Not going out with opposite sex without spouse

[Guest]

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.

As a musician myself, I'd say she handles it very professionally - doesn't make some big verbal stink about any of it. I only know about her feelings on this because we are extremely close, but I don't think it has ever come up in a performance context. She just makes arrangements and that's that. It's one of the we things you don't understand because it isn't important to you - but because it is important to her (and me!) she makes it work. It's like mamas who feel strongly about wearing head coverings. You just do your thing and make it work.

 

Maybe she is just in demand enough with her harp, piano, and voice that she can be picky. She's extremely talented as a teacher and performer, both, so it wouldn't surprise me. I wish she still lived close :(. There are few people who move that I deeply miss but this woman is one of them.

 

You bring up something interesting in the college context. Back at my first school, the only one where I was involved in the music department for performance and instruction, all our classrooms and practice rooms had a window on the door. And on the rare time it was just me and our (amazing!) accompanist, it was in our standard assigned classroom which also had a window. I didn't think much of it at the time, but I don't think there was a tool or office in the art department without at least one window except the auditorium, which was open and public. And in performances outside of college I can't say I've run into this as a problem either. I can't think of any times, at least, where it wasn't a group, semi public, or visible with a male conductor or instructor.

 

I'll keep thinking but no examples are coming to mind... even my ceramics teacher, at midnights in the studio, either had the garage bay doors open or there were more than one of us in there. If it was just one student and him the door got propped open.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Scarlett]

So, the Mike Pence thing got me thinking about this (again). I understand the concern that it makes it harder for women to have business access to him and therefore more likely to not be hired or promoted. I was kind of surprised that all I saw was a negative reaction though.

 

It got me wondering how common it is for people to go out to eat just one on one for business and not in a group? And, is it ok for a spouse to not be thrilled that their partner does this (even if spouse sees the need for it)? Would people have had the same reaction if he would have said he doesn't go out with women after work hours or if it could be avoided? Or that he doesn't drink when he is alone with a woman?

 

This story was timely for me this week because Dh was in another country with just one female colleague. They got together for drinks in the evenings at the hotel bar. I don't exactly have a problem with it and I know nothing happened. They were both in a non English speaking country and it is nice to have someone to converse with. And I don't think he should avoid her just because she is female. On the other hand, I do think it is a little weird. Like, I wouldn't do it. I would just go to my room and read, but I am more introverted than he is.

 

This is just the most recent example. My Dh is in the army reserves (male dominated) and his civilian job is male dominated too. Yet, somehow he is always the one on work trips with a female colleague (different ones every time). I have never told him (or hinted) that it is a problem for me, because it really isn't. I know nothing happens.But part of me is bothered by it and I don't really know why. Then this week there was the Mike Pence story, and everything I read was really negative about it. Made me think I am for sure being weird.

The thread has gone on down several rabbit holes, but I wanted to come back to this OP.

 

You are not insecure or weird for being bothered by your Dh traveling with women. I would urge you to be more honest with him about your feelings instead of stuffijg your feelings. He may surprise you with how he feels.

[Murphy101]

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.

It wasn't the mentoring that was an issue. It was the why did he have to do it alone with her. He didn't. I don't know any college professors who meet students privately. They have office hours but it's not private/alone. Male or female, they just do not want to meet students privately as a general policy. They can't even use private emails. They are required to use campus emails for communication with students.

[Jane in NC]

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.

 

This comment reminded me of a corporate stint that I did before grad school when I was in my early 20's.  It was common place to have breakfast or lunch meetings with a vendor who serviced my department, often one on one.  My manager made a point of taking his employees out for lunch or a drink after work in order to have a chat away from the office about how things were going. It never occurred to me that there were any sexual intentions here.  We were professionals and behaved professionally. In fact, looking back on the mentorship that this middle aged man (my manager) gave, I can see why he had such a strong department of loyal employees.  He really wanted to help us grow--professionally (need I add??)

[Guest]

It wasn't the mentoring that was an issue. It was the why did he have to do it alone with her. He didn't. I don't know any college professors who meet students privately. They have office hours but it's not private/alone. Male or female, they just do not want to meet students privately as a general policy. They can't even use private emails. They are required to use campus emails for communication with students.

My current college is this way too. Office hours was him sitting in the classroom making himself available before and after each section. Not atypical in my experience but I only have three schools to compare amongst.

[Corraleno]

It wasn't the mentoring that was an issue. It was the why did he have to do it alone with her. He didn't. I don't know any college professors who meet students privately. They have office hours but it's not private/alone. Male or female, they just do not want to meet students privately as a general policy. They can't even use private emails. They are required to use campus emails for communication with students.

 

But this presumes that having a chaperone for every male/female interaction is the normal default mode, and not insisting on having an extra person there makes it suspicious. I would ask why should he have to have a chaperone when there was no sexual intent whatsoever?

