Not going out with opposite sex without spouse

[zoobie]

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.

 

Completely different levels of power imbalance. That level of power imbalance goes to the very heart of consent. Even children over the age of consent cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with a teacher. Children are legally required to be in school. If a child walks out of a school, a teacher can call the police and report them truant. We have laws against teachers raping students for a reason. 

 

A rule that no boss could meet alone with any employee would be ridiculous, but it wouldn't be discriminatory. 

[FaithManor]

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.

Yup.

 

Dh has worked for EDS, HP, and several other big firms and is now with GM. In all that time he has not seen a single office affair occur, and only rarely saw two single co workers ever date. In 30 years he has had one female make a pass at him, and she was a manager. He took screen shots of a couple of her texts to which he did not respond up the chain of management, and she was fired on the spot. The end. No drama.

 

Maybe work place environment and behavior of management has something to do with it. These places were All business and people apparently wanted to keep their good jobs so acted appropriately.

[creekland]

I've only seen one workplace affair - both members at school.  The others I've seen IRL (or rather, heard about post divorce) haven't come from both parties working at the same place...

 

I still think if an individual feels there's something "missing" in their lives - or simply has a super strong attraction with super low willpower (no monogamy feelings) - they will play around with a willing partner wherever they might be - at work or elsewhere.  It's the people involved - not the place.

 

The vast majority handle working together just fine.  If someone crosses a line with harassment, turn them in and move on!  If you want to keep your own marriage strong, takes steps to keep the love there.  Don't do it with leashes.  If you think your marriage is fine, great, but be sure your spouse does too.  Guys and gals don't always communicate well and sometimes when they try, they get shot down by their partner.  That doesn't help.

[Guest]

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.

My friend is a harpist who plays professionally for many venues, oftentimes weddings and dinner and such. She has the same rule I do and it shakes out to be something like 'if I need to work with an adult male student or another ensemble member alone we do it in an auditorium with an unlocked door, or kids present. If we are doing event planning we meet at a restaurant or park'. Hasn't been a problem, she just wants to protect herself from any accusations of impropriety as much as she reasonably can. It's been almost thirty years of performing and I don't believe it's ever caused a problem.

 

I had a male teacher who wouldn't meet alone with a female student for tutoring unless the room had a window. It doesn't work for every person in every situation but as a starting point avoiding potentially compromising or scandalous situations isn't actually very difficult to manage. And this assumption it has to do with the character of anyone involved is missing the point.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[unsinkable]

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.

Your DH is probably, what 50? 52? Let's say born in 1967. So your FIL was probably at least 20 when your DH was born, so FIL born in 1947.

 

I feel sorry for him. He sounds like he was a man trapped by the time and place where he was born, with a sexuality that had no outlet. Wasn't homosexuality both illegal and considered a mental illness until the 70s or 80s?

 

"It was a character flaw plain and simple. He made a vow, he violated it because he wanted to, period."

 

I think for a gay man born in the 1940s it is a lot more complicated.

[Lady Florida.]

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

 

Dot is most certainly not a troll. She's been here longer than many of us, even longer than some of us who think we're old timers.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[Lady Florida.]

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.

 

:hurray:  :001_wub:

 

 

 

 

I still think if an individual feels there's something "missing" in their lives - or simply has a super strong attraction with super low willpower (no monogamy feelings) - they will play around with a willing partner wherever they might be - at work or elsewhere.  It's the people involved - not the place.

 

The vast majority handle working together just fine.  If someone crosses a line with harassment, turn them in and move on!  If you want to keep your own marriage strong, takes steps to keep the love there.  Don't do it with leashes.  If you think your marriage is fine, great, but be sure your spouse does too.  Guys and gals don't always communicate well and sometimes when they try, they get shot down by their partner.  That doesn't help.

 

:hurray:  :001_wub:

[EmseB]

Dot is most certainly not a troll. She's been here longer than many of us, even longer than some of us who think we're old timers.

Right. I was referring to the post itself, not her personally. Long time posters, especially intelligent ones like Dot, certainly can stir the pot deliberately.

