Musing about something with attractive work partners

[Jaybee]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

No kidding. I was scratching my head on that one...,I don’t know a single man who would not have helped that woman in the parking lot.  Even if one of them had to be late to his appointment or even if one of them was alone with her while either helping her jump it or calling AAA. What jerks.  

Right. I would be mad at dh if he didn't help a woman in that situation! But he would, because he's that kind of a man. 

As to the first paragraph Quill just wrote, it made me laugh too, and think, "And I always thought that meant I was a pessim...realist!" Because I nearly always think through all the scenarios. It helps me handle life with its bumps better when I know I have. (Though I never have explored the infidelity angle with it beyond that we are fallible--and I won't.)

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

Right. I would be mad at dh if he didn't help a woman in that situation! But he would, because he's that kind of a man. 

As to the first paragraph Quill just wrote, it made me laugh too, and think, "And I always thought that meant I was a pessim...realist!" Because I nearly always think through all the scenarios. It helps me handle life with its bumps better when I know I have. (Though I never have explored the infidelity angle with it beyond that we are fallible--and I won't.)

This is quite tangential but, in the book The Unthinkable, which talks about behavior in a disaster/crisis, studies have found that the most likely people to survive and/or save the lives of others in a disaster are people in law enforcement or with a military background. The reason is because people with such training are typically mentally prepared for a disaster. They habitually observe things like exits, what they would do if XYZ happened, etc. They have a mental contingency plan that they are much more likely to put directly into action when there’s an explosion, a terrorist act, a tornado, a plane malfunction and so on. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic. 

[Jaybee]

44 minutes ago, Plum said:

How we got there couldn’t be as bad as giving birth in a tree with alligator-filled flood waters below. 

Ain't that the truth!! Perspective is a powerful thing.

[Jaybee]

53 minutes ago, Quill said:

This is quite tangential but, in the book The Unthinkable, which talks about behavior in a disaster/crisis, studies have found that the most likely people to survive and/or save the lives of others in a disaster are people in law enforcement or with a military background. The reason is because people with such training are typically mentally prepared for a disaster. They habitually observe things like exits, what they would do if XYZ happened, etc. They have a mental contingency plan that they are much more likely to put directly into action when there’s an explosion, a terrorist act, a tornado, a plane malfunction and so on. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic. 

On the tangential topic 😄, we have had a very varied life, and in the process, I learned a lot of street smarts. I wouldn't say I am hypervigilant, but I am certainly aware. I tell myself that it isn't worry, but rather preparation, lol. Interestingly, when my father died, I was much more prepared than my siblings, because I had thought through the scenarios every single time we left to go overseas. 

ETA: One effect of this mindset is that there is little that surprises me. So with our children, we have tried to emphasize that they can come to us with anything. We have seen a lot, and so while we hope for the best and encourage them to strive for that, we recognize our own potential for failure in one aspect or another. We have high ideals and expectations for them, but can also come alongside with commiseration and understanding when they don't reach our or their own expectations. Doesn't mean we wouldn't be disappointed, but we also won't hit the roof. We do sincerely pray for them, because this world can be hard.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Jaybee

[2squared]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

Hey, just an interesting update from something I was listening to yesterday. If was on my Calm app and it was a class about Stoical Philosophy. The instructor was saying equilibrium is improved when you accept all things could happen. He gave the example of going on a trip; your flight may be delayed, you might get pulled out for searching by security, the food might be suspended, the plane might wait on the tarmac due to weather or mechanicals, etc. It is better, he was saying, to embrace and acknowledge that any bad outcome might happen. People who grasp onto the idea that bad outcomes can never happen in their case experience much greater instability when bad stuff happens. 

I thought about this thread and infidelity in that light, and I think, that’s how I think about it. I don’t think it’s likely but I don’t think it’s impossible for me to be cheated on, or for myself to be pulled away. We do know that external structure helps people do what they mean to do, and not do what they don’t mean to do. Seen in that light, self-parameters, like someone upthread called the Billy Graham rule (never knew people called it that, but it suits), are a good idea. I don’t think it’s wise for any rule to be upheld no matter what, like in the example of giving the woman a jump in the parking lot. That’s gettin’ a bit hair-splitting to me. But I can see where the general rule would be more helpful than not. 

I live by the concept posted above, but I detest the Billy Graham rule. I think the Graham rule does nothing but hurt and demean women. I can’t imagine not meeting with men 1:1 in a work setting. Not only would I not be able to be successful in my role, but my male coworkers wouldn’t be successful either. Not to mention, treating a males differently than females is illegal. 
 

But, anyway, I think the way to live out the philosophy above is to mitigate the impact of bad scenarios, not to focus on eliminating the bad scenarios. For instance, how to mitigate the impact of a marriage ending. What do I do? I make sure I can support myself and my kids, know our financial resources, and am capable to live independently if I ever need to. Marriages can end for so many reasons. Living the philosophy means I am set up to recover from my marriage ending or my spouse being disabled or dying. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, 2squared said:

I live by the concept posted above, but I detest the Billy Graham rule. I think the Graham rule does nothing but hurt and demean women. I can’t imagine not meeting with men 1:1 in a work setting. Not only would I not be able to be successful in my role, but my male coworkers wouldn’t be successful either. Not to mention, treating a males differently than females is illegal. 
 

But, anyway, I think the way to live out the philosophy above is to mitigate the impact of bad scenarios, not to focus on eliminating the bad scenarios. For instance, how to mitigate the impact of a marriage ending. What do I do? I make sure I can support myself and my kids, know our financial resources, and am capable to live independently if I ever need to. Marriages can end for so many reasons. Living the philosophy means I am set up to recover from my marriage ending or my spouse being disabled or dying. 

I couldn’t agree more with your second paragraph. It’s a big part of the reason I didn’t/don’t advocate early marriage and am big on daughters being capable of manning the ship, should that become necessary for any reason. 

As to your first paragraph, it is possible I don’t know precisely how The Billy Graham Rule” is expressed. I just took the kernel of truth from it and applied it as a general rule to keep oneself out of situations that could either look wrong or actually be wrong. Male or female; I don’t see it as a gender thing, just a wise decision of self-governance. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

Hey, just an interesting update from something I was listening to yesterday. If was on my Calm app and it was a class about Stoical Philosophy. The instructor was saying equilibrium is improved when you accept all things could happen. He gave the example of going on a trip; your flight may be delayed, you might get pulled out for searching by security, the food might be suspended, the plane might wait on the tarmac due to weather or mechanicals, etc. It is better, he was saying, to embrace and acknowledge that any bad outcome might happen. People who grasp onto the idea that bad outcomes can never happen in their case experience much greater instability when bad stuff happens. 

I thought about this thread and infidelity in that light, and I think, that’s how I think about it. I don’t think it’s likely but I don’t think it’s impossible for me to be cheated on, or for myself to be pulled away. We do know that external structure helps people do what they mean to do, and not do what they don’t mean to do. Seen in that light, self-parameters, like someone upthread called the Billy Graham rule (never knew people called it that, but it suits), are a good idea. I don’t think it’s wise for any rule to be upheld no matter what, like in the example of giving the woman a jump in the parking lot. That’s gettin’ a bit hair-splitting to me. But I can see where the general rule would be more helpful than not. 

By that logic I had better not work with anyone because they might murder me. Or might sexually harass me (male or female). Or might steal from me - even if it’s my lunch from the break room. The POC might accuse me of racism (since the Billy Graham rule is about avoiding the possibility of being falsely accused. ). 
 

People do bad things. But people can also be honorable and trustworthy. Instead of descriminating against people (because that’s what this is at it’s core) maybe it’s better to be so honorable yourself that you won’t give into sexual advances. That you will brush off little problems and won’t turn a blind eye to big ones (thus being an accessory). That you will treat people with kindness and professionalism no matter their gender or race or sexual orientation. That you will recognize that everyone has skills- even “gorgeous women “ and have a right to make a living and to start a business. 

