurant, at different tables if they didn't, and that'd be just weird. Can't imagine getting all paranoid or worrying about what people think. He'd go out with a male colleague, just the same as a female. I know it's happened a few times but the overwhelming majority of the time, with conferences & such, there are more than two. But when it's just two, still the same.

[Barb_]

Absolutely. And I've called women out when I felt they were discriminatory to men with whom we each worked.

 

My husband works in a department with mostly women. If his boss refused to give him the same sort of projects and opportunities as his female counterparts, that would be discrimination. Recently he filed a grievance against his supervisor based in part of gender bias, and he prevailed. He had been discriminated against, and his employer had to remedy the situation.

 

So your little attempt at "gotcha!" doesn't carry water here.

This exactly. It's all about the power differential, however that plays out.

[Murphy101]

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.

Having policies of appropriate conduct remove a lot of potential questionable doubts. It also gives a solid "this rule/policy was broken" to shore up otherwise not actionable iffy actionable. It can be difficult to prove he said/she said content, but it's easier to prove physical activity against company policy. Yes, accusation can still happen, but it does make them more difficult. Again, there's a reason companies started to remodel their offices and their employee interactions policies.

[Dmmetler]

I wonder whether DH's gay co-worker's husband is ever uncomfortable with him working in an office where males outnumber females about 10-1?

 

 

FWIW, DD's grad student mentors have always been female-but I get the distinct impression that it's more that the female students fight over her-she has been the only female pre-bac for the last three years!

[Sneezyone]

Having policies of appropriate conduct remove a lot of potential questionable doubts. It also gives a solid "this rule/policy was broken" to shore up otherwise not actionable iffy actionable. It can be difficult to prove he said/she said content, but it's easier to prove physical activity against company policy. Yes, accusation can still happen, but it does make them more difficult. Again, there's a reason companies started to remodel their offices and their employee interactions policies.

Appropriate conduct=Exercising self-control. I am stunned that so many people feel unable to do that around other humans.

[Selkie]

Absolutely.  And I've called women out when I felt they were discriminatory to men with whom we each worked.  

 

My husband works in a department with mostly women.  If his boss refused to give him the same sort of projects and opportunities as his female counterparts, that would be discrimination.  Recently he filed a grievance against his supervisor based in part of gender bias, and he prevailed.  He had been discriminated against, and his employer had to remedy the situation.  

 

So your little attempt at "gotcha!" doesn't carry water here.  

 

Why is my question a "gotcha"?

 

I'm just curious why the focus of this thread has been discrimination against women only.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Selkie

[Tanaqui]

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.

 

To answer that specific question, I do know somebody who has this policy about her spouse. Except her spouse is bi, so really, she doesn't want him alone with anybody. And even if he's not "alone" with them, she doesn't want him sleeping over - which means, since they're waaaaaay up in the Bronx and his friends are mostly on Staten Island (and she doesn't travel due to a specific phobia) that she basically doesn't want him seeing any of his friends in any context, ever. Because if you visit a friend in Staten Island, coming from the Bronx, you're looking at a minimum of a 2 hour travel window, one way. It's either "stay over" or "travel an absurdly long distance for a ludicrously short visit". (Well, you can split the difference and meet up in the city, but the problem is that this is harder once one or both parties have kids, or sick parents, or other obligations that keep them tied to the house on the one day in the week where both parties are off of work.)

[Murphy101]

Sure, it happens. In the case of young singles, well, it's supposed to :) In the case of marital infidelity, that's sort of like embezzlement or theft of merchandise. The opportunity may present itself, it may be easy, but it's on the individual to practice self-control.

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.

[Barb_]

Why is my question a "gotcha"?

 

I'm just curious why the focus of this thread has been discrimination against women only.

Probably because we're women.

[Murphy101]

Appropriate conduct=Exercising self-control. I am stunned that so many people feel unable to do that around other humans.

Me too! Which is why I like policies that recognize that many people don't get what it means!