[EmseB]

Completely different levels of power imbalance. That level of power imbalance goes to the very heart of consent. Even children over the age of consent cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with a teacher. Children are legally required to be in school. If a child walks out of a school, a teacher can call the police and report them truant. We have laws against teachers raping students for a reason.

The point is though, that the rules and policies are not in place because teachers are all rapey rapists who can't keep their hands off kids. And such policies being in place doesn't objectify kids. So no one is personally insulted when they are implemented. Likewise, if someone has some personal standard of conduct wrt to alcohol or personal interactions, even with other adults, it doesn't mean it's because they have no self control or view their colleagues as sexual objects.

 

And if people think that the DC political culture doesn't lend itself to drunken and abuses of power that a respecting person might want to avoid the appearance of partaking in? I mean, other than Hollywood, I can't think of a more likely place for that stuff to happen.

[Sneezyone]

The point is though, that the rules and policies are not in place because teachers are all rapey rapists who can't keep their hands off kids. And such policies being in place doesn't objectify kids. So no one is personally insulted when they are implemented. Likewise, if someone has some personal standard of conduct wrt to alcohol or personal interactions, even with other adults, it doesn't mean it's because they have no self control or view their colleagues as sexual objects.

 

And if people think that the DC political culture doesn't lend itself to drunken and abuses of power that a respecting person might want to avoid the appearance of partaking in? I mean, other than Hollywood, I can't think of a more likely place for that stuff to happen.

What people are saying is that a)your personal policy shouldn't differentiate between men/women or b)interfere with others getting their work done. That's it. The possibility of inappropriate behavior is always there and has nothing to do with opposite gender interactions or the mere presence of alcohol. Edited April 1, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

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!

 

This implies that there are only two possible choices: men get drunk and have sex with female coworkers or men refuse to ever be alone with any female coworker. That's a completely false dichotomy. 

 

 

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.

 

Of course men (and women) can set standards for their own conduct — those standards should be "don't cheat on your spouse, with a coworker or anyone else," not "don't allow female coworkers to have the same access and opportunities as male coworkers, just in case you can't keep yourself from bonking them."

 

If you want to be sure not to have an affair, then don't have an affair. A man who refuses to ever be alone with a female coworker is basically punishing her for his own lack of restraint — and then justifying it by claiming moral superiority over those who don't discriminate in this way.

[tammyw]

My husband has/had many female bosses/coworkers/employees. I think it would be ridiculous to limit interactions in those relationship. It would mean limited job choices for loads of people. I used to work in a very male filled career where I was often the only or rare female. No issues at all. Now I don't want my husband having sex or dating other women :) but friendships and business relationships? Necessary and totally acceptable.

[Selkie]

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.

 

It was an accounting firm. I've heard similar stories from acquaintances in other types of firms, schools, etc.

 

I'm not saying this in a mean way, but honestly, if you think this is an uncommon scenario, you are naive.

[Joker]

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.

Just recently at dh's office a female employee came into work and dumped a bag of clothes and other items on a male employee's desk. He was married and they had been having an affair. She found out he was also seeing another female employee. It was extremely awkward and he is no longer with the company.

 

Dh has worked long term for two large, well known companies and this wasn't close to the first time he has been aware of affairs.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Joker

[Scarlett]

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.

Yes. This.

 

Some people do just go have random affairs or ONS, but often decent good people find themselves developing feelings for a colleague and before you know it an affair is on and a family is destroyed. Better to be safe than sorry,

 

I do get that some people are not willing to be that cautious if it interfers with their job. That is their choice.

[FaithManor]

My friend is a harpist who plays professionally for many venues, oftentimes weddings and dinner and such. She has the same rule I do and it shakes out to be something like 'if I need to work with an adult male student or another ensemble member alone we do it in an auditorium with an unlocked door, or kids present. If we are doing event planning we meet at a restaurant or park'. Hasn't been a problem, she just wants to protect herself from any accusations of impropriety as much as she reasonably can. It's been almost thirty years of performing and I don't believe it's ever caused a problem.

 

I had a male teacher who wouldn't meet alone with a female student for tutoring unless the room had a window. It doesn't work for every person in every situation but as a starting point avoiding potentially compromising or scandalous situations isn't actually very difficult to manage. And this assumption it has to do with the character of anyone involved is missing the point.