 

I met with many many professors privately in their offices and no one ever thought anything about it. It would never have occurred to me to insist that someone else be there, or that the door be open at all times or whatever. To me, that would be an insult to both of us — like either one or both of us is so devoid of self-control that unless there's a third person in the room we're just going to throw ourselves on the desk and go at it??? I never felt any differently meeting with a male professor versus a female professor, and I find the idea that adult men and women cannot possibly be trusted to be in the same room without sexual temptation rearing it's ugly head, quite bizarre.

 

[EmseB]

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?

I don't think we have any real way of knowing the answers to your questions based on a couple of summarized statements of things he said in 2002.

[creekland]

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. 

 

I'm really, really glad you weren't my mom.  My parents let me fly - go into a male dominated world - the niche I belonged in.  If they worried, they never said a thing.  There was nothing they had to worry about.  There were never any close calls.  I had a lot of fun and have great memories of that time period - and still have only had relations with my current hubby.

 

I left home when I was 17/18 (right after high school), so was in my late teens and early 20s and around plenty of similar aged guys and older men.

 

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 have three actual sons and I'm not disturbed at all when they have women as mentors.  Youngest works with older women tutoring them on anything from Arabic to common technology.  They teach him more about the aspects of life they know.  Middle has plenty of females his age and older working alongside him in research and other basic college classes.

 

There is NO ethical or moral risk involved.

 

It wasn't the mentoring that was an issue. It was the why did he have to do it alone with her. He didn't. I don't know any college professors who meet students privately. They have office hours but it's not private/alone. Male or female, they just do not want to meet students privately as a general policy. They can't even use private emails. They are required to use campus emails for communication with students.

 

How many college profs do you know???  Pretty much all I know will meet with kids privately in their office - not just during office hours.  Sometimes offices hours aren't convenient for schedules.  All of them involved with research will have times when they are one on one with their students who help them.  Many travel to conferences and things together.

 

I met with many many professors privately in their offices and no one ever thought anything about it. It would never have occurred to me to insist that someone else be there, or that the door be open at all times or whatever. To me, that would be an insult to both of us — like either one or both of us is so devoid of self-control that unless there's a third person in the room we're just going to throw ourselves on the desk and go at it??? I never felt any differently meeting with a male professor versus a female professor, and I find the idea that adult men and women cannot possibly be trusted to be in the same room without sexual temptation rearing it's ugly head, quite bizarre.

 

You and I have had similar experiences.

 

Not everyone in this world is out to have hanky panky whenever they can - or even remotely thinking about it.

 

Those who have affairs will do it regardless of whether they work with someone or not.  They are filling a "need" in their life or they simply don't care about monogamy in marriage or otherwise. Leashes aren't going to help - unless folks know they can't control themselves and feel the need for that sort of safety net.  Then I guess they would help.  From some folks I know who got divorces, leashes made it worse TBH.  The folks (including my mom) got tired of not being trusted.

[Barb_]

It wasn't the mentoring that was an issue. It was the why did he have to do it alone with her. He didn't. I don't know any college professors who meet students privately. They have office hours but it's not private/alone. Male or female, they just do not want to meet students privately as a general policy. They can't even use private emails. They are required to use campus emails for communication with students.

Because he is not a professor and she isn't a student. He is a full time programmer for a financial planning company and he interviewed her for a full time job as a programmer. She did great on the two personnel interviews but totally blew the technical interview!with him. He felt like she was great on paper and would be a good fit culturally and she convinced him to give her another shot. He told her that with some coaching he thought she could learn quickly and pass the other two interviews. He offered to work with her for a couple of sessions, but she was learning so fast that he brought her back for like 4 more sessions. She passed the next two interviews with flying colors and is deeply grateful to him for the time he spent with her sharpening her skills. As for what he gets out of it: a sense of accomplishment, a reputation for finding top candidates, and satisfaction for helping to set a young person on the path of a promising career.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Barb_

[unsinkable]

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.

Where is it stated Pence has an all male staff?

 

I wasn't able to find verification of this.

[EmseB]

Where is it stated Pence has an all male staff?

 

I wasn't able to find verification of this.

I haven't seen anything either, except this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/01/i-worked-for-mike-pence-being-a-woman-never-held-me-back/?utm_term=.0ae4604534de#

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

Well I am sure that is totally easy to quantify.

[unsinkable]

I haven't seen anything either, except this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/01/i-worked-for-mike-pence-being-a-woman-never-held-me-back/?utm_term=.0ae4604534de#

Thanks

 

 

I also found this:

 

https://www.legistorm.com/member/417/Former_Rep_Mike_Pence/184.html

 

Which shows that (at least in 2013) he had female staffers.

 

But you know, certain people will post anything that fits their narrative, even if they have to make stuff up.

Edited April 1, 2017 by unsinkable

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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 dunno.  Mike Pence is just so dang sexy I don't know how he survives the hordes of women flinging themselves at him..

[ktgrok]

It wasn't the mentoring that was an issue. It was the why did he have to do it alone with her. He didn't. I don't know any college professors who meet students privately. They have office hours but it's not private/alone. Male or female, they just do not want to meet students privately as a general policy. They can't even use private emails. They are required to use campus emails for communication with students.