[Barb_]

To answer that specific question, I do know somebody who has this policy about her spouse. Except her spouse is bi, so really, she doesn't want him alone with anybody. And even if he's not "alone" with them, she doesn't want him sleeping over - which means, since they're waaaaaay up in the Bronx and his friends are mostly on Staten Island (and she doesn't travel due to a specific phobia) that she basically doesn't want him seeing any of his friends in any context, ever. Because if you visit a friend in Staten Island, coming from the Bronx, you're looking at a minimum of a 2 hour travel window, one way. It's either "stay over" or "travel an absurdly long distance for a ludicrously short visit". (Well, you can split the difference and meet up in the city, but the problem is that this is harder once one or both parties have kids, or sick parents, or other obligations that keep them tied to the house on the one day in the week where both parties are off of work.)

Yikes! That adds a whole other layer of crazy.

[Joker]

Dh is a senior manager so he definitely has closed door meetings and sometimes has lunch with female staff. Most of his direct reports are female since most have a nursing background. I think nothing of it. 

 

Dh does have a policy of not doing things after hours if it's with only one female. He now works from home so he travels to the office, out of state, every other month. When I go with him, we often meet up with co-workers and direct reports for drinks in our hotel bar but it's not something he does if I'm not there. He's actually been very outspoken about anything after hours if his family, or at least his wife, aren't invited. He usually doesn't participate. Fortunately, he's good at his job and no one has seemed to really care. 

 

He also doesn't do after hours things when traveling with other employees if it's only one female. This isn't something I asked him to do but it's just what he does. We've been married 18 years, are happy, and I trust him. 

[EmseB]

Having policies of appropriate conduct remove a lot of potential questionable doubts. It also gives a solid "this rule/policy was broken" to shore up otherwise not actionable iffy actionable. It can be difficult to prove he said/she said content, but it's easier to prove physical activity against company policy. Yes, accusation can still happen, but it does make them more difficult. Again, there's a reason companies started to remodel their offices and their employee interactions policies.

Exactly. I had three male "bosses" at one point, and their boss was a female. All of us were/are married. The standard for everyone was to avoid putting yourself in a he said/she said situation. Or a he said/he said. Or whatever. There was no power differential involved because the policy was the same for everyone.

[Barb_]

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.

Yeah but official policy isn't really the objection here. It's the sometimes secret, personal, discriminatory policies that prevent equal access to power or mentorship that is the problem. In my example above, if my dd's mentor wasn't comfortable meeting with her after work in his office, she would still be sitting here believing she just sucks at technical interviews and will never get a job. If that same mentor met with a maybe even less qualified male candidate instead, that would be discriminatory.

[Murphy101]

Yeah but official policy isn't really the objection here. It's the sometimes secret, personal, discriminatory policies that prevent equal access to power or mentorship that is the problem. In my example above, if my dd's mentor wasn't comfortable meeting with her after work in his office, she would still be sitting here believing she just sucks at technical interviews and will never get a job. If that same mentor met with a maybe even less qualified male candidate instead, that would be discriminatory.

Or maybe he just wouldn't mentor anyone. Or maybe he would have mentored two at a time. Or found another way to mentor her. Or maybe some guy is out there wondering why she got mentoring and he didn't. As your example displays, sometimes they don't do it out of discrimination, but it can be very tricky to suss that out.

[Barb_]

Or maybe he just wouldn't mentor anyone. Or maybe he would have mentored two at a time. Or found another way to mentor her. Or maybe some guy is out there wondering why she got mentoring and he didn't. As your example displays, sometimes they don't do it out of discrimination, but it can be very tricky to suss that out.

Occam's razor.

 

The more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely the explanation is.

[LucyStoner]

Let's not forget the myriad of jobs out there that aren't well paid or offer any glamor where two people may need to work together.  Police officers.  Any office or place of business where at any point in the day or night staffing needs only call for two people.  Two healthcare professionals in a small practice.  Any job whatsoever that requires two person teams.  Forget career advancement; sometimes it's about earning enough money to eat.  If it's ok for a politician to have this rule, what about a pharmacist, or a bookkeeper or a barista in a small shop?  Should who can be hired or scheduled be determinable by the inappropriate sexual considerations of the supervisor or the other person who works there?