I would not work with your harpist. I am a professional and not going to drive extra mileage to get to an auditorium that the janitor has come to unlock so I can deal with children running around while I am trying to work through a difficult section of Rachmaninoff with the soloist. Get someone else, don't waste my time. Anyone who thinks it is appropriate to deal with kids in such a practice session must not be playing serious music. This is 100% unacceptable. On top of which, when I have 25 solo and ensemble kids go accompany for, I am not going to wander around the building looking for chaperones for every single practice room nor insist doors be open to the chaos in the hallways while trying to get a kid to properly count through some Mozart. And I don't haul my baby grand piano to restaurants and parks for practice!

 

These are not luxuries I have, and at $25.00 an hour for solo and ensemble, my guess is parents do not want to pay me to spend time looking for chaperones or not practicing because we would have to be alone in a practice room. At $150.00 an hour for regular accompanying, it would be ridiculous for a male soloist to pay extra to have me drive to a different location because his assumption is I am a whackadoodle jezebel who can't be trusted or his wife has serious issues. I do not go through life assuming that of other people, and find it sad that other people do.

 

And again, what is with the heterosexual assumption? Does your friend do a sex inventory of everyone she has to meet with to practice? Does she find out if they are Bi or Homosexual? Does she ask "are you a lesbian" because if not then she can't actually avoid the appearance of impropriety if she is worried about what people might think, what her spouse might think. Not in this day and age for certain. If said person is not cis gendered and she doesn't know it, she has already "sullied" her reputation by her own rules.

 

Good golly. Ds's voice professor is gay. Darn it. I guess ds has ruined his reputation, left himself open for scandal because his voice lessons took place in the office without a big window, without a chaperone! :(

 

Your friend can do what she wants but what you describe is very unprofessional and most certainly not sustainable for most musicians.

[Barb_]

Yep, I agree. I always make sure a door is open if I am with a person of the opposite sex: my age, older or a student. I would not take a job where I had to travel with someone of the opposite sex alone. I just wouldn't.

Now THAT is honest. In this case, you are adjusting for your beliefs. I don't really understand them, but that's cool. You aren't affecting anyone else's career path and you're entitled to do whatever makes you comfortable.

[Scarlett]

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.

I would be very suspicious and disturbed if a man wanted to spend that much alone time mentoring my young daughter.

[Scarlett]

It was an accounting firm. I've heard similar stories from acquaintances in other types of firms, schools, etc.

 

I'm not saying this in a mean way, but honestly, if you think this is an uncommon scenario, you are naive.

Exactly. I have seen so much if it and seen so many families harmed by it. A lot of people have affairs. Somehow no one ever thinks they or their spouse could fall into that pit.

[Barb_]

I would be very suspicious and disturbed if a man wanted to spend that much alone time mentoring my young daughter.

Lol

[Barb_]

I'm sure you've all heard the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes:

 

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." One's freedom to limit interaction with the opposite sex ends when it becomes discriminatory in the workplace and infringes on the rights of others to equal access. That's not opinion, it's the law.

[FaithManor]

Just recently at dh's office a female employee came into work and dumped a bag of clothes and other items on a male employee's desk. He was married and they had been having an affair. She found out he was also seeing another female employee. It was extremely awkward and he is no longer with the company.

 

Dh has worked long term for two large, well known companies and this wasn't close to the first time he has been aware of affairs.

This is automatic firing, the end. My husband has not had a single manager who would tolerate that kind of personal drama intruding on the professional environment. This is "clean out your desk and security will escort your from the premises' behavior. Maybe this is why if there work flings they.are.not.seen. People may have them but they sure as check no better than to let that cat out of the bag because they will lose their jobs.

[ktgrok]

My friend is a harpist who plays professionally for many venues, oftentimes weddings and dinner and such. She has the same rule I do and it shakes out to be something like 'if I need to work with an adult male student or another ensemble member alone we do it in an auditorium with an unlocked door, or kids present. If we are doing event planning we meet at a restaurant or park'. Hasn't been a problem, she just wants to protect herself from any accusations of impropriety as much as she reasonably can. It's been almost thirty years of performing and I don't believe it's ever caused a problem.