[Bootsie]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

Hey, just an interesting update from something I was listening to yesterday. If was on my Calm app and it was a class about Stoical Philosophy. The instructor was saying equilibrium is improved when you accept all things could happen. He gave the example of going on a trip; your flight may be delayed, you might get pulled out for searching by security, the food might be suspended, the plane might wait on the tarmac due to weather or mechanicals, etc. It is better, he was saying, to embrace and acknowledge that any bad outcome might happen. People who grasp onto the idea that bad outcomes can never happen in their case experience much greater instability when bad stuff happens. 

I thought about this thread and infidelity in that light, and I think, that’s how I think about it. I don’t think it’s likely but I don’t think it’s impossible for me to be cheated on, or for myself to be pulled away. We do know that external structure helps people do what they mean to do, and not do what they don’t mean to do. Seen in that light, self-parameters, like someone upthread called the Billy Graham rule (never knew people called it that, but it suits), are a good idea. I don’t think it’s wise for any rule to be upheld no matter what, like in the example of giving the woman a jump in the parking lot. That’s gettin’ a bit hair-splitting to me. But I can see where the general rule would be more helpful than not. 

I think there is a difference in grasping the idea that bad outcomes can happen and putting rules in place to try to control and prevent those things from happening.  I don't not fly because I might have a bad outcome and be stuck on the tarmac.  I don't make sure that I have a tool box with me and personal mechanical training so that I can fix the plane if there is a problem.  Yes, I take a bag of almonds with me when I fly because food service might be disrupted, but I don't travel with the ability to fix a complete meal.  I accept that there are some things out of my control.  I weigh what is a reasonable plan, based on the probability of something happening, and how much a plan will weigh me down.   

To me, putting rules in place of who my spouse or I can work with based on physical attributes or gender in order to reduce the chance that there was an extra-marital affair, thus perhaps preventing my spouse from developing a successful business, would be akin to not flying because of the low probability that I will sit on the tarmac without food because of mechanical problems.  There is a difference in acknowledging, and accepting, that something COULD happen and it is out of your control and taking draconian measures to prevent it from happening.  

[katilac]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

 I thought about this thread and infidelity in that light, and I think, that’s how I think about it. I don’t think it’s likely but I don’t think it’s impossible for me to be cheated on, or for myself to be pulled away. We do know that external structure helps people do what they mean to do, and not do what they don’t mean to do. Seen in that light, self-parameters, like someone upthread called the Billy Graham rule (never knew people called it that, but it suits), are a good idea. I don’t think it’s wise for any rule to be upheld no matter what, like in the example of giving the woman a jump in the parking lot. That’s gettin’ a bit hair-splitting to me. But I can see where the general rule would be more helpful than not. 

My brain just does not make the leap from 'it's not impossible for dh to cheat' to 'therefore dh should never be alone with a female.'  

By this reasoning, your dh should never be alone with anyone, because if you accept that anything could happen, you have to accept that he could have a fling with a male coworker as well. 

[Matryoshka]

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

My brain just does not make the leap from 'it's not impossible for dh to cheat' to 'therefore dh should never be alone with a female.'  

By this reasoning, your dh should never be alone with anyone, because if you accept that anything could happen, you have to accept that he could have a fling with a male coworker as well. 

Grace and Frankie!

[EmseB]

4 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

By that logic I had better not work with anyone because they might murder me. Or might sexually harass me (male or female). Or might steal from me - even if it’s my lunch from the break room. The POC might accuse me of racism (since the Billy Graham rule is about avoiding the possibility of being falsely accused. ). 
 

People do bad things. But people can also be honorable and trustworthy. Instead of descriminating against people (because that’s what this is at it’s core) maybe it’s better to be so honorable yourself that you won’t give into sexual advances. That you will brush off little problems and won’t turn a blind eye to big ones (thus being an accessory). That you will treat people with kindness and professionalism no matter their gender or race or sexual orientation. That you will recognize that everyone has skills- even “gorgeous women “ and have a right to make a living and to start a business. 

But you do do things like lock your doors, don't let strangers in your house, don't do things that are overall risky, right? Everyone takes precautions for these scenarios all the time even if they are so ingrained that we don't think about them. Everyone takes some kind of precautions that don't give an appearance of vulnerability (like not waving cash around after you get it from an atm or not staring into one's phone while walking around alone). The fact that you think my precaution of not wanting to be alone with a man in certain scenarios is unreasonable doesn't make it so. It isn't about discrimination or thinking everyone is going to do something horrible, or even that a particular person is going to do something horrible. And of course it requires a working brain to say I can walk into a break room at work even if it would mean I'm "alone" with another person, but maybe being in their hotel room on a work trip is a different form of "alone". There is alone, and then there is Alone.

I don't think this is about gender either. To use another example, in my church, no adult is allowed to be alone with a child or children. This doesn't assume everyone is a predator and it has nothing to do with rights of people to teach Sunday school or run youth group. I'm sure we can all see the wisdom in this rule as it's pretty universal these days, and it has nothing to do with assuming bad things about particular people or discrimination. And a good argument against the rule isn't, "Well I know that so-and-so would never hurt a child! If I thought he was capable of that I'd never ask him to teach Sunday School!" 

As a female who was in the military I would have been extremely uncomfortable with, say, a male superior insisting we had to be alone together to accomplish some task. That's not to say I was never alone with a male co-worker, but it was never a situation that was insisted upon by someone higher up, or even a peer. I mean, Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer are people who exist in the world and are far from the only creeps out there who would take advantage of seniority and power.

I doubt Quill really thinks good looking people don't have a right to start a business or that they don'thave skills, lol. That is taking things to an extreme. Being concerned about the quality and quantity of alone time your spouse spends with another person isn't unreasonable.

[EmseB]

I don't know how this got from the OP to having an inflexible rule about never, ever being alone with someone one who is not one's spouse.

It seems like the latter is being brought up as a strawman to dismiss any and all concerns in the former.

[katilac]

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't know how this got from the OP to having an inflexible rule about never, ever being alone with someone one who is not one's spouse.

It seems like the latter is being brought up as a strawman to dismiss any and all concerns in the former.

But the OP seems to be on board with it, or at least consider it a reasonable choice. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

9 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But you do do things like lock your doors, don't let strangers in your house, don't do things that are overall risky, right? Everyone takes precautions for these scenarios all the time even if they are so ingrained that we don't think about them. Everyone takes some kind of precautions that don't give an appearance of vulnerability (like not waving cash around after you get it from an atm or not staring into one's phone while walking around alone). The fact that you think my precaution of not wanting to be alone with a man in certain scenarios is unreasonable doesn't make it so. It isn't about discrimination or thinking everyone is going to do something horrible, or even that a particular person is going to do something horrible. And of course it requires a working brain to say I can walk into a break room at work even if it would mean I'm "alone" with another person, but maybe being in their hotel room on a work trip is a different form of "alone". There is alone, and then there is Alone.

I don't think this is about gender either. To use another example, in my church, no adult is allowed to be alone with a child or children. This doesn't assume everyone is a predator and it has nothing to do with rights of people to teach Sunday school or run youth group. I'm sure we can all see the wisdom in this rule as it's pretty universal these days, and it has nothing to do with assuming bad things about particular people or discrimination. And a good argument against the rule isn't, "Well I know that so-and-so would never hurt a child! If I thought he was capable of that I'd never ask him to teach Sunday School!" 

As a female who was in the military I would have been extremely uncomfortable with, say, a male superior insisting we had to be alone together to accomplish some task. That's not to say I was never alone with a male co-worker, but it was never a situation that was insisted upon by someone higher up, or even a peer. I mean, Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer are people who exist in the world and are far from the only creeps out there who would take advantage of seniority and power.

I doubt Quill really thinks good looking people don't have a right to start a business or that they don'thave skills, lol. That is taking things to an extreme. Being concerned about the quality and quantity of alone time your spouse spends with another person isn't unreasonable.