 

I used to be an assistant supervisor at a ticket office for a fine arts organization.  This was back in college.  One of my jobs was to open the office during the day when we had weekend performances and then transport myself, and one other person to the opera house site with any will call tickets and open the box office.  Usually, there was just one other person scheduled to work the office with me on the weekends.  We'd have 1-2 more people join us at the box office for a couple of hours, but as soon as the curtain went up, the box office dropped to 2 staffers again.  It would have been unacceptable for me to expect only women to be on that shift with me.  Similarly, when I started there before I was promoted, I was often the one working those shifts with the then male assistant supervisor.  Sometimes it was a man; sometimes it was a woman.  But it was my job to do it regardless of what I thought of the other person's sex.   Years later, I ran a very small non-profit.  I was the only FT employee.  It was not uncommon for me to be working with just one other person.  My PT assistant.  A volunteer.  The accountant from our CPA firm who was there to work on the books with me.  A social worker who dropped by to pick up supplies.  An investment adviser.  A repair person or locksmith.  It would not be ok for me to only consider women for jobs or contracts, right? I can't even imagine.  "I'm sorry Mr. Male Social Worker, you can't come and get supplies and vouchers for the family you referred because you're a dude.  Can you find a woman social worker to come for you or with you?  Because I know how flush the county social services budget is ('cause why else would you need to come to my small non-profit to pick up supplies and food money for a homeless family you just found a motel for?)  I assume it's no trouble at all for you to accommodate my insane rule!"   Completely out of the question.  Had I been like that, I would have expected for my board of directors to fire me.  And remember, spending my organization's limited resources so there would always be several people in the office not open to the general public would have meant serving significantly fewer homeless families.  

 

My husband works in a hospital pharmacy.  After 8:30 PM, there's just two people scheduled in the pharmacy.  It's the outpatient pharmacy so while they are not alone, they might as well be because few people are coming to the counter that time of night and all of the other departments around them are closed.  Should my husband not get scheduled for the shift that gets off at 11:30 PM if the other person there is a woman?  That would not be fair to him or the woman, and seriously, they are all there to do their job.  

 

Anyone who can't do their job regardless of the sex of their co-worker is not entitled to demand a single sex working environment.   They need to enter a line of work where sex discrimination is legal, and that just leaves them working for a religious institution or totally solo.  

 

It seems like the more mature, and the decent option is not to objectify everyone you come into contact with of one sex as a potential sexual partner.  

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by LucyStoner

[EmseB]

Occam's razor.

 

The more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely the explanation is.

So you go with the "simple" explanation that it must be discrimination based on gender? That sounds like a HUGE assumption about a whole host of issues that you have to project onto a guy. Your Occam's Razor is that someone isn't getting mentored because the mentor is sexist? Edited April 1, 2017 by EmseB

[Barb_]

So you go with the "simple" explanation that it must be discrimination based on gender? That sounds like a HUGE assumption about a whole host of issues that you have to project onto a guy.

Or a woman with the same policy. Yes.

[Zinnia]

We have this sort of agreement in our marriage.

 

BUT.

 

Dh works in a field with very few female colleagues.  The ones that are there are no in positions that would require travel or one-on-one meetings.  And before kids, I worked in a field with almost all women.  Technically, there *could* be men, but I don't think I ever worked with one closely.  

 

So, for us, we have the agreement, but it doesn't really affect our professional life.  It is just something that would affect us socially.  

[EmseB]

Or a woman with the same policy. Yes.

I think I'm misunderstanding. Not knowing anything about the mentor or their views towards women, if a male mentor declined a female candidate for mentorship, you would assume discrimination? That would be your first assumption? Not that it wasn't a good match, or the candidate didn't have the right qualifications, or that there was a slightly better fit. All of those explanations are too complicated, but assuming sexism is the simplest explanation for any female candidate being declined a mentorship by a male or vice versa?