 

I had a male teacher who wouldn't meet alone with a female student for tutoring unless the room had a window. It doesn't work for every person in every situation but as a starting point avoiding potentially compromising or scandalous situations isn't actually very difficult to manage. And this assumption it has to do with the character of anyone involved is missing the point.

 

I think those stipulations are fine. But it seems Pence would NOT be fine with them, and wouldn't agree to say, meeting at a restaurant. Or attending a group dinner where alcohol is served, if women will be there. 

[Barb_]

Lol

Whew, ok. I got that out of my system.

 

Do you not realize that with that attitude you are holding back the career of your hypothetical daughter? What terrible, terrible advice advice! My lovely girl received an intensive crash course in interview techniques because someone saw raw, unchanneled talent and realized it would be a shame for her to waste it because she couldn't articulate her knowledge properly. It was a KINDNESS. We need more people to take an interest in enthusiastic and talented young people. How are they supposed to do that with attitudes like the one you just displayed? I find your attitude disturbing, if you want to know the truth.

[Barb_]

But see, I would be very upset if my young 20 something daugher was having meetings alone with a man. I just would. I'm not sure how to fix that. I guess I see how you think that is discriminatory, but I just don't think that is a good idea.

It was an excellent idea. She benefited from his teaching, he benefited from passing along a highly prepared candidate up the chain. THIS is what holds our daughters back. We women are apparently our own worst enemies.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Barb_

[EmseB]

What people are saying is that a)your personal policy shouldn't differentiate between men/women or b)interfere with others getting their work done. That's it. The possibility of inappropriate behavior is always there and has nothing to do with opposite gender interactions or the mere presence of alcohol.

Except people are all different and alcohol impairs good judgement. So it seems that reasonable people could have different personal standards without being accused of having personality disorders, lacking in self control, objectifying the opposite sex, desiring to oppress the opposite sex, etc, etc, etc. People have made a whole lot of assumptions about people with different standards.

 

Of course if someone's personal standards affect their work, then that should be worked out with the involved parties and remedied. But to presume sexism and necessary discrimination based on these personal ethics seems unreasonable. Many people in both threads have given examples of how similar standards have worked for them.

 

But really, if my career were hanging in the balance based on *needing* to have dinner and drinks with my male boss, and that was the only way I could advance in my career, I'd probably try to get the heck away from that job. I would find that more sexist than him not wanting to be seen in a date with me by ourselves. Different strokes, I guess.

[Barb_]

Sorry you think I am a horrible mom.

I didn't imply that. Although Scarlett's comment really pissed me off, so I'm in defensive mode right now.

 

I forget my point, but I think it was something like, "don't hold your daughters back from worlds of opportunity out of fear"

Edited April 1, 2017 by Barb_

[Catwoman]

But see, I would be very upset if my young 20 something daugher was having meetings alone with a man. I just would. I'm not sure how to fix that. I guess I see how you think that is discriminatory, but I just don't think that is a good idea.

 

A woman in her early 20s is an adult. If she meets with a man and he acts like a jerk, she should tell him to knock it off, and if he doesn't, she should get up and leave.

 

Honestly, I think by NOT allowing your dd to be in those situations, not only are you teaching her to fear men (because you'll be making her assume they're all after one thing,) but you're also depriving her of learning valuable social skills so she will be able to casually deflect unwanted attention -- or to directly confront it if the casual deflection doesn't work.

 

The vast majority of men are perfectly respectful and could be alone with your dd at any time and nothing bad would happen. Of course, there are always a few idiots, but she needs to learn how to effectively deal with unwanted attention, too.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Catwoman

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I think those stipulations are fine. But it seems Pence would NOT be fine with them, and wouldn't agree to say, meeting at a restaurant. Or attending a group dinner where alcohol is served, if women will be there. 

 

What in the world...? I've heard the part about Pence not dining alone with a woman in a restaurant (which is not alone, but whatever), but I hadn't heard the second part.

 

He won't attend a dinner where alcohol is served, if women are there? What does he think will happen! Does he think he is so irresistibly sexy that any woman, regardless of rank, relationship, or brain, is going to jump him if she's had a sip of wine? I mean, does he picture all the ambassadors' wives crawling across the table to get him, or what?