Of course people (individuals and corporately) take certain precautions.  This is why most businesses have big windows on conference rooms and even offices.  But examples - from this thread - are things like not driving somewhere with a male coworker, and not starting a business with a female partner (are females only supposed to start businesses by themselves or with their spouse or with another woman?). 

Yes, creeps are everywhere.  I have met my fair share.  And I dealt with them.  I told the person who would spank my bottom every time he went by, VERY LOUDLY to get his hands off of me and that the next time he did it, he would need hand surgery.  (My female boss defended him and told me that he was from another generation and that I should put up with it.   I refused.)  I told the guy who used to comment every time he saw me on my bust size that unless he wanted me to go to HR AND make a phone call to his wife (who I knew) that he'd better knock it off.  (He blustered about how I was too sensitive and I didn't back down and he did.  And while I was at it, I told him to lay off from harassing other females in that office.  And the other females thanked me for it.)  I quit the job where a male boss kept propositioning me because in that situation I didn't have any leverage at all and retreat was the best course of action.  Maybe now I would have more options but I didn't then.

Marriages are built on trust and caring and attention to each other.  A man can spend all his time at work with other men and still neglect the wife and family.  And a man can choose to honor his vows even if he's working with women in the workplace - even if that woman is gorgeous and has risen in rank and experience and skills to be business partner material. 

[LucyStoner]

7 hours ago, Quill said:

Hey, just an interesting update from something I was listening to yesterday. If was on my Calm app and it was a class about Stoical Philosophy. The instructor was saying equilibrium is improved when you accept all things could happen. He gave the example of going on a trip; your flight may be delayed, you might get pulled out for searching by security, the food might be suspended, the plane might wait on the tarmac due to weather or mechanicals, etc. It is better, he was saying, to embrace and acknowledge that any bad outcome might happen. People who grasp onto the idea that bad outcomes can never happen in their case experience much greater instability when bad stuff happens. 

I thought about this thread and infidelity in that light, and I think, that’s how I think about it. I don’t think it’s likely but I don’t think it’s impossible for me to be cheated on, or for myself to be pulled away. We do know that external structure helps people do what they mean to do, and not do what they don’t mean to do. Seen in that light, self-parameters, like someone upthread called the Billy Graham rule (never knew people called it that, but it suits), are a good idea. I don’t think it’s wise for any rule to be upheld no matter what, like in the example of giving the woman a jump in the parking lot. That’s gettin’ a bit hair-splitting to me. But I can see where the general rule would be more helpful than not. 

I’m not sure if stoical philosophy distilled down to an app is very persuasive to me.  I can understand that anything can happen while also knowing someone and their personality and values. I also know that I’ve survived and thrived through some serious sh!t in my life.  Serious enough and often enough to know that I would not be gutted by much of anything.  

I reject the “Billy Graham rules” because I don’t see the world like that.  I don’t think that temptation (attraction) is the only thing required to cheat. That attraction also doesn’t happen with all or even a sizable number of adults.   So banning myself from working with other people based on their sex is also banning myself from working with people who I mostly wouldn’t find attractive anyways.  

  I’ve felt an attraction to someone when I was married.  It was uncomfortable.  What did I do?  I talked to my husband and protected my boundaries.  It made sense for me to avoid that person in a way that it doesn’t make sense for me to avoid all males. And even then it wasn’t because I was afraid I would cheat, it was because I didn’t enjoy the discomfort . My husband has had women explicitly hit on him.  He’s always rebuffed them.  

My friend who is an experienced marriage therapist broadly lumps most cheating spouses into two categories.  Those who do it repeatedly because they don’t feel bound by their marriage vows.  And those who who do it once or twice because something is going on in their marriage and they won’t discuss it with their spouse due to immaturity or shallowness of the cheater’s communication.  I know I’m not married to the former.  I also know I’m married to a man with the social and emotional skills to talk to me about anything.  It wasn’t always this way (we were super young when we got married) but he’s done the work to learn those skills because it was important to him.  

To me if the only thing keeping someone faithful in their marriage is just a blanket avoidance of all people of the opposite sex, there’s something off about that person’s moral compass.  

Edited June 30, 2020 by LucyStoner

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

But the OP seems to be on board with it, or at least consider it a reasonable choice. 

And? That's an individual decision that people have to be free to make. Again, if I had a boss in a position of power over me who also insisted on closed-door meetings frequently no matter my standard on the issue I would find that not only weird and uncomfortable, but also discriminatory.

But I have been in the position of having to negatively counsel a subordinate and even then, sexual harassment taken completely out of the picture, my next level supervisor was required to be there as a witness to the counseling for all sorts of reasons...to ensure I'm not targeting him unfairly, to document the meeting, etc. Heck, I don't think my ob/gyn is a bad guy getting his jollies but even when I've had a female doctor, a nurse is always present for pants-off procedures. Not because the doctor isn't a professional or because I'm scared or because we can't be alone together. We live in a litigious, liability driven culture, that ALSO, by the way wants people to be given the benefit of the doubt when they accuse others of sexually based harassment or crimes. Doesn't it seem prudent, then, that both parties would want to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation or any issues? I know I do! I can think of a million and one scenarios where accountability comes in the form of simply a door being open or another person being in the room or a recording device being on if none of those things are possible.

But all of this is kind of a tangent from having an issue with the kind of quality and quantity of time a spouse is spending with another person.

[EmseB]

34 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 

To me if the only thing keeping someone faithful in their marriage is just a blanket avoidance of all people of the opposite sex, there’s something off about that person’s moral compass.  

Is anyone anywhere saying that's what's going on? Like blanket avoidance with no consideration for environment, situation, persons involved, or timing? That that avoidance is "the only thing keeping someone faithful"? I know that rules read tend to lend themselves to not thinking and simple rule following, but does (did) anyone, even Billy Graham himself, apply them without any thinking involved? I'm not in favor of zero tolerance in any situation, including this one because it takes away human judgment, which is always needed. Again, I think this is a strawman to the actual issues involved. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by EmseB

[LucyStoner]

52 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Is anyone anywhere saying that's what's going on? Like blanket avoidance with no consideration for environment, situation, persons involved, or timing? That that avoidance is "the only thing keeping someone faithful"? I know that rules read tend to lend themselves to not thinking and simple rule following, but does (did) anyone, even Billy Graham himself, apply them without any thinking involved? I'm not in favor of zero tolerance in any situation, including this one because it takes away human judgment, which is always needed. Again, I think this is a strawman to the actual issues involved. 

Of the people whom I know *personally* who abide by this rule, they do tend to express explicitly that "all it takes" is being tempted by the devil and "one moment of weakness". So, I think I can be forgiven for believing that how this rule supposedly stems infidelity is by eliminating all temptation.  And yes, I think that eliminating all temptation is an overly simple way to address the issue.  I don't feel tempted to violate my marriage vows as a matter of course.  Even the one time I felt attraction that was more than a passing recognition that someone is good looking, I didn't feel likely to act on it.  I do find the belief that "all it takes is one moment of weakness" to be shallow and I do associate it with a deficit in someone's morality.  It is immoral to minimize one's personal role in infidelity and to reduce it to just being tempted (either by the devil or the attractive person.)  It's immoral to engage in workplace discrimination.  It is immoral to limit people based on their attractiveness. I feel strongly that people who do this nonsense should remove themselves from the situation rather than engage in workplace discrimination that both humiliates and belittles women, especially women who are considered attractive. If their regressive views are going to limit anyone's professional lives, it should be their own and not the people who have to work with them.  

 

[LucyStoner]

Regarding not helping a woman jump her car, I just can't even grasp the logic of refusing on the basis that it's inappropriate to render aid to a human because of their sex.  

1.  We take care of each other.  Period.  There are very few situations in which it would be appropriate to not offer assistance. 

2.  Normal people do not scam on (and by scam on, I mean hit on) people they come across on the side of the road who are in need of help.  The people who have hit on me in such situations are the creepy creep creeps of the world.  