[zoobie]

What about gay people? And why does everything have to boil down to sex with these people? If you're doing your jobs, you're not hooking up. It's really pretty simple. If it's not your spouse, don't get sexy with them.

 

And it totally makes me LOLZ for someone with this strong of a "moral code" to be working for someone utterly without one. Mmhmm. Tell me more about your strict beliefs.

[TXBeth]

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

Actually no, they don't unless they are examining private parts. My OB didn't call in a nurse unless I was getting naked. We could talk privately in his office with no issues.

So unless the businessman is planning on a very interesting dinner, there really should not be a need for a chaperone.

[regentrude]

All he has to do is have a third person present. Even doctors have to do that.

 

Not correct. Only for pelvic exams. Otherwise, I have seen plenty of male doctors one on one.

[LucyStoner]

Why is my question a "gotcha"?

 

I'm just curious why the focus of this thread has been discrimination against women only.

Because you flipped it around, assuming that no one who has an issue with this would have a problem with discrimination against men.  

 

It's a classic gotcha attempt.  Not that there's anything wrong with a good old online message board gotcha, but it is not the case that people like myself are ok with sex discrimination against men but not against women.  No one opposed to this "rule" is arguing that it is ok to discriminate against people, men or women.  

 

As for the focus of this thread, just look at what is in the news.  If it were Sen. Patty Murray saying the same thing of men, the thread would have a different focus.  And I would be wondering what the heck was the matter with my senior Senator.  

Edited April 1, 2017 by LucyStoner

[regentrude]

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

 

In what field is your professional experience?

 

I have never come across this kind of viewpoint in male nor female colleagues in a variety of fields. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by regentrude

[Barb_]

I think I'm misunderstanding. Not knowing anything about the mentor or their views towards women, if a male mentor declined a female candidate for mentorship, you would assume discrimination? That would be your first assumption? Not that it wasn't a good match, or the candidate didn't have the right qualifications, or that there was a slightly better fit. All of those explanations are too complicated, but assuming sexism is the simplest explanation for any female candidate being declined a mentorship by a male or vice versa?

No, no. My point was, if a supervisor has a blanket policy of declining to work closely with the opposite sex, but no such policy with the same sex, that is inherently discriminatory. Murphy was mentioning all of the other ways the mentor could potentially work around the policy, but I was pointing out that someone with that policy would be most likely to just quietly avoid working with the people who make him (or her) uncomfortable. Some examples of exactly that were mentioned earlier in The thread. Is that clearer?

Edited April 1, 2017 by Barb_

[regentrude]

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.

 

This. 

Should a professor refuse to take on a grad student of the opposite sex, because they will have to work late at night in the lab?

Will some source give extra funding so the prof can hire a second graduate student to act as a chaperone?

This is a bizarre demand.

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by regentrude

[LucyStoner]

I think I'm misunderstanding. Not knowing anything about the mentor or their views towards women, if a male mentor declined a female candidate for mentorship, you would assume discrimination? That would be your first assumption? Not that it wasn't a good match, or the candidate didn't have the right qualifications, or that there was a slightly better fit. All of those explanations are too complicated, but assuming sexism is the simplest explanation for any female candidate being declined a mentorship by a male or vice versa?

No, I would not assume gender bias without more information.  But this policy is an example of such "more information."  If the mentor had a rule that they would only accept male or female mentees because they couldn't be alone with people of a particular sex unless they were married to them, then I would call the duck a duck.  

[Guest]

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.

 

[zoobie]

In what field is your professional experience?

 

I have never come across this kind of viewpoint in males nor females.

I've never known another attorney who won't meet with a client alone with that reason. Within that, there are specific people who set off heebie jeebie alarms and precautions would be taken accordingly, but it's not blatant sex discrimination. You would need to make it a policy to never meet with ANYONE alone. Which would be cumbersome and super super weird. Or you know, just discriminate against women who can't control themselves around your super hotness? Ugh.