 

I think the issue is people are defining "alone" in different ways. To some, including it seems Mike Pence (?), alone includes at a table with one other person in a busy restaurant, or in an office even with a window in the door. So that attitude is what I think most of us are surprised by. I don't see any ethical risk, or any risk for that matter, in meeting a professor in his office with the door unlocked during working hours, window in the door, whatever, or in two coworkers having a working lunch, or with my DH meeting a female client at a restaurant to discuss possibly buying their product. 

 

Others seem to think "alone" means only in a hotel room eating room service, or in a locked office with no windows, etc. I'd agree those are much more inappropriate circumstances. Or in the professor's home, etc. But never meeting a female client for lunch, or having them in your office during work hours with the door closed is just crazy to me. 

[historically accurate]

I haven't seen anything either, except this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/01/i-worked-for-mike-pence-being-a-woman-never-held-me-back/?utm_term=.0ae4604534de#

 

Well, that said that he followed the rule for both men and women. If that is the case, that he just doesn't meet people alone or doesn't attend any activity where there is drinking, I got no problem with that. 

 

Edit to quote from article: The fact of the matter is, it’s not as though then-Congressman Pence was out having private dinners with male staffers and I was excluded. He wasn’t having private dinners much at all. He had children at home, so as often as possible, after voting and his daily duties, he’d race home to share a meal with the people that mattered most to him most:  his family. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by beckyjo

[Guest]

Well, that said that he followed the rule for both men and women. If that is the case, that he just doesn't meet people alone or doesn't attend any activity where there is drinking, I got no problem with that.

 

Edit to quote from article: The fact of the matter is, it’s not as though then-Congressman Pence was out having private dinners with male staffers and I was excluded. He wasn’t having private dinners much at all. He had children at home, so as often as possible, after voting and his daily duties, he’d race home to share a meal with the people that mattered most to him most: his family.

What a rat bastard! How dare he be a goal oriented family man? The discriminatory, woman hating nerve of heading *home* instead of social cavorting and climbing. His love for his wife sullies equality for all women everywhere.

 

*eyeroll*

 

:D

Edited April 1, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Joules]

Because he is not a professor and she isn't a student. He is a full time programmer for a financial planning company and he interviewed her for a full time job as a programmer. She did great on the two personnel interviews but totally blew the technical interview!with him. He felt like she was great on paper and would be a good fit culturally and she convinced him to give her another shot. He told her that with some coaching he thought she could learn quickly and pass the other two interviews. He offered to work with her for a couple of sessions, but she was learning so fast that he brought her back for like 4 more sessions. She passed the next two interviews with flying colors and is deeply grateful to him for the time he spent with her sharpening her skills. As for what he gets out of it: a sense of accomplishment, a reputation for finding top candidates, and satisfaction for helping to set a young person on the path of a promising career.

 

The exact same benefit that he would have gotten if she were male.  I love helping students and young people move forward in their careers and life.  I don't really ever think about what gender they are as part of the equation.

[historically accurate]

What a rat bastard! How dare he be a goal oriented family man? The discriminatory, woman hating nerve of heading *home* instead of social cavorting and climbing. His love for his wife sullies equality for all women everywhere.

 

*eyeroll*

 

:D

 

 

I haven't read that characterization anywhere in any of the s/o's here. Most people who are taking the "rule" to task have a problem if (and only if) it affects just one gender, which is how the brief news article posits it. I don't have a problem if he runs home to his family if he's done with his work; I do have a problem if he is making it difficult for women in his administration to have equal access to opportunities.

 

Although I find it funny that you say he goes home instead of "climbing" when he has ended up as VP - obviously he was networking somewhere...

[Guest]

Nm, my point is made.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[debinindy]

I haven't read that characterization anywhere in any of the s/o's here. Most people who are taking the "rule" to task have a problem if (and only if) it affects just one gender, which is how the brief news article posits it. I don't have a problem if he runs home to his family if he's done with his work; I do have a problem if he is making it difficult for women in his administration to have equal access to opportunities.

 

Although I find it funny that you say he goes home instead of "climbing" when he has ended up as VP - obviously he was networking somewhere...

 

There is no evidence for the bolded.

[Corraleno]

What a rat bastard! How dare he be a goal oriented family man? The discriminatory, woman hating nerve of heading *home* instead of social cavorting and climbing. His love for his wife sullies equality for all women everywhere.

 

*eyeroll*

 

:D

 

Being "a goal-oriented family man" does not require refusing to ever be alone with a female coworker. These false dichotomies are quite absurd.

 

The vast majority of men and women are capable of working with members of the opposite sex — even (gasp) one on one — while still remaining faithful to their spouse.

[FaithManor]

The exact same benefit that he would have gotten if she were male. I love helping students and young people move forward in their careers and life. I don't really ever think about what gender they are as part of the equation.

Same here, and I have mentored a lot of students both male and female. Dh too.

[historically accurate]

There is no evidence for the bolded.

 

I didn't say there was evidence - I said I would have have a problem if he was doing that. It sounds like, (accordign to that one staff member anyway) for the most part, he's a homebody. 