3.  Unfortunately, women who are stranded are more vulnerable to creeps. It's incumbent on the non-creeps of the world to help a stranded woman become unstranded so she doesn't have to say yes to an offer of help that raises her alarm bells.  

Edited June 30, 2020 by LucyStoner

[katilac]

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

And? That's an individual decision that people have to be free to make. Again, if I had a boss in a position of power over me who also insisted on closed-door meetings frequently no matter my standard on the issue I would find that not only weird and uncomfortable, but also discriminatory.

But I have been in the position of having to negatively counsel a subordinate and even then, sexual harassment taken completely out of the picture, my next level supervisor was required to be there as a witness to the counseling for all sorts of reasons...to ensure I'm not targeting him unfairly, to document the meeting, etc. Heck, I don't think my ob/gyn is a bad guy getting his jollies but even when I've had a female doctor, a nurse is always present for pants-off procedures. Not because the doctor isn't a professional or because I'm scared or because we can't be alone together. We live in a litigious, liability driven culture, that ALSO, by the way wants people to be given the benefit of the doubt when they accuse others of sexually based harassment or crimes. Doesn't it seem prudent, then, that both parties would want to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation or any issues? I know I do! I can think of a million and one scenarios where accountability comes in the form of simply a door being open or another person being in the room or a recording device being on if none of those things are possible.

But all of this is kind of a tangent from having an issue with the kind of quality and quantity of time a spouse is spending with another person.

And you said it was quite a departure from the OP's original premise, when I don't think the OP reacted that way. Your corporate example of handling meetings with subordinates is pretty far off from the original scenario of business partners, as well. We can all discuss whatever we choose to discuss. 

We all have different experiences. dh and I have worked at various jobs in various states, and none of them h. ave ever required that we have a next level supervisor sit in on a meeting with a subordinate, and I've never heard anyone in real life reference that, so I don't at all think it's anywhere near a universal rule. However, I wouldn't have a huge problem with a company requiring a third person in such meetings if it's required all the time and not in relation to male/female interactions. I would have a problem with a company requiring a third person when going to lunch, and I would have a problem with that sort of rule being applied to my personal life. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

16 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

In the era of Me Too, the Billy Graham rule and iterations of it are looking smarter and smarter.  It may just be leaving a door open or meeting in a restaurant and not a hotel room, but keeping it mixed company public or easily observable is just not the worst idea ever.  I know that’s how my spouse operates with a female boss and a team under him that is half younger women.  He doesn’t discriminate or change opportunities at all, he just doesn’t schedule private meetings in rooms where other people cannot walk by and see through the glass.  In a modern office with cubes and conference rooms it just isn’t that difficult.  The principle is just keeping everything as above board as possible without being ridiculous.

This thread was started with a topic of not working at all with a woman partner. There is absolutely nothing wrong with meeting in more public settings as long as privacy laws etc are met to protect clients or proprietary information. But denying women opportunities just because they are women is not some moral victory. 

[Moonhawk]

So I've been staying out of this thread but jumping in a bit late.. 

My general opinion is that I would not be concerned about my hypothetical husband working with a woman. I would be concerned about my hypothetical husband starting a business with a woman, but not to the point that I would disallow it or make a fuss. This concern reflects more on me and my security of my hypothetical marriage more than it reflects on the woman or my hypothetical husband.

[I could also make an argument that the gorgeous business partner is less a threat than an average-looking business partner because the gorgeous one is probably used to being hit on more and has more reflexes to avoid and shut down the situation. But I don't want to distract from my true intention with this post and see this more as an interesting debate than a fact.]

But life is not always a hypothesis. 

For some men, the choice not to be alone with other women, work closely with other women, or put themselves in situations where they develop any type of relationship with women, is appropriate. I know the "Billy Graham rule" is mostly virtue signaling and often paints men as unable to control themselves and women as walking temptations, which is gross on both counts. But, that doesn't mean that every guy following these restrictions is doing it to virtue signal or because they see all women as available or temptations or trying to lead them astray -- they do it for themselves and their own mental equilibrium. [And in many business environments it's just smart, regardless of the sex of the individuals.]

I don't deem the measures necessary in the vast majority of cases. My hypothetical husband can pick up groceries, go on business trips where there will be women, and shut his door when talking to a female colleague about private and business issues.

That doesn't mean that in the few situations they are necessary that men should be ridiculed or put down to poor moral fiber or damaged moral compass. How does doing what is necessary for oneself now a flaw? Does any of this sound easy and something someone without strength of will would do? Someone who is more prone to these temptations isn't a creep until they act like a creep, putting them into that basket immediately is a whole lot of judge and counterproductive [for the record, I don't think anyone has said that yet, so I'm not attacking/arguing anyone particular with this]. 

AND, it still doesn't eliminate all temptation, but does take away a lot of avenues to act; taking away the "easy answers" is what the goal is here. Everyone has a willpower amount, and some people have less in these areas. You could probably trust me with your retirement savings, but don't leave me with your chocolate cake. 

As an aside, regardless of my previous experience plus my always-held dislike for adultery (like, so strongly held it is ironic), I know that I am not immune. Since being married (or really, since dating) I do not register other men as attractive beings. Sure, there may be underlying symptoms and cheating only happens if blah blah blah, but I do not declare myself as perfect in this or any regard. Who knows, someday I may be struck by lightning and I only hope I have the wits and will to run the other way.

PS - jumping a car is such a funny "but what if!" to me. If you have the ability to help someone in this situation, you do it, regardless of their sex.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Joker]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

I think there is a really a misunderstanding of the why and how of that rule. It’s not about temptation so much as the appearance of propriety and impropriety and trying to prevent reputations from being ruined...?

 

This is the way I’ve always understood it.

Like I said upthread somewhere, dh never does the after work socializing on his trips back to the office unless I’m with him. And it is about how he worries about things being misinterpreted. On one trip I went on, we ended up walking back a female employee who had too much to drink. Turns out she was staying in our hotel and on our floor. Dh said that was exactly the type of thing he wants to avoid when he’s traveling without me. If anyone had seen and he was alone, they might have come to a different conclusion and it could have been bad since she was drunk.

That said, it’s not something he worries about during work hours at the office because it’s just not feasible. But he definitely doesn’t put himself in social situations outside of work that could be seen as something troublesome.

[LucyStoner]

I had a boss who talked all the time about not wanting to be accused of sexual harassment.  He talked about it so often and for so long that it was hard not to wonder WTF was wrong with him.  He made a big show of making sure the door was open etc.  I was a 19 year old woman at the time.  It was honestly as uncomfortable as the times I have been sexually harassed.  I quit after a short time and went to work for a man who was respectful, kind and never suggested anything improper.  Both of these men left doors open, scheduled things in public etc.  One made me profoundly uncomfortable and treated me like an object, the other treated me like a person.  When people are overly invested in keeping up appearances, a sense of authenticity and human kindness do get lost, in my experience.  

[EmseB]

4 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

I had a boss who talked all the time about not wanting to be accused of sexual harassment.  He talked about it so often and for so long that it was hard not to wonder WTF was wrong with him.  He made a big show of making sure the door was open etc.  I was a 19 year old woman at the time.  It was honestly as uncomfortable as the times I have been sexually harassed.  I quit after a short time and went to work for a man who was respectful, kind and never suggested anything improper.  Both of these men left doors open, scheduled things in public etc.  One made me profoundly uncomfortable and treated me like an object, the other treated me like a person.  When people are overly invested in keeping up appearances, a sense of authenticity and human kindness do get lost, in my experience.  

I don't think there has to be a big show or statement of rules or why things are being done a certain way. I agree, to constantly bring it up would be creepy.

[EmseB]

5 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

 

Marriages are built on trust and caring and attention to each other.  A man can spend all his time at work with other men and still neglect the wife and family.  And a man can choose to honor his vows even if he's working with women in the workplace - even if that woman is gorgeous and has risen in rank and experience and skills to be business partner material. 