Edited April 1, 2017 by zoobie

[Guest]

In what field is your professional experience?

 

I have never come across this kind of viewpoint in male nor female colleagues in a variety of fields. 

I have, quite often.  In publicly held companies.  

 

ETA what I meant to say before sweeping my mouse across the screen and hitting "submit post."  

 

I was a graduate assistant for a male professor in my MBA program.  For the same reasons I mentioned upthread, and specifically *because* this guy was not a prude (to say the least), I found ways to always be in a generally public area, not in his office, etc.  It is do-able.  I didn't want anything about my degree to be ... cheapened by what other people thought.  And this guy was really tops in his field but a bit of a "hands-on-guy" if you get the drift.  So I did a great job for him...but *because* I had set strict boundaries.  And. you know, it didn't hurt this professor that he couldn't end up in trouble with me, either.  There are plenty of assistant professors who would do a lot of things to open up a tenured position.

 

The instance I mentioned above was a publicly held company.  

 

[Guest]

If it's not your spouse, don't get sexy with them.

 

And it totally makes me LOLZ for someone with this strong of a "moral code" to be working for someone utterly without one. Mmhmm. Tell me more about your strict beliefs.

 

 

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?  

 

I have a pretty strong moral code.  I had an offer to be a graduate assistant for a top-notch professor in my field.  He had...wandering eyes and hands, to say the least.  So I don't get to study under someone great because of that?  No.  I set rules, and they include NEVER ever being alone with him in a private space.  Because otherwise...the bad guys win.  

[LucyStoner]

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?

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.

Edited April 1, 2017 by LucyStoner

[brehon]

Hmmm...I'm currently on duty in my station with my male partner who is about 5 ft away. We're alone in the station and I'm about to go to bed. He's watching some shoot 'em up movie and will go to bed when it's finished, I suppose. We'll sleep in separate bedrooms. Or not sleep, as the case may be.

 

For most of my long career I've had male partners. Over half of my career was also spent with four male firefighters in a fire station. That's 5 men and lil ol' me together for one-third of our lives - running 911 calls, eating, sleeping, cleaning the station, cursing, laughing, playing pranks on each other, and in general living life. [For those of you who are unfamiliar with the typical firefighter and EMS schedule, we work for 24 hours and are off for 48 hours. Hence, one-third of our lives are spent with our colleagues.]

 

When I first started my job some 20+ years ago there usually weren't separate bedrooms for the medics. We survived and, in many ways, thrived. I can honestly say that I have never felt the slightest twinge of anything inappropriate for any of my male partners. Ever.

 

I'm certainly glad that none of my partners refused to work with me because of my sex.

[Sneezyone]

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?

 

I have a pretty strong moral code. I had an offer to be a graduate assistant for a top-notch professor in my field. He had...wandering eyes and hands, to say the least. So I don't get to study under someone great because of that? No. I set rules, and they include NEVER ever being alone with him in a private space. Because otherwise...the bad guys win.

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. Edited April 1, 2017 by Sneezyone

[regentrude]

I was a graduate assistant for a male professor in my MBA program.  For the same reasons I mentioned upthread, and specifically *because* this guy was not a prude (to say the least), I found ways to always be in a generally public area, not in his office, etc.  It is do-able.

 

Some work has to be done in specific locations. Experimental work cannot happen in a coffee shop or public location - it will have to happen in the lab. And if it is a complex experiment, it will require people to be doing things outside of regular office hours. Heck, some people sleep in their labs because they cannot leave the apparatus alone. For some things, you can't choose the location.

 

Where are people finding the extra people to chaperone?

How do people avoid working late?