[regentrude]

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. 

 

What is so upsetting about this?

 

I had a very nice male thesis advisor in grad school. And a wonderful male mentor who was director of our institute. And a great male postdoc advisor. And a good male friend and mentor when I began teaching.

Every single one of these people has helped me along in my career, helped me develop my expertise, and spent a lot of time one-on-one with me - mainly talking about physics.

 

Not for a single second was there any lapse in professionality in any of these relationships. Because we were people of integrity.

 

My 20 y/o DD is in a male dominated field and has meetings with men. She will have a male supervisor in her summer internship. I hope she encounters as many supportive mentors as I did, and if she does, in all likelihood most of them will be men.

[LucyStoner]

Well I'm involved in state government and my husband is an engineer. We both are intimately involved in politics as individuals and more beyond that. Somehow neither of us have ever had to have a closed door or private after hours meeting with a single member of the opposite sex and still have been professionally successful. We could just be fortunate but the politicians we work with are never alone either - aides.

 

I've been, at various time, quite politically active and my experience has been quite different.  I often observe politicians with just one aide with them or without any aides.  Not too long ago I met with a state legislator, and it was just him and me.  I've known him since 2008 or thereabouts when he solicited my support for his campaign.  

 

Except for the Governor, state level politicians just don't get to have many aides.  It's common for their offices to be staffed by just two or three people, and less when they aren't in session or gearing up for the session.  

[Guest]

I've been, at various time, quite politically active and my experience has been quite different. I often observe politicians with just one aide with them or without any aides. Not too long ago I met with a state legislator, and it was just him and me. I've known him since 2008 or thereabouts when he solicited my support for his campaign.

 

Except for the Governor, state level politicians just don't get to have many aides. It's common for their offices to be staffed by just two or three people, and less when they aren't in session or gearing up for the session.

Can you delete my quote please? I edited it out for a reason. The aide situstion is true for legislators as well as congress people in my experience with them. But I don't really want to get into details on here for privacy reasons. Thanks :)

[That70'sLisa]

nm

Edited April 1, 2017 by LisLisaKG75

[Wheres Toto]

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. 

 

I agree.  I'm also having trouble with the idea that it's so easy to just accidentally fall into an affair that you must avoid ever being alone with the gender you find attractive.   If you don't want to have an affair, don't have an affair.   I have worked with men that I find attractive in the past, some I find interesting to talk to.  But, I never had to work at avoiding an affair. 

[FaithManor]

I agree. I'm also having trouble with the idea that it's so easy to just accidentally fall into an affair that you must avoid ever being alone with the gender you find attractive. If you don't want to have an affair, don't have an affair. I have worked with men that I find attractive in the past, some I find interesting to talk to. But, I never had to work at avoiding an affair.

Agreed.

[creekland]

Being "a goal-oriented family man" does not require refusing to ever be alone with a female coworker. These false dichotomies are quite absurd.

 

The vast majority of men and women are capable of working with members of the opposite sex — even (gasp) one on one — while still remaining faithful to their spouse.

 

:iagree:  I don't think one can get any more of a family man than my hubby - and he's still quite trustworthy with the opposite gender - even one on one - even when it's younger gals in need of a father figure who quite possibly have a crush on him.  There truly are plenty of folks out there who just don't see others as potential partners.  Real life is different than TV life.

 

Of course, others are out there who do see folks as objects of their desire, but it has nothing to do with just one on one time at work.  It has to do with their brain setting.  Teaching kids (both genders) about these folks is worthy - and some self defense if they get into a situation they don't like - but teaching them to keep gals on one side and guys on the other is weird and unnecessary for many.  Chances are it teaches each TO see others as objects rather than as peers.

[EmseB]

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. 

 

The problem is that what people are comfortable with is totally and completely subjective.  I personally would not want to be in a career where me going to dinner alone with a guy was necessary to the point of losing my job or not being able to advance if I didn't. I don't find it creepy or threatening, I don't think it's sexual harassment, I just wouldn't want to be in a job that required it. It doesn't mean I think I would possibly have an accidental affair if I went on a dinner date. It doesn't mean I view every man as a potential threat. It doesn't mean I have objectified every male co-worker. 

 

The kicker is I don't mind if other people don't mind going out one on one with co-workers.  Like I said before, different strokes.  Some people don't mind working 80 hours a week and some careers demand it.  If I say that I wouldn't want to be in a job that requires it, that it personally wouldn't work well for my family or my relationship with my husband, that is not a personal slight against someone who chooses to work that much. It doesn't mean that I care if other people find it fulfilling or want to do it or have to do it to get by.  My standards or desires or whatever are not a commentary on anyone else's choice.

 

Which is why I find the commentary about any one person's choices, to the point of saying they are sexist, discriminatory, etc to be absurd.  People have ascribed all kinds of motives and horrible problems to people who have different boundaries than they do.  It really boggles my mind. I have ordered my life in such a way that I'm comfortable living.