[Barb_]

A woman in her early 20s is an adult. If she meets with a man and he acts like a jerk, she should tell him to knock it off, and if he doesn't, she should get up and leave.

 

Honestly, I think by NOT allowing your dd to be in those situations, not only are you teaching her to fear men (because they're all after one thing,) but you're also depriving her of learning valuable social skills so she will be able to casually deflect unwanted attention -- or to directly confront it if the casual deflection doesn't work.

Yeah, thanks for being my reverse anger translator, lol. I think this was what I was trying to say.

 

I'm going to costco and leaving you guys to it. Have a good weekend!

[Barb_]

What in the world...? I've heard the part about Pence not dining alone with a woman in a restaurant (which is not alone, but whatever), but I hadn't heard the second part.

 

He won't attend a dinner where alcohol is served, if women are there? What does he think will happen! Does he think he is so irresistibly sexy that any woman, regardless of rank, relationship, or brain, is going to jump him if she's had a sip of wine? I mean, does he picture all the ambassadors' wives crawling across the table to get him, or what?

:lol: :lol:

 

Omg--that visual is going to stay with me all say, thanks a lot!

[Catwoman]

Yeah, thanks for being my reverse anger translator, lol. I think this was what I was trying to say.

 

I'm going to costco and leaving you guys to it. Have a good weekend!

:lol:

 

Have fun at Costco -- you're a brave woman to face down the crowds at Costco on a Saturday afternoon! :)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

:lol: :lol:

 

Omg--that visual is going to stay with me all say, thanks a lot!

 

LOL! Sorry!

 

Well, we may as well get it out there in the open: Mike Pence is afraid of girls.

[Corraleno]

But see, I would be very upset if my young 20 something daugher was having meetings alone with a man.  I just would.  I'm not sure how to fix that.  I guess I see how you think that is discriminatory, but I just don't think that is a good idea. 

 

Because all men are untrustworthy horndogs? Or because you can't trust an adult daughter not to be sexually attracted to every male she's ever alone with?  

 

I really don't get this. All of my mentors in college and grad school were male professors. It would never ever have occurred to me to avoid ever being alone with one of them. 

 

ETA: And for that matter, most of my fellow grad students were male as well, and I spent plenty of time alone with male friends. Miraculously, I managed to avoid ever being assaulted or having an affair with a married man.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Corraleno

[EmseB]

I think those stipulations are fine. But it seems Pence would NOT be fine with them, and wouldn't agree to say, meeting at a restaurant. Or attending a group dinner where alcohol is served, if women will be there.

How do we know he just personally would not drink at said event? Or that he wouldn't bring his wife with him? Or a friend? Heck, I didn't drink at parties without someone watching my back. I still wouldn't if I was still into that sort of thing. In my world that was considered smart, not prudish or weird.

 

Anyway, how are we getting all this about the ins and outs of all of his personal interactions from a few lines in an article? Are we to assume that what he said could possibly convey all the nuances of every situation that ever arises and then make assumptions about his character or lack thereof?

[unsinkable]

I think those stipulations are fine. But it seems Pence would NOT be fine with them, and wouldn't agree to say, meeting at a restaurant. Or attending a group dinner where alcohol is served, if women will be there.

What in the world...? I've heard the part about Pence not dining alone with a woman in a restaurant (which is not alone, but whatever), but I hadn't heard the second part.

 

He won't attend a dinner where alcohol is served, if women are there? What does he think will happen! Does he think he is so irresistibly sexy that any woman, regardless of rank, relationship, or brain, is going to jump him if she's had a sip of wine? I mean, does he picture all the ambassadors' wives crawling across the table to get him, or what?

I'm pretty sure this is not correct.

 

He WILL attend functions with alcohol if his wife is with him.

[ktgrok]

Except people are all different and alcohol impairs good judgement. So it seems that reasonable people could have different personal standards without being accused of having personality disorders, lacking in self control, objectifying the opposite sex, desiring to oppress the opposite sex, etc, etc, etc. People have made a whole lot of assumptions about people with different standards.