 

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by regentrude

[Bootsie]

I didn't go out with any male from work today, but I just started thinking about my day and realized there were several times today that I was alone with a male at work.  I was in the copy room copying exams, a male colleague walked in and used the other copy machine.  It is an interior, locked room with no windows for security purposes.  Then I went to the mailroom--again interior, locked room with no windows and a male colleague came in while I was in there.  At least three times I was on the elevator alone with male.  My office is in a suite area and the administrative assistant in the outer office was not in.  Another professor and I were each in our offices with the outer door to the suite locked because we were both grading papers and didn't want to be disturbed.  The other professor went to class, I had office hours, the doors were all unlocked and my office door open but the outer suite door closes automatically.  Twice I had male students come by alone to ask for help.  I was in my office after five so the suite was locked--the janitor came in to clean, so we were in the office alone with a locked door. These were all just normal work occurrences.  

Edited April 1, 2017 by jdahlquist

[zoobie]

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?

 

I have a pretty strong moral code. I had an offer to be a graduate assistant for a top-notch professor in my field. He had...wandering eyes and hands, to say the least. So I don't get to study under someone great because of that? No. I set rules, and they include NEVER ever being alone with him in a private space. Because otherwise...the bad guys win.

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?

[Wheres Toto]

The repair guy thing also never occurred to me. We had new propane tanks put in last week. After the swap, one guy left while the other finished up, including coming get in the house to light pilot lights and do a leak check. I didn't feel even a momentary uncomfortableness.

 

Maybe I'm just super oblivious.

[creekland]

Well darn.  Now there's apparently something else I have to worry about with hubby.  (sigh - and  :lol: ).  I guess I should worry about it with myself too come to think of it.  Hadn't thought about it before.  Learn something new every day.  And the timing!  He's meeting (alone) with a woman tomorrow!!!  Driving an hour away to meet her at that.  I guess I should tell him to forget about the project he just completed for her and let her keep her $1150 she was planning on giving him in return.  Or maybe I should tag along and attach a leash?

 

I've seen enough affairs happen (not all of them heterosexual BTW, so those of you who actually worry, you might want to keep that in mind as some of those "happily married family men" might surprise you), but IME, the problem lies with those involved - not proximity of working together.  I've seen far more people be able to work together without so much as a hint of anything going on than I've seen affairs on the job.

 

 

[Wheres Toto]

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?

 

I have a pretty strong moral code. I had an offer to be a graduate assistant for a top-notch professor in my field. He had...wandering eyes and hands, to say the least. So I don't get to study under someone great because of that? No. I set rules, and they include NEVER ever being alone with him in a private space. Because otherwise...the bad guys win.

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?

[Lady Florida.]

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.

 

Yes. It's so absurd it's almost laughable. The thing that makes it not funny is the fact that women are held back by such policies.

 

 

OTOH, Refusing to have one on one professional contact with one sex that you would with the other is very problematic for a variety of different reasons. One, it reads sexual subtext into a professional setting, and that is inappropriate on its own. Two, if one makes their decisions like that in a professional or civic arena, they may well be discriminating against one sex regarding hiring, job responsibilities, and advancement opportunities. There are other reasons this is troubling, but I'll leave it at those.

 

 

 

Exactly. If the decision to meet or not to meet alone is based on what's between a person's legs, it's discriminatory.  As was pointed out by others, these meetings alone are not really private. They just don't involve another employee.

[luuknam]

Sort of funny story:

 

When I got hired to be a truck driver, I needed to spend a certain amount of time in training first with someone who'd been a truck driver for a while. Now, the company would've let me say I wanted a same-gender trainer, but I didn't see the point (because it's a job, and besides, not all people are straight). So, I had a male trainer (there are a LOT more male truck drivers, big surprise). Anyhow, he's an owner-operator, and at some point his truck needs repairs, so we need to get a hotel, which, by company policy, he has to pay for (because he's the owner-operator, so repair-related expenses are his). So he's talking about getting two rooms because of the opposite gender thing, so I'm like, dude, we've lived in the back of a truck for the past few weeks... a room with two beds would have us be further apart than that, so save your money for something more useful. He did make sure to not accidentally barge into the bathroom, of course. Obviously nothing happened (we were both married, etc, etc).