 

You (general), in your life, may not be able to figure out a way to have a certain standard (whether that's personal interactions, hours spent at work, whatever standard) and still have a fulfilling career and be a good boss or employee.  That doesn't mean other people can't or haven't done so.  It doesn't mean other people are weirdos or disordered or sexist or lack self-control or want to jump on anyone that they see.  And all of those things have been implied or said outright in these threads about people with simply differing relationship boundaries or standards.

[EmseB]

Being "a goal-oriented family man" does not require refusing to ever be alone with a female coworker. These false dichotomies are quite absurd.

 

The vast majority of men and women are capable of working with members of the opposite sex — even (gasp) one on one — while still remaining faithful to their spouse.

 

Here's a good example of what I was just talking about in my last post.  What she stated was not a dichotomy at all.  Just because one person does things one way, doesn't not mean that someone who does things differently cannot also be a "goal-oriented family man".  One person's choices are not a slight on someone else, nor are they saying that if you don't do X you can't be Y.

 

AM's comment was about one person specifically being called out for his personal choices, and you construed that to mean that she must be pitting two choices (hang out with member of opposite sex or not) against each other.  We can all make different choices and still be goal-oriented family people.  Further, you construed that her comment must mean that if someone does things one way and is a family man, then it follows that the person who makes different choices must be an adulterer.  I'm not AM, but I'm reasonably sure she wasn't putting everyone else that doesn't adopt certain standards of conduct into the category of adulterer.  That is the strawman you set up to knock down; it wasn't based on anything she said or even implied.

 

If someone tells me John tries to be home for dinner at 6:00 every night and I say, "He must be really dedicated to his family," it doesn't then follow that I must think that someone who works until 8 p.m. isn't also dedicated to their family. Or worse, that I think everyone who doesn't come home at 6:00 must hate their family and be a workaholic.  It's absurd to make that leap based on one positive comment.  Someone who works late can take personal offense to my comment about John and make it into a personal slight, but that is them setting up a dichotomy in order to take offense, it isn't based on any kind of logical reasoning.

[8circles]

You aren't getting the point.

The problem is that what people are comfortable with is totally and completely subjective.  I personally would not want to be in a career where me going to dinner alone with a guy was necessary to the point of losing my job or not being able to advance if I didn't. I don't find it creepy or threatening, I don't think it's sexual harassment, I just wouldn't want to be in a job that required it. It doesn't mean I think I would possibly have an accidental affair if I went on a dinner date. It doesn't mean I view every man as a potential threat. It doesn't mean I have objectified every male co-worker. 

Fine - then don't take that job if you can't do it.

 

The kicker is I don't mind if other people don't mind going out one on one with co-workers.  Like I said before, different strokes.  Some people don't mind working 80 hours a week and some careers demand it.  If I say that I wouldn't want to be in a job that requires it, that it personally wouldn't work well for my family or my relationship with my husband, that is not a personal slight against someone who chooses to work that much. It doesn't mean that I care if other people find it fulfilling or want to do it or have to do it to get by.  My standards or desires or whatever are not a commentary on anyone else's choice.

I don't give a rat's ass who people eat dinner with or meet behind closed doors. As long as it isn't my coworker who is willing to work this way with males but not me - because my job did in fact require it. It wasn't in any job description, but those were the situations we were in & we did what needed doing to get the job done on time.

 

Which is why I find the commentary about any one person's choices, to the point of saying they are sexist, discriminatory, etc to be absurd.  People have ascribed all kinds of motives and horrible problems to people who have different boundaries than they do.  It really boggles my mind. I have ordered my life in such a way that I'm comfortable living.

If people choose to not work with other people based on their sex, it is discriminatory.  Have whatever boundaries you want, but don't limit other people from doing their jobs because of your boundaries.

 

You (general), in your life, may not be able to figure out a way to have a certain standard (whether that's personal interactions, hours spent at work, whatever standard) and still have a fulfilling career and be a good boss or employee.  That doesn't mean other people can't or haven't done so.  It doesn't mean other people are weirdos or disordered or sexist or lack self-control or want to jump on anyone that they see.  And all of those things have been implied or said outright in these threads about people with simply differing relationship boundaries or standards.

What are you talking about? Who is complaining about not figuring out standard? This doesn't make any sense.

So basically, people who have boundaries that result in discrimination of a certain sex on the job have figured out how to have a certain standard & still have a fulfilling career and be a good boss or employee. People who complain about this discrimination just haven't figured out that balance. Nice.

[8circles]

Here's a good example of what I was just talking about in my last post.  What she stated was not a dichotomy at all.  Just because one person does things one way, doesn't not mean that someone who does things differently cannot also be a "goal-oriented family man".  One person's choices are not a slight on someone else, nor are they saying that if you don't do X you can't be Y.

 

AM's comment was about one person specifically being called out for his personal choices, and you construed that to mean that she must be pitting two choices (hang out with member of opposite sex or not) against each other.  We can all make different choices and still be goal-oriented family people.  Further, you construed that her comment must mean that if someone does things one way and is a family man, then it follows that the person who makes different choices must be an adulterer.  I'm not AM, but I'm reasonably sure she wasn't putting everyone else that doesn't adopt certain standards of conduct into the category of adulterer.  That is the strawman you set up to knock down; it wasn't based on anything she said or even implied.