I agree with this. I think a start up business with a close partner of either gender can have any number of issues.

As for who should or shouldn't start up businesses, I guess I would limit myself to starting up a business for any of those issues, including the complications that could ensue if I was spending large amounts if time developing an intense working relationship with the opposite sex. I wouldn't do it. I don't see this as me or the other person not being trustworthy or me or the other person being creeps or jerks who would jump in each others pants... it's just not where I would be putting my energy at this point in time. But I would say that about any number of things I'm not doing for any number of reasons. Yes, I have limitations on my life because of marriage and family situation. So does DH. That isn't tragic to me because no one can pursue all the things all the time. Someone might be able to do both things (like the woman in the OP), but I don't think it's bad to say, well, I wouldn't pursue that business venture because of x, y, or z.

[Guest]

Sorry guys. My time is constrained today and I have not been able to read all the recent threads. @EmseB is pretty much representing my view on work partner interactions, though. I’m not for blanket, inflexible rules in any instance. But that doesn’t mean personal standards are not a good idea. 

[LucyStoner]

19 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't think there has to be a big show or statement of rules or why things are being done a certain way. I agree, to constantly bring it up would be creepy.

 

This guy was making a big show of it either because he thought about me sexually or *he wanted credit for not thinking about me sexually*.  Sorry dude, either scenario makes you a shitty person.  There were things he did that were...odd.  Reading the Gift of Fear gave me some insight into the situation.  There's a reason why when he offered me perks, I reflexively turned him down and a reason why, when the lawyer I worked for right after him offered me various perks, I accepted them without any sense of suspicion.  Because if he said he had a spare pair of baseball tickets or thought I might like to come to lunch to meet such and such person, there wasn't any guile or deceit.  It was a genuine offer made either to thank me for work or to help me learn/meet more people.  Whereas with the first lawyer, he was always overly explaining why his offer was ok and I shouldn't suspect him.  He was trying to put me at ease but failed horribly.  He also offered weird things, like an extra ticket to *see the game with him and his kids* or *attend a client's concert with him* whereas the decent man I worked for offered me perks I could/would use with a friend or my boyfriend- "I have tickets to the symphony I can't use, do you want them?" or "this client (famous musician) has put my name on the list for this concert but my wife and I won't go and I told them you might use it instead. Have a good time!" 

Edited June 30, 2020 by LucyStoner

[maize]

Thinking back to a period when I studied and worked in a field that was heavily male dominant, I found no difficulty personally in maintaining both appropriate professional and friendship interactions with married or attached men. When I was single and surrounded by attractive, intelligent men near my own age I very easily categorized them as available or unavailable. I remember wishing that one guy I had an unreciprocated crush on would find someone to get engaged to because I knew as soon as he was taken I would find it easier to interact as just a friend without all the internal awkwardness of wishing there was something else between us. There were married guys I absolutely would have been interested in if they had been single but I would never even have thought of flirting with them. Once I was married, I felt the same about any guy who wasn't my husband. 

There's no reason people have to walk around seeing everyone as a potential partner. Humans are quite capable of maintaining appropriate boundaries without making a big issue of it, even when working together daily. We just have to choose to do so.

Edited June 30, 2020 by maize

[katilac]

4 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

In the era of Me Too, the Billy Graham rule and iterations of it are looking smarter and smarter.  It may just be leaving a door open or meeting in a restaurant and not a hotel room, but keeping it mixed company public or easily observable is just not the worst idea ever.  I know that’s how my spouse operates with a female boss and a team under him that is half younger women.  He doesn’t discriminate or change opportunities at all, he just doesn’t schedule private meetings in rooms where other people cannot walk by and see through the glass.  In a modern office with cubes and conference rooms it just isn’t that difficult.  The principle is just keeping everything as above board as possible without being ridiculous.

I don't know that I agree that the principle is to keep things above board without being ridiculous (for a given value of ridiculous). For some people, sure, but ime people frequently go far beyond  your examples. It's not a question of a restaurant vs a hotel room - Mike Pence follows the 'no dining alone with a woman' rule, no matter that it's in a very public venue. That's the kind of thing that hurts women's careers. Right or wrong, deals are made in restaurants and on golf courses, and missing out on that is missing out on money and advancement. 

To me, if a room with a window is decent protection, so is being in public at a restaurant or golf course. 

[Jaybee]

I have a vague memory of reading of Billy Graham's policies from his own writing. It wasn't as it is being presented here. In those days, it was not unusual (I guess it's still true today) for famous evangelists' ministries to be completely lost, their reputations ruined, their Christian testimonies thrown away, through infidelities. These things could also potentially happen through compromising-appearing photographs, lies told by someone wanting personal attention, or any number of ways caused by people wanting to ruin or bring down someone like him. 

I heard a well-known Christian man whose name you would all recognize tell of one time a woman wanted her picture taken with him. He posed with her, as a friendly gesture, and at the last second, she opened her coat to reveal...much of herself. It was all a ruse to compromise his reputation. When you understand that there are people out there like that who want to ruin people like these men, it makes the policies they hold make a lot more sense.

[EmseB]

18 minutes ago, katilac said:

I don't know that I agree that the principle is to keep things above board without being ridiculous (for a given value of ridiculous). For some people, sure, but ime people frequently go far beyond  your examples. It's not a question of a restaurant vs a hotel room - Mike Pence follows the 'no dining alone with a woman' rule, no matter that it's in a very public venue. That's the kind of thing that hurts women's careers. Right or wrong, deals are made in restaurants and on golf courses, and missing out on that is missing out on money and advancement. 

To me, if a room with a window is decent protection, so is being in public at a restaurant or golf course. 

But as a woman, I would not want dining alone with my boss, especially someone with some kind of position of power, to be a condition of my job. I can't figure out why a woman (or anyone) would want to be in that position, to be honest, where they would *have to have* dinner alone with a person who can make or break their career or future in the company, to be means or a condition of advancement. That sounds like horrible corporate culture.

You say right or wrong like oh well, it doesn't matter if it's wrong, we still have to do it. But I don't think that's a good way to approach it. We have to go along to get along?

Edited July 1, 2020 by EmseB

[Scarlett]

20 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But as a woman, I would not want dining alone with my boss, especially someone with some kind of position of power, to be a condition of my job. I can't figure out why a woman (or anyone) would want to be in that position, to be honest, where they would *have to have* dinner alone with a person who can make or break their career or future in the company, to be means or a condition of advancement. That sounds like horrible corporate culture.

You say right or wrong like oh well, it doesn't matter if it's wrong, we still have to do it. But I don't think that's a good way to approach it. We have to go along to get along?

Dh and I neither one are interested in careers where that sort of thing is required.  Heck we aren’t interested in careers at all, I guess.  We have jobs,  make money, pay our bills, but the majority of our life isn’t about work.  We do a picnic once a year with dh’s co workers as a way to show we aren’t anti-social.  We always enjoy it,  but really again, work is not our primary focus. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Scarlett

[Corraleno]

36 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But as a woman, I would not want dining alone with my boss, especially someone with some kind of position of power, to be a condition of my job. I can't figure out why a woman (or anyone) would want to be in that position, to be honest, where they would *have to have* dinner alone with a person who can make or break their career or future in the company, to be means or a condition of advancement. That sounds like horrible corporate culture.

You say right or wrong like oh well, it doesn't matter if it's wrong, we still have to do it. But I don't think that's a good way to approach it. We have to go along to get along?