 

Of course if someone's personal standards affect their work, then that should be worked out with the involved parties and remedied. But to presume sexism and necessary discrimination based on these personal ethics seems unreasonable. Many people in both threads have given examples of how similar standards have worked for them.

 

But really, if my career were hanging in the balance based on *needing* to have dinner and drinks with my male boss, and that was the only way I could advance in my career, I'd probably try to get the heck away from that job. I would find that more sexist than him not wanting to be seen in a date with me by ourselves. Different strokes, I guess.

 

No one said HE had to drink. But refusing to be at an event that even has alcohol? I mean, we aren't talking frat party, we are talking adult events for crying out loud. He can't be in the same room as a woman who has a glass of champagne unless his wife is there? No gallery openings or whatever?

[Scarlett]

Whew, ok. I got that out of my system.

 

Do you not realize that with that attitude you are holding back the career of your hypothetical daughter? What terrible, terrible advice advice! My lovely girl received an intensive crash course in interview techniques because someone saw raw, unchanneled talent and realized it would be a shame for her to waste it because she couldn't articulate her knowledge properly. It was a KINDNESS. We need more people to take an interest in enthusiastic and talented young people. How are they supposed to do that with attitudes like the one you just displayed? I find your attitude disturbing, if you want to know the truth.

I have an actual son and I would be just as disturbed if any woman wanted to spend that kind of alone time with him mentoring him. It would actual be laughable to me if someone said, 'he MUST have this alone time with this woman in order to advance his career.'

 

I would tell him no career is worth that sort of ethical and moral risk.

[FaithManor]

But see, I would be very upset if my young 20 something daugher was having meetings alone with a man. I just would. I'm not sure how to fix that. I guess I see how you think that is discriminatory, but I just don't think that is a good idea.

It is the assumption that they must be up to no good, that he must be a pervert that is upsetting. If you do not automatically assume the worst of the other person, then one does not also then have to assume the worst of the meeting. As it is, like the vast majority of men, he was thinking with his brain not his genitals and simply being an upstanding guy trying to help a young woman gain valuable skills to boost her career.

 

And again, also as is said over and over, it also assumes heterosexuality which is not an assumption that can be readily made today. So most people freaking out about their daughter spending time with this man would not freak out about their son doing it despite knowing nothing of the man's orientation. It necessarily ascribes sexual intent to the other person which is pretty offensive if you think about it. And in a situation where this guy is the expert and a female expert is not available, it also says that the female's career goals must take a back seat to a male's career goals because of the assumption that he is a loser who merely wants to take advantage of her therefore they should not meet.

 

And again, all of this is predicated on assuming the worst of him, ascribing character flaws that are likely not present, assuming a specific sexual orientation and worrying so much about what other people think when in reality people who want to judge and gossip will do so no matter how many rules you put in place because that is what they do...get their jollies off bad mouthing everyone else. She can be in a room of fifty people with a parent chaperone ten feet away and if she reaches for her coca cola and it is perceived as being too close to his coca cola, scandal is born amongst scandalous minds.

[FaithManor]

I have an actual son and I would be just as disturbed if any woman wanted to spend that kind of alone time with him mentoring him. It would actual be laughable to me if someone said, 'he MUST have this alone time with this woman in order to advance his career.'

 

I would tell him no career is worth that sort of ethical and moral risk.

I am very sad for you that you live in such fear that all people are of ill intent and must be treated so.

[FaithManor]

What in the world...? I've heard the part about Pence not dining alone with a woman in a restaurant (which is not alone, but whatever), but I hadn't heard the second part.

 

He won't attend a dinner where alcohol is served, if women are there? What does he think will happen! Does he think he is so irresistibly sexy that any woman, regardless of rank, relationship, or brain, is going to jump him if she's had a sip of wine? I mean, does he picture all the ambassadors' wives crawling across the table to get him, or what?

Tibbie wins the internet award today for images we did not want to have in our heads!!!

 

Oh grooms, oh gross oh gross, oh gross, oh gross!!!!

 

:D

[Scarlett]

I am very sad for you that you live in such fear that all people are of ill intent and must be treated so.

Don't put words in my mouth. Please.