 

If someone tells me John tries to be home for dinner at 6:00 every night and I say, "He must be really dedicated to his family," it doesn't then follow that I must think that someone who works until 8 p.m. isn't also dedicated to their family. Or worse, that I think everyone who doesn't come home at 6:00 must hate their family and be a workaholic.  It's absurd to make that leap based on one positive comment.  Someone who works late can take personal offense to my comment about John and make it into a personal slight, but that is them setting up a dichotomy in order to take offense, it isn't based on any kind of logical reasoning.

 

Maybe John tries to be home for dinner at 6 because if he doesn't, he won't have time to play hours of video games & still get a decent night's sleep.

 

Maybe John tries to be home for dinner at 6 so that he can eat & then have time to hit the gym for a few hours.

 

Maybe John tries to be home for dinner at 6 because that's when he told his wife to have dinner on the table and if it doesn't happen he won't be in the mood for her to give him his after-dinner foot massage.

 

How the hell should I know if John is dedicated to his family? 

 

There is a reason that the assumption is that John is dedicated to his family based on being home at 6 & it isn't because it equates to family dedication.

[Bootsie]

It wasn't the mentoring that was an issue. It was the why did he have to do it alone with her. He didn't. I don't know any college professors who meet students privately. They have office hours but it's not private/alone. Male or female, they just do not want to meet students privately as a general policy. They can't even use private emails. They are required to use campus emails for communication with students.

As a professor, if I am going to discuss a student's performance in my class, that must be done in private.  A student might want to discuss with me a reason they have missed classes that they want to have kept private.  There are cases of academic dishonesty that must be investigated in private.  

 

Even though emails are going through the university system to university email addresses, they are still private emails between the professor and the student.  This requirement is usually in place because of a privacy requirement; anyone can set up an email that is for sally.jones@gmail   So, someone can pose as Sally and send the professor emails, thus gaining private information about Sally.  The university has assigned an email to Sally, so the professor can be confident that emails coming from that address are from Sally.  

[EmseB]

Maybe John tries to be home for dinner at 6 because if he doesn't, he won't have time to play hours of video games & still get a decent night's sleep.

 

Maybe John tries to be home for dinner at 6 so that he can eat & then have time to hit the gym for a few hours.

 

Maybe John tries to be home for dinner at 6 because that's when he told his wife to have dinner on the table and if it doesn't happen he won't be in the mood for her to give him his after-dinner foot massage.

 

How the hell should I know if John is dedicated to his family?

 

There is a reason that the assumption is that John is dedicated to his family based on being home at 6 & it isn't because it equates to family dedication.

Goodness, you missed my point entirely. My point wasn't about John at all. It's about taking offense at one positive comment about someone else's choice.

 

But, I guess in a way your post is the perfect example of something like that. "John sure seems dedicated to his family because he does x." "Yeah, well you don't know that, John could be a total jerk and I've thought of a dozen reasons why he's probably a total a-hole."

 

Okay, then.

[EmseB]

You aren't getting the point.

So basically, people who have boundaries that result in discrimination of a certain sex on the job have figured out how to have a certain standard & still have a fulfilling career and be a good boss or employee. People who complain about this discrimination just haven't figured out that balance. Nice.

 

You say I'm not getting the point, but then totally bypassed the point of both of my posts, so it seems we are talking past one another. Along with the last bit where you just disregard what I've said to put words in my mouth. Ah well, I suppose that's the nature of message boards.

[LucyStoner]

All I know after reading this thread is that Pence now seems positively progressive compared to the views expressed in some of these posts.  

[LucyStoner]

My current college is this way too. Office hours was him sitting in the classroom making himself available before and after each section. Not atypical in my experience but I only have three schools to compare amongst.

 

This is common for commuter colleges if the professor only teaches 1-2 classes and doesn't have an office.  It's not, at least in my experience, the norm for FT professors.  My day time professors all had offices, and they all met people in their offices, alone.  I met a friend recently for lunch at the university where she works as a department administrator, and I saw banks of professors offices, all with office hour signs up and many with students waiting outside just like it was when I was college aged. 

 

We have several people who work as professors all saying they meet with their students one on one. I'm not sure why some people find this a dodgy practice.  

[SKL]

I've been a "boss" for years.  I supervised male and female employees.  I never asked them to eat with me.  Ever.  In my opinion, eating is personal time and bosses should not interfere with that unless necessary.  Also, I would not want to do a one-on-one socially with staff, lest it encourage ideas or feelings that are unhelpful in the workplace.

 

I did do lunch interviews.  If other appropriate teammates were not available, I would do this one-on-one.  Obviously a job interview situation is different and, at least in the case of a woman interviewer, unlikely to lead to either improper conduct, unrealistic romantic expectations, or false accusations.