 I worked in a corporate job for years where it was extremely common to have a "working lunch" with colleagues of either gender. People were super busy, most of the executive staff traveled extensively and had lots of meetings both within and outside of the institute, and if something came up on a project that needed to be dealt with, and both people's schedules were full, it was super common to say "well, let's just grab a quick lunch." I had many many many working lunches with the director (male), associate director (male), and other department heads (50/50 male & female). Dinners were less common, but not exactly rare, and I had lots of dinners with the (male) printing rep we worked with for a lot of our publications, because I would often be on press from the afternoon until late at night, so we would grab dinner between print runs. It wasn't exactly a "condition of my job" in the way you make it sound — I could have refused to eat lunch or dinner with any male colleague or vendor without being fired. But why would I?   It was practical and efficient and useful, and it would just never occur to me that there was anything "inappropriate" about having a working lunch or dinner with a colleague. The idea that it would be OK for me to discuss a project over lunch with Marta, but not Frank, just seems bizarre to me. We were professionals, doing our jobs, not cruising bars looking for a hook up.

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 I worked in a corporate job for years where it was extremely common to have a "working lunch" with colleagues of either gender. People were super busy, most of the executive staff traveled extensively and had lots of meetings both within and outside of the institute, and if something came up on a project that needed to be dealt with, and both people's schedules were full, it was super common to say "well, let's just grab a quick lunch." I had many many many working lunches with the director (male), associate director (male), and other department heads (50/50 male & female). Dinners were less common, but not exactly rare, and I had lots of dinners with the (male) printing rep we worked with for a lot of our publications, because I would often be on press from the afternoon until late at night, so we would grab dinner between print runs. It wasn't exactly a "condition of my job" in the way you make it sound — I could have refused to eat lunch or dinner with any male colleague or vendor without being fired. But why would I?   It was practical and efficient and useful, and it would just never occur to me that there was anything "inappropriate" about having a working lunch or dinner with a colleague. The idea that it would be OK for me to discuss a project over lunch with Marta, but not Frank, just seems bizarre to me. We were professionals, doing our jobs, not cruising bars looking for a hook up.

Marta or Frank.....just no.  But that is me, that is my husband.  We don’t live that way.  A lot of people don’t.  It is ok for the people who do and probably most of what you are describing doesn’t cause an issue.

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

I was there in my native country when it happened and even I know most of the liaison was at the Oval office, not in a public restaurant.

In the case of the VP, he will not be willing to meet one on one with the Queen of England and have a meal with he with no aide or spouses present ? He will not eat a meal with Angela Markel or Teresa May ? Ok they are foreign leaders.  What about Betsy De Voss ? Elaine Chao ? Ivanka ?  He will not eat a meal as a working lunch one on one with them in the White House cafeteria because they are women in full view of everyone ? It is appalling and I cannot imagine a scenario where he will refuse that.  This type of marriage being paraded as a "christian marriage" appalls me as a christian and a married woman. 

Why would he need a private meal or meeting with any of them?  I don’t think politics requires one on one. 

[EmseB]

24 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 I worked in a corporate job for years where it was extremely common to have a "working lunch" with colleagues of either gender. People were super busy, most of the executive staff traveled extensively and had lots of meetings both within and outside of the institute, and if something came up on a project that needed to be dealt with, and both people's schedules were full, it was super common to say "well, let's just grab a quick lunch." I had many many many working lunches with the director (male), associate director (male), and other department heads (50/50 male & female). Dinners were less common, but not exactly rare, and I had lots of dinners with the (male) printing rep we worked with for a lot of our publications, because I would often be on press from the afternoon until late at night, so we would grab dinner between print runs. It wasn't exactly a "condition of my job" in the way you make it sound — I could have refused to eat lunch or dinner with any male colleague or vendor without being fired. But why would I?   It was practical and efficient and useful, and it would just never occur to me that there was anything "inappropriate" about having a working lunch or dinner with a colleague. The idea that it would be OK for me to discuss a project over lunch with Marta, but not Frank, just seems bizarre to me. We were professionals, doing our jobs, not cruising bars looking for a hook up.

I don't think there's anything wrong with whatever someone prefers. I personally would not want to be in a job where I was required to have dinner alone with my boss of any gender as a condition of advancement or even a condition of having a good working relationship. I wouldn't want it to be that way with Marta or Frank. Maybe I'm just used to an officer/enlisted divide, where it would be extremely inappropriate for a superior to go to a one on one dinner with a subordinate. But to be honest, if Mike Pence (used because of an earlier example) somehow made it necessary for any of his employees in government to have dinner with him one on one in order to be in his good graces, I would find that extremely unprofessional. I personally am not talking about going to get a pizza with a co-worker, although I personallywould probably not do that with any one specific person repeatedly just so no one got any ideas. I thought people were talking about bosses and employees and how it was unfair for the boss not to dine alone with his women employees.

And to be honest, if I'm going to go to the trouble of going out for a nice meal with any one person, I'd rather it be someone I want to be one on one with, which has never been my boss. Maybe y'all had more fun bosses than I did.

And also maybe my opinions in this are colored by the fact that most of the time in my various workplaces, if you thought two co-workers were being a little too chummy and spending a lot of time on work lunches together, you were probably right.

Edited July 1, 2020 by EmseB

[katilac]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

 

I pulled your quote out here to answer more easily. 

But as a woman, I would not want dining alone with my boss, especially someone with some kind of position of power, to be a condition of my job. I can't figure out why a woman (or anyone) would want to be in that position, to be honest, where they would *have to have* dinner alone with a person who can make or break their career or future in the company, to be means or a condition of advancement. That sounds like horrible corporate culture.

I did not bring up dining alone with the boss at all. I said deals are made in restaurants and on golf courses - you have to be able to speak with co-workers and potential clients in a variety of settings. It's obviously a huge negative if women don't have the opportunity to do this. And sure, sometimes it's lunch or gold with the boss. I don't have a problem with that myself. 

You say right or wrong like oh well, it doesn't matter if it's wrong, we still have to do it. But I don't think that's a good way to approach it. We have to go along to get along?

No, you read that completely wrong. I said business is done over meals and golf, right or wrong. I did not say 'right or wrong' about eating or golfing with someone of the opposite gender, because I don't think it's wrong. 

16 minutes ago, EmseB said:

 <snip>I thought people were talking about bosses and employees and how it was unfair for the boss not to dine alone with his women employees.

And to be honest, if I'm going to go to the trouble of going out for a nice meal with any one person, I'd rather it be someone I want to be one on one with, which has never been my boss. Maybe y'all had more fun bosses than I did.

And also maybe my opinions in this are colored by the fact that most of the time in my various workplaces, if you thought two co-workers were being a little too chummy and spending a lot of time on work lunches together, you were probably right.

It's unfair for the boss to not dine alone with his female employees if he dines alone with his male employees. It's unfair for the boss to not take female employees golfing if he takes male employees. Consistency. Fairness.  

When you go out for a nice meal with a boss, co-worker, or client, it's not about 'having a nice meal.' It's work, not free time that you could otherwise spend with someone else. You're working. Hopefully with good food, but working. 

11 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Do you really believe that if Mike Pence were to be seen in a restaurant with a woman, especially one who might be working for him, alone, without his wife, that there would not be a whole host of people speculating and then of course smearing her name (or his, or his wife's?)   

Well, now, sure, after he's repeatedly stated that he wouldn't do so. But do whole hosts of people routinely speculate about a man and a woman eating together, to the extent of 'of course' smearing their names? Not in my world. I'm pretty boggled by the idea that two co-workers having lunch together, or someone having lunch with a potential client, causes that much drama and excitement in some places. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

To go back to my engineering examples, I often had fieldwork that took me and an engineer or two (almost always men because 90% of the engineers were men) out all day.  We had to eat lunch.  It would have been stupid to go to a restaurant and sit at different tables.  We sat at the same table, ate lunch, talked over the morning fieldwork and our plans for the afternoon with maybe a little bit of personal talk about our families and funny stories about our pets.  We weren't playing footsie under the table and holding hands.    At another job, in marketing, I often went to visit potential clients with my boss.  Sometimes we met clients for lunch.  Sometimes the schedule meant that we met a client in the morning and then stopped for lunch on our way back to the office.  Again, nothing intimate about it.  We would discuss the meeting we had had, or the next meeting we were going to  have and how we were going to meet marketing deadlines.  Not exactly sexy talk.  If anyone saw me eating lunch with these men I would not be embarrassed or feel the need to explain myself.  If they thought anything untoward I would tell them to get their mind out of the gutter.  It's just food.  At a table.  In public. 