[Corraleno]

I would be very suspicious and disturbed if a man wanted to spend that much alone time mentoring my young daughter.

 

But really, if my career were hanging in the balance based on *needing* to have dinner and drinks with my male boss, and that was the only way I could advance in my career, I'd probably try to get the heck away from that job. I would find that more sexist than him not wanting to be seen in a date with me by ourselves. Different strokes, I guess.

 

I have an actual son and I would be just as disturbed if any woman wanted to spend that kind of alone time with him mentoring him. It would actual be laughable to me if someone said, 'he MUST have this alone time with this woman in order to advance his career.'

 

I would tell him no career is worth that sort of ethical and moral risk.

 

 

I find it interesting the way people can take a situation that is seen as perfectly common and normal by most people, and phrase it in such a way that makes the behavior seem inherently scary, dangerous, suspicious. Spending time with an opposite sex mentor becomes creepy bordering on pedophilia; spending time with opposite sex coworkers is recast as a form of sexual harassment forced on the employee in return for advancement.

 

And then, having reframed the issue to make normal, nonthreatening behavior seem creepy and threatening, the choice to avoid being alone with a mentor or coworker is presented as the moral, ethical, smart thing to do. 

[FaithManor]

I find it interesting the way people can take a situation that is seen as perfectly common and normal by most people, and phrase it in such a way that makes the behavior seem inherently scary, dangerous, suspicious. Spending time with an opposite sex mentor becomes creepy bordering on pedophilia; spending time with opposite sex coworkers is recast as a form of sexual harassment forced on the employee in return for advancement.

 

And then, having reframed the issue to make normal, nonthreatening behavior seem creepy and threatening, the choice to avoid being alone with a mentor or coworker is presented as the moral, ethical, smart thing to do.

THIS!

[Scarlett]

I find it interesting the way people can take a situation that is seen as perfectly common and normal by most people, and phrase it in such a way that makes the behavior seem inherently scary, dangerous, suspicious. Spending time with an opposite sex mentor becomes creepy bordering on pedophilia; spending time with opposite sex coworkers is recast as a form of sexual harassment forced on the employee in return for advancement.

 

And then, having reframed the issue to make normal, nonthreatening behavior seem creepy and threatening, the choice to avoid being alone with a mentor or coworker is presented as the moral, ethical, smart thing to do.

Exactly the way I feel, in reverse, about the opposite POV.

[unsinkable]

 

 

I can understand being cautious when it come to mentoring situations.

 

Many times adults who mentor younger adults DO have an understanding that people might not see their intentions as pure and altruistic.

 

And so they do things like meet in public, do a group mentoring, communicate online, etc.

 

I know a older man who meets with young men at the XYZ Coffee Shop on Market St. It's like an "known" thing in our circle. Any guy who needs someone to talk things over with or needs advice or just wants to visit, is welcome to meet him there.

 

I've had moms ask me, "Jimmy's meeting Mr. Q for coffee?" in a kind of "is-this-OK" way, I'm like, "Yep, it's cool. He's been doing that forever."

Edited April 1, 2017 by unsinkable

[DesertBlossom]

I'm sure you've all heard the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes:

 

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." One's freedom to limit interaction with the opposite sex ends when it becomes discriminatory in the workplace and infringes on the rights of others to equal access. That's not opinion, it's the law.

 

I'd like to see the evidence that Pence's personal policy has hampered the career of any woman. 

[Scarlett]

I'd like to see the evidence that Pence's personal policy has hampered the career of any woman.

I know right.

[Catwoman]

Exactly the way I feel, in reverse, about the opposite POV.

This forum would be boring if we all agreed about everything. :)

 

One thing I have to say, though, is that whenever you and I have disagreed about anything, you have never resorted to taking cheap personal shots or saying that people are idiots if they don't agree with you. I really respect that about you, especially in threads where you know going into it that people are not going to share your opinions.

[Scarlett]

This forum would be boring if we all agreed about everything. :)

 

One thing I have to say, though, is that whenever you and I have disagreed about anything, you have never resorted to taking cheap personal shots or saying that people are idiots if they don't agree with you. I really respect that about you, especially in threads where you know going into it that people are not going to share your opinions.

Thanks Cat. That means a lot.