 

And I did work in the office with teammates one-on-one when that made sense.  Usually with the door open and where others could hear, but there were exceptions in the case of HR matters where privacy mattered.  Thing is, when you're working on a work project (and especially HR stuff), at least in my experience, the mind doesn't do the kind of wandering it does when you're out to dinner.  Also, dinner often involves alcohol, which does affect some people's self-control.

 

So no, I don't agree that it hurts people's career prospects if I don't take them out to eat one-on-one.  People are going to be promoted or given raises based on what they contribute intellectually and financially, not what happens at a restaurant table.

 

And yes, I have had colleagues who divorced their wives and dated / married their co-workers.  Of course it's always the ex-wife's fault.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is common for commuter colleges if the professor only teaches 1-2 classes and doesn't have an office. It's not, at least in my experience, the norm for FT professors. My day time professors all had offices, and they all met people in their offices, alone. I met a friend recently for lunch at the university where she works as a department administrator, and I saw banks of professors offices, all with office hour signs up and many with students waiting outside just like it was when I was college aged.

 

We have several people who work as professors all saying they meet with their students one on one. I'm not sure why some people find this a dodgy practice.

When I taught as a grad assistant I had my own office. Well technically I shared but the other instructor was never there except during his 2 office hours/week during which I had class.

 

Even the graduate assistants has a shared office which everyone would leave so they could meet with students privately.

[LucyStoner]

When I taught as a grad assistant I had my own office. Well technically I shared but the other instructor was never there except during his 2 office hours/week during which I had class.

 

Even the graduate assistants has a shared office which everyone would leave so they could meet with students privately.

 

Exactly, I recall that the ones with shared offices had their office hours at different times.  Most of the grad students I worked with were women, but that wasn't by design.  It's just how it worked out for me.  I had an honors advisor who was a physics professor, and he implored me to come to office hours every week so he could try and get me to change my major to physics.  We had other things to work on (I had two classes with him each term, and he was my assigned honors program advisor), but that was the standing joke.  He even pinned the major change form for me to his bulletin board.  No, there was nothing inappropriate going on.  He was just a physics professor trying to build his program up.   I'm sure I wasn't the only student in the honors program he was trying to pitch his field of study too.  

[creekland]

The problem is that what people are comfortable with is totally and completely subjective.  I personally would not want to be in a career where me going to dinner alone with a guy was necessary to the point of losing my job or not being able to advance if I didn't. I don't find it creepy or threatening, I don't think it's sexual harassment, I just wouldn't want to be in a job that required it. It doesn't mean I think I would possibly have an accidental affair if I went on a dinner date. It doesn't mean I view every man as a potential threat. It doesn't mean I have objectified every male co-worker. 

 

The kicker is I don't mind if other people don't mind going out one on one with co-workers.  Like I said before, different strokes.  Some people don't mind working 80 hours a week and some careers demand it.  If I say that I wouldn't want to be in a job that requires it, that it personally wouldn't work well for my family or my relationship with my husband, that is not a personal slight against someone who chooses to work that much. It doesn't mean that I care if other people find it fulfilling or want to do it or have to do it to get by.  My standards or desires or whatever are not a commentary on anyone else's choice.

 

Which is why I find the commentary about any one person's choices, to the point of saying they are sexist, discriminatory, etc to be absurd.  People have ascribed all kinds of motives and horrible problems to people who have different boundaries than they do.  It really boggles my mind. I have ordered my life in such a way that I'm comfortable living.

 

You (general), in your life, may not be able to figure out a way to have a certain standard (whether that's personal interactions, hours spent at work, whatever standard) and still have a fulfilling career and be a good boss or employee.  That doesn't mean other people can't or haven't done so.  It doesn't mean other people are weirdos or disordered or sexist or lack self-control or want to jump on anyone that they see.  And all of those things have been implied or said outright in these threads about people with simply differing relationship boundaries or standards.

 

The point isn't what you choose for your own life.  We're all free to do that - take or not take jobs, etc.

 

The point is when what you personally believe stops another adult from advancing due to gender, it's just plain illegal.  If your job requires (or is common practice) to be one on one with people - any gender - and you refuse to do it, that's wrong.  Plenty of us have given examples of these types of jobs.  It doesn't mean all jobs are that way.

 

When it's a parent doing this to their adult or almost adult kids, it's not illegal, but it's pretty darn sad (spoken as one who could have had it happen to them - and I shudder!).

 

Not everyone finds these things sexual, and even if some do, that shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us just as someone texting/driving and crashing doesn't mean we all text in our cars and should be prohibited from driving.

 

I can't imagine having gone through life without the male friends/coworkers I've had - nothing even remotely sexual about them - not even a kiss or holding hands - just friends.  In the same way, I have lesbian friends/coworkers - nothing even remotely sexual about them - not even a kiss or holding hands - just friends.  

 

One friend eventually became my husband - 28+ years ago - but that's sort of the way it's supposed to happen.  He wasn't a co-worker, though we shared a dorm (not dorm room - just dorm).  The others all remain(ed) friends.