[katilac]

25 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

To go back to my engineering examples, I often had fieldwork that took me and an engineer or two (almost always men because 90% of the engineers were men) out all day.  We had to eat lunch.  It would have been stupid to go to a restaurant and sit at different tables.  We sat at the same table, ate lunch, talked over the morning fieldwork and our plans for the afternoon with maybe a little bit of personal talk about our families and funny stories about our pets.  We weren't playing footsie under the table and holding hands.    At another job, in marketing, I often went to visit potential clients with my boss.  Sometimes we met clients for lunch.  Sometimes the schedule meant that we met a client in the morning and then stopped for lunch on our way back to the office.  Again, nothing intimate about it.  We would discuss the meeting we had had, or the next meeting we were going to  have and how we were going to meet marketing deadlines.  Not exactly sexy talk.  If anyone saw me eating lunch with these men I would not be embarrassed or feel the need to explain myself.  If they thought anything untoward I would tell them to get their mind out of the gutter.  It's just food.  At a table.  In public. 

Great examples. 

[LucyStoner]

When I worked FT, if I had a 1-1 meeting with a man, it was either with my boss, colleagues from other organizations who wanted wanted free or cheap advice, a donor or me treating an intern or something to lunch.  Sometimes donors do get inappropriate with younger female fundraisers.  I was like 24-32 when I worked in that space and it came up occasionally. If I had any  concerns about the donor, I would include someone else in the meeting or hold it in a very public location.  

The last times I was in a male-female 1-1 meeting:

A board member wanted to brief me about a sensitive PR issue one of my clients was facing.  We met for coffee.  

One of my clients is an older man.  He likes to buy me lunch about 1x a year.  Given that it's the only time I see the whites of his eyes and vice versa, I just chalk it up to keeping connected with a client so they don't hire someone else.  He's definitely not a creep, I would drop him like a hot potato if he were.  His only real sin is that he doesn't understand that faxing is a dead technology.  He will call and ask for my fax number and I'm like "I don't even have a regular phone line." 😛

I have a couple of non-profit colleagues who are male that I catch up with every 2 or so year.  

Right before I left a not-so-great workplace back in 2011, my intern had applied for and been rejected for a regular permanent job at the same organization.  I took him to lunch right afterwards and told him that while I knew he would have been great at the job, and had really earned the shot that unfortunately, I had been in the minority on the hiring committee.  I wanted him to know that I liked his work and that I thought he had a brighter future away from the organization than in it.  I didn't tell him I was planning to blow the Popsicle stand but I assured him he'd have a good reference in me and I made sure he had my personal contact email "just in case when you need a reference, I've moved on".  That's the sort of lunch that can really only be done 1-1 and I'm glad to live in a time where we could just be 2 people having lunch and not having it be some suspect or immoral thing to do.  

Edited July 1, 2020 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Oh, I have a mentor who retired from what I do.  He's amazingly knowledgeable and he's a little bored. If I have a question that is just wacky or a new client where there's a huge mess to unjumble, I know I can always count on him.  Sometimes we just talk on the phone, other times we meet in person at a local bookstore with a cafe.  I have a lot of experience and I am good at what I do.  But it pays to talk to someone with 45 years of experience.  He's saved my clients (who are all non-profits) time and money and often if I email or call he will suggest a meeting.  I think he likes spending time with me. Not because I am female, but because we have a good rapport and we speak the same professional language and we go back to when I hired him to do what I do now for an organization I was working for like 15 years ago.  He's sent me work.  He's saved my bacon when I thought I had made an unfixable mistake.  We chat about our families (he's married with adult kids and grand kids) and then talk shop for a bit.  I know it's valuable to me and I assume he also gets something out of it.  We swap client horror stories.  He won't let me pay him for his advice but I won't let him pay for his soup and salad and tea when we meet.  If someone sees us and thinks anything abhorrent is going on, that's their problem, not mine.  

Edited July 1, 2020 by LucyStoner

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

I pulled your quote out here to answer more easily. 

But as a woman, I would not want dining alone with my boss, especially someone with some kind of position of power, to be a condition of my job. I can't figure out why a woman (or anyone) would want to be in that position, to be honest, where they would *have to have* dinner alone with a person who can make or break their career or future in the company, to be means or a condition of advancement. That sounds like horrible corporate culture.

I did not bring up dining alone with the boss at all. I said deals are made in restaurants and on golf courses - you have to be able to speak with co-workers and potential clients in a variety of settings. It's obviously a huge negative if women don't have the opportunity to do this. And sure, sometimes it's lunch or gold with the boss. I don't have a problem with that myself. 

You say right or wrong like oh well, it doesn't matter if it's wrong, we still have to do it. But I don't think that's a good way to approach it. We have to go along to get along?

No, you read that completely wrong. I said business is done over meals and golf, right or wrong. I did not say 'right or wrong' about eating or golfing with someone of the opposite gender, because I don't think it's wrong. 

It's unfair for the boss to not dine alone with his female employees if he dines alone with his male employees. It's unfair for the boss to not take female employees golfing if he takes male employees. Consistency. Fairness.  

When you go out for a nice meal with a boss, co-worker, or client, it's not about 'having a nice meal.' It's work, not free time that you could otherwise spend with someone else. You're working. Hopefully with good food, but working. 

Well, now, sure, after he's repeatedly stated that he wouldn't do so. But do whole hosts of people routinely speculate about a man and a woman eating together, to the extent of 'of course' smearing their names? Not in my world. I'm pretty boggled by the idea that two co-workers having lunch together, or someone having lunch with a potential client, causes that much drama and excitement in some places. 

As I said, if people have different preferences or want to conduct business differently, that's fine with me. You don't have to convince me. I have a different view and got out of the rat race entirely, partly because of all this. It isn't my speed to be trying to wine and dine and make deals over cocktails or on the golf course. My point was that I *don't* want to be working over a nice meal. I just want to have a nice meal. To each their own. I personally don't find all of that all that great, but I get how some people can thrive on it.

And you are really blessed if your workplace does not have a lot of shenanigans and drama...seriously, that is great because a lot of places do. Workplace interludes aren’t that rare, IME.  A relative of mine got promoted into her boss's position because her married boss was doing stuff with a married employee and they were posting evidence on Tumblr! Said evidence involved inappropriate use of workplace facilities and resources. And this is like a c-level executive in a well established job, not some young single person. And it was common for stuff like that to happen across the industry. He was really, really lucky she did not sue him for sexual harassment and agreed it was all consensual because the power imbalance was huge. And they were simply going together to the conference room to have facility meetings or to talk about logistics for an upcoming conference. Wouldn't it be so beyond the pale to suggest two professionals couldn't be alone behind closed doors with each other? That they could end up costing the company six figures in searching for a new CEO and covering themselves legally?

And that does not touch all the young and single people with married people in the military and the issues that stuff caused. A spurned spouse that knows her cheating husband can get in legal trouble for cheating? Oh man, ish got crazy.

Like I said, I'm glad I'm out of all that but if you don't have drama I can see how it's all a non issue. And if you are a low drama person like myself you often wonder how grown people could act the way they do. But often times people make personal boundaries based on experience like, not some pharisaical sense of trying to remain pure.

And while I was typing this, I see that no one works where there are inappropriate office romances except me.  😂

[LucyStoner]

3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

 

And while I was typing this, I see that no one works where there are inappropriate office romances except me.  😂

That they are there doesn't mean I am going to be party to them.  