Edited April 2, 2017 by creekland

[Hyacinth]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/01/i-worked-for-mike-pence-being-a-woman-never-held-me-back/

 

This woman says she worked for Pence.

[Lady Florida.]

All I know after reading this thread is that Pence now seems positively progressive compared to the views expressed in some of these posts.  

 

And yet, Dot's post was called trolling/pot stirring though she merely pointed out the truth.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[EmseB]

The point isn't what you choose for your own life.  We're all free to do that - take or not take jobs, etc.

 

The point is when what you personally believe stops another adult from advancing due to gender, it's just plain illegal.  If your job requires (or is common practice) to be one on one with people - any gender - and you refuse to do it, that's wrong.  Plenty of us have given examples of these types of jobs.  It doesn't mean all jobs are that way.

 

Okay, and I agree that discriminating based on gender is wrong.  I personally think (again, after working in a male dominated field, having to go to business meetings, being a supervisor of both men and women, going conferences and exercises out of state, staying in hotels, going out to dinner, etc) that the concerns in the example case are being overblown due to political disagreements and preconceived ideas about how things must be for one person based on a couple of sentences in an article about something he said 15 years ago. On this point, I get that we can disagree because obviously many people do. However, I also think that it's a fairly serious accusation to levy against someone, based on little to no direct evidence or having had actually worked for them or heard from someone who did.  I would venture a guess that many people work for and around people that have less liberal personal standards than their own and yet never even know it because it's not a big deal and doesn't really affect things all that much. To me, it doesn't follow that someone who has a more conservative (not in the political sense of the word) standard in this area is necessarily giving the shaft to all their employees of the opposite gender.  It seems that people here think that must be the case, but my experience with dozens of co-workers spanning almost a decade tells me otherwise.  Granted, I'm a sample size of one and I'm not saying it never happens.  I'm just saying that it isn't something that can be assumed automatically

 

When it's a parent doing this to their adult or almost adult kids, it's not illegal, but it's pretty darn sad (spoken as one who could have had it happen to them - and I shudder!).

 

I would not mandate this for my own adult children.  I don't know how someone would, practically speaking.  I think adults should make their own choices.

 

Not everyone finds these things sexual, and even if some do, that shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us just as someone texting/driving and crashing doesn't mean we all text in our cars and should be prohibited from driving.

 

So this is the point that I and others have been addressing.  I don't find these things sexual either.  Again, just because someone makes different choices, it doesn't follow that they must ascribe the loaded motive that you're stating here to their own or anyone else's actions.  No one I know thinks that a one-on-one dinner with someone is necessarily sexual in any way.  They don't think going to conferences or having meetings or working in the field with them is sexual or will become sexual.  I mean, I guess, at least from my perspective, it's not because I think those activities are sexual. I do not ascribe sexual motives or aspirations to everyone I meet and I don't think every interaction with the opposite sex is sexual in nature (uh, thank God!). 

 

I can't imagine having gone through life without the male friends/coworkers I've had - nothing even remotely sexual about them - not even a kiss or holding hands - just friends.  In the same way, I have lesbian friends/coworkers - nothing even remotely sexual about them - not even a kiss or holding hands - just friends.  

 

I have had/do have male friends that have been purely platonic as well as had a few where feelings have developed on one side or the other.  I have/had many good friends who are guys.  I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.  Of course women can have guy friends where nothing sexual happens.  Has someone suggested otherwise?

 

One friend eventually became my husband - 28+ years ago - but that's sort of the way it's supposed to happen.  He wasn't a co-worker, though we shared a dorm (not dorm room - just dorm).  The others all remain(ed) friends.

 

Total tangent: It's funny, because I just thought about it in the context of this thread and with my DH, our getting together was based on meeting one time.  I mean, not a hookup, but we did not start dating based on a long-standing friendship. It was literally one dinner out (not alone, ha ha) that got us interested in each other.  We were never friends before going out.  That's weird when I think about it because I always thought I'd end up married to someone I had been friends with for a long time (not a specific person, just, that's how I thought it "happened")

 

[8circles]

 

 

 

It doesn't matter what the motivation is, in PRACTICE it's discriminatory. I don't care how non-politically conservative anyone is. But when someone won't work - late hours, over dinner, 1on1 meeting - with me because I'm a woman, that is discrimination even if in his mind he's being a dedicated family man. He should get an different job.

Edited April 2, 2017 by 8circles

[EmseB]

And yet, Dot's post was called trolling/pot stirring though she merely pointed out the truth.

The post trying to pit Islam against Christianity to start a religious debate about whether Allah and Jesus are the same deity? Totally unrelated to the thread? Yes, I still think that's pot stirring and will own my words as such.

[poppy]

I just saw in the news that bit where the Fox News celebrity has had FIVE multi million dollar sexual harassment charges, where apparently he promised to mentor young women privately, but then ruined their career changes at the network if they rejected his advances.  Some of these were paid by the Fox News chairman who has had his own set of similar charges.

 

I wonder if that plays into this all, if there is a culture at play where men are either very strict family men or 1950s-style "Mad Men" style predators.