I am happy, happy, happy to be self employed but once upon a time, I was not and worked for a non-profit where the director and the director's significant other, who was active in the organization, would argue in graphic detail about their personal affair.  At one point, I had the most unfortunate seating arrangement that I shared an office with this director and another director.  So they would be fighting in my office.  Most of the people who worked there were like 22 so they didn't know what to do.  Me and the other managers who were late 20s and into our 40s would walk right up to them and tell them to knock it off.  I made it clear to the board and the director that this had to stop.   Then when the organization moved offices I convinced the director that the very smallest private office was the best and should be just for the executive director so that no one would have to share an office with this person again. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

12 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

That they are there doesn't mean I am going to be party to them.  

 

Exactly.  I wasn't naive.  I knew that there were office affairs and office romances.  But it's not like it was a nonstop orgy.  Lots of people are there to do their job and then go home to their spouse and family with their paycheck.  People who are open to affairs get a reputation for that.  People who aren't, get a reputation for not being into that.  Both my husband and I have had reputations for being there to do a good job for our respective companies and it showed in promotions etc.  And it showed in people wanting to consult with us about job related stuff because that too was/is part of our job.  Both my husband and I have had reputations for being there to answer questions about God for those who have wanted to discuss that - but not on company time.  We don't steal time from the company to talk about our beliefs and we don't corner people or pressure them.  But I had more than one person show up just at quitting time wanting to ask me a question or two and I know from what my husband shares with me, that he's had the same.  But I've never felt like I had to don a chastity belt just to go to work.  Other than creeps, who aren't there to woo  you but will hit on anyone at any time, people respect who you are and your values and aren't there to try to seduce you.  (Unless you are one of the people with a reputation for  hookups in which case you have made it clear that you are open to that, you know?) 

[Joker]

8 hours ago, EmseB said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with whatever someone prefers. I personally would not want to be in a job where I was required to have dinner alone with my boss of any gender as a condition of advancement or even a condition of having a good working relationship. I wouldn't want it to be that way with Marta or Frank. Maybe I'm just used to an officer/enlisted divide, where it would be extremely inappropriate for a superior to go to a one on one dinner with a subordinate. But to be honest, if Mike Pence (used because of an earlier example) somehow made it necessary for any of his employees in government to have dinner with him one on one in order to be in his good graces, I would find that extremely unprofessional. I personally am not talking about going to get a pizza with a co-worker, although I personallywould probably not do that with any one specific person repeatedly just so no one got any ideas. I thought people were talking about bosses and employees and how it was unfair for the boss not to dine alone with his women employees.

And to be honest, if I'm going to go to the trouble of going out for a nice meal with any one person, I'd rather it be someone I want to be one on one with, which has never been my boss. Maybe y'all had more fun bosses than I did.

And also maybe my opinions in this are colored by the fact that most of the time in my various workplaces, if you thought two co-workers were being a little too chummy and spending a lot of time on work lunches together, you were probably right.

Maybe the bold is why I never think these things are issues with dh. His boss from 13 years ago spends Thanksgiving with us often. We think the world of him and at this point he’s basically family. When we travel back to CA, we meet up for a meal with dh’s old First Sergeant from the Marines. We’ve often become really good friends with who he works for and with, so working lunches don’t phase us. 

[Scarlett]

I don’t think @Jean in Newcastle Or @LucyStoner are doing anything wrong.  I also completely agree that we, any of us, can put off a no nonsense vibe and keep things professional all of the time.  So no I am not judging any of you who do things differently than I do them. However that is part of my point.  Not everyone wants to live their life like that.  Dh rarely even goes to lunch with his co workers (currently never because of Covid).  He eats at his desk so he can get home earlier.  Highly doubtful this is going to affect his employment in this stage of his life, but if it does it does. 
 

Also, so many of the things you all are mentioning are not a daily occurrence or a constant occurrence with the same person all of the time.  My Dh has to go to job sites sometimes too.  He works with almost all men, but if  he were sent with a woman I would not faint or clutch my pearls.   

Edited July 1, 2020 by Scarlett

[Jaybee]

10 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

So the way I understand, @Bold is a predator and the only thing stopping this person from not turning into Harvey Weinstein was he was never any alone with a woman other than his wife because he was so weak he would be tempted by any woman and even as a grown man had to be chaperoned at all times. Why is this a man of God ? Isn't this person someone who deserved to be brought down ? Who should not be in ministry ? It makes me wonder how safe are his grown daughters with him ? It takes me to all sorts of vile places. 

@Red if someone wants to ruin the reputation of a minister because of compromising appearing photographs, context matters. Naked in a bed, affair. Standing next to a woman, no. Shaking hands no. Praying no. Eating at a restaurant, no. Why do we jump to conclusions about a man who we say has the anointing of God eating at a restaurant or shaking hands with a woman not his wife. Why are we judging him with intent of sinning ? Isn't that slander even in a secular world ? What happened to innocent until proven guilty ?  I can't believe American Evangelism had something like this. It's appalling to me that what is being held up as a bastion of Christianity had attitudes like this to "protect themselves". Where is the Lord in all this ? 

Just to be clear, I am not talking about protecting children from abuse with the two person protection, that is needed and very important. I am talking about "protecting" a grown man from committing infidelity or the appearance of it. What is this culture ? Anything Christian or God honoring about it ? I just can't wrap my head around it. 

Uh, wow. Very much a misunderstanding of what I was trying to express. As to the bold, I was not in any way excusing the true infidelities of evangelists or blaming them solely on the women. I was just stating that those infidelities happened. Which meant that people, like Graham,  who were trying to uphold their reputations were extra-cautious to not give anyone cause to suspect them of it by making sure there were always others around and they would be considered above reproach. Nothing like what you are assuming from this.

As to your response to the red, consider how the media on both sides twists things all the time to say what they want to say, with text, photos, videos, etc. It is easy to be ruined these days by people who would want to pull you down whether you have done anything wrong or not. 

I'm heading to work and don't have time right now to answer more thoroughly, but I don't understand the outrage and feelings being so strong that he did wrong in this.

ETA: Context matters as to the true situation. But again, people who want to think the worst can twist things however they want. And others are often all too happy to believe them. If Graham had been maligned like that, there would have been many who would have said, "See there? All Christians are alike, just hypocrites, and what they preach doesn't mean a thing." And that would have, in Graham's thinking (if I understand correctly), maligned the Gospel, which he loved and gave his life to.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Jaybee

[Scarlett]

16 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

Uh, wow. Very much a misunderstanding of what I was trying to express. As to the bold, I was not in any way excusing the true infidelities of evangelists or blaming them solely on the women. I was just stating that those infidelities happened. Which meant that people, like Graham,  who were trying to uphold their reputations were extra-cautious to not give anyone cause to suspect them of it by making sure there were always others around and they would be considered above reproach. Nothing like what you are assuming from this.

As to your response to the red, consider how the media on both sides twists things all the time to say what they want to say, with text, photos, videos, etc. It is easy to be ruined these days by people who would want to pull you down whether you have done anything wrong or not. 

I'm heading to work and don't have time right now to answer more thoroughly, but I don't understand the outrage and feelings being so strong that he did wrong in this.

I am not sure what @Dreamergal is saying here.  I agree she diid not understand you at all.  Just because any man or woman chooses to be cautious about their time with the opposite sex, it does not mean they think they or anyone else is an irresistible evil person.  It means they have set up personal boundaries for themselves.  It seems like there is a lot of judgment against this way of thinking.  It seems to upset people far more than the other way around.  

[KungFuPanda]

9 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Why would he need a private meal or meeting with any of them?  I don’t think politics requires one on one. 

Because high level politicians don’t keep bankers hours. Their schedule is brutal, and since they HAVE to eat, meals are often a continuation of a meeting. Important things are determined during  these meetings. I think it’s gross that a narrow minded man would protect his image from other narrow minded people at the expense of a female co-worker’s career. THAT is misogyny. THAT is patriarchy keeping the best seats for men and literally excluding women from the table. I don’t know why just being the man who can control himself while eating a sandwich isn’t the obvious answer. Women “tricking” men into taking compromising photos isn’t the real problem.