Musing about something with attractive work partners

[Jaybee]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

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.  

Exactly. I added an edit to my post as well. And the bolded--It doesn't mean that they think they would throw themselves on the bed with a person of the opposite sex just because they were there. "Avoiding the appearance of evil" is biblical. It can just as easily be seen as a way to respect your spouse and protect the honor of your marriage, but it seems that rather than honorable, in this thread, it is seen as weak and repulsive, attributing mal-intent to something that is not.

My dh and I are similar to yours in how we handle this, I believe. Though honestly, neither of us is in a position with our work to have to make decisions that would affect our work--it would be more thought weird in our circumstances if we felt we had to have a lunch or dinner with only one person over work. Group lunches are not weird, because we work more in groups. So I guess it has never come up. We did have a couple of situations when we were living overseas and had young women working with us that were under dh's supervision, where he made sure there was nothing that could be considered questionable. But that was as much to protect the young women's reputations as anything, because he knew how it could be viewed by others in those cultures.

[Scarlett]

32 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

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. 

Well, honestly I don’t know why a man who has certain personal boundaries would go into work  where those boundaries would, could or possibly be viewed as limiting women.  However, just because some fields of work ARE set up with brutal hours  doesn’t make it necessary.  I think a man who had such boundaries would set his business up so that men and women had the same opportunities.  If it is done otherwise, then maybe it is intentional to limit women. I don’t know.  The world is complicated but I just worry about my own self, so to speak.  
 

[Katy]

I'm not sure comparing the career rules of a pastor who primarily worked in an era when few women did after having children compares at all to people today, whether they're in careers that demand long hours and socializing, or short projects with a handful of people with minimal interaction.  Are the rules of many pastors sexist?  Yes.  Does it not apply in cases where the pastor is less straight than he pretends to be?  Yes.  Are there still likely to be different rules for pastors than for typical people even today?  Yes.  I've worked for a couple different ministries.  Mega church pastors have different types of issues with women throwing themselves at them than almost any other profession. Certainly in the professions where it's more prevalent those people are likely to have security guards.

Professional standards for what constitutes harassment and whether you'll lose your job for that are just different now than it was even when I was young. 

[katilac]

2 hours ago, Jaybee said:

 Avoiding the appearance of evil" is biblical.  

Some of us are saying that a working lunch in a public restaurant shouldn't have "the appearance of evil." 

[Jaybee]

@Dreamergal, I don't think it applies to American Christianity alone, but to American culture in general (and I have lived in other cultures where it was common to always think the worst), that people like to tear down others. Rumors and gossip are common all over the world. In one country where we lived, I was shocked to learn that because an elderly man ate lunch sometimes at his nephew's and niece's (niece by marriage), and sometimes the nephew wasn't there, gossip was that he bought them a new oven because he was having an affair with the woman. I read it as he wanted to help them out because they watched out for him and cared for him. Perhaps it is experiences like that that cause me to be more cautious. Like I said, I've never been in a situation where I had to worry about it myself. 

[Jaybee]

1 minute ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I guess that I don't understand how being told that meeting with me is unbiblical because it has the "appearance of evil" isn't supposed to be offensive.  I think that I'd find it hard to imagine that someone could think that being in a room with me has the appearance of evil, and that I am behaving unbiblically if I suggest it, and also be sure that there wasn't some kind of unconscious bias going on.  

I will also say that this varies from profession to profession.  As a special ed teacher, I have 1:1 interactions with people all the time.  I meet with parents.  I meet with paras. I meet with the gen ed teachers with whom I co-teach.  I meet with my principal.   I meet with the school counselors.  And almost all of those meetings have confidential elements that would prevent me from just asking someone else to join.  

 

 

I certainly don't mean it as offensive. But I have seen people turn situations that were totally innocent into something sordid and fodder for rumors and gossip, so I understand why any person, male or female, minister or not, who was concerned about that, would be cautious. I don't think there is anything wrong with the kinds of interactions you are talking about above. Sometimes the job requires it. But I can also understand why some would want to avoid the 1:1, and it doesn't always have to do with the possibility/potential of their own uncontrolled passions. I recognize that many don't see that and think it's some kind of old-fashioned misogynistic nonsense, but I think, especially in some kinds of occupations where an assumption (in error or not) can destroy people, ministries, careers, etc., some caution in these areas can be wisdom. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

4 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

@Dreamergal, I don't think it applies to American Christianity alone, but to American culture in general (and I have lived in other cultures where it was common to always think the worst), that people like to tear down others. Rumors and gossip are common all over the world. In one country where we lived, I was shocked to learn that because an elderly man ate lunch sometimes at his nephew's and niece's (niece by marriage), and sometimes the nephew wasn't there, gossip was that he bought them a new oven because he was having an affair with the woman. I read it as he wanted to help them out because they watched out for him and cared for him. Perhaps it is experiences like that that cause me to be more cautious. Like I said, I've never been in a situation where I had to worry about it myself. 

Sin is everywhere.   While committing adultery is a sin, so is slandering people and thinking poorly of them for no reason (which I believe is the case in which innocent people are just trying to make a living in co-ed working conditions).  I live my life by 1 Peter 3:16  "Having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. "  It doesn't mean that I won't ever be falsely accused of something.  And it doesn't mean that I am going to strip clubs to meet and saying that I'm just "doing business".  But unless you want to go back to women only being in "women's work" and in segregated sections of society and the corresponding men in "men's work" and in segregated sections of society for them, then living in virtue with a good conscience seems to be the way to navigate a co-ed world. 

As others have pointed out, there are a lot of jobs that don't require one-on-one work with anyone.  And secular society has come up with ways to make work spaces more public and safer for all with windows etc.  But there are jobs - especially if a woman is in a traditionally men's arena like I was and if a man is in a traditionally woman's arena like my husband is, where men and women actually have to work with each other and sometimes (like when my husband has his performance review from his female boss) they are in one-on-one meetings. 

I am the director of a conservative Christian non-profit ministry which traditionally would have been led by men only.  (I'm not a pastor.)  The Chairman of the Board is a man.  Sometimes we need to talk one on one.  I am so glad that this conservative godly man has no problem meeting with me and that I am allowed to serve God in this way without bias.  It isn't always the case for a lot of women who are prevented from using their true gifts and leadership abilities.  I don't see anything in the Bible that prevents me from doing this sort of work or in doing secular work in a co-ed setting.  In my mind then, making rules about this is then adding to the Bible which is the very definition of legalism. 

[73349]

Some are speaking as though the Billy Graham rule were an equal opportunity thing: high-ranking women or high-ranking men can choose for themselves not to meet alone with people of the opposite sex. However, that's simply not an equal proposition: men are more likely to be in authority--Forbes says only 7.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and that constitutes an all-time high! Women who cannot have meetings with them are at a company status and economic disadvantage. How can you move up to replace an executive who moves on if you were excluded from having individual conversations?

As with race, what looks like a gender-blind policy (The boss won't meet alone with someone of the opposite sex) will tend to have the effect of continuing bias against the people who have been disadvantaged all along.

If someone else had had to be present for my performance reviews (violating my privacy) because my boss was male and I'm not, I would have been extremely unhappy with that.

Edited March 17, 2023 by 73349

[Jaybee]

4 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I think that what would be reasonable would be if people made rules, made them the same for both sexes.  If the boss has a policy of holding all 1:1 meetings in the conference room with the glass wall, then that's fine.  If someone never does business related dining, that's fine.  But the rule needs to be the same.  

Makes perfect sense to me. In spite of what others may think of my comments above, I really am not in favor of the "good ol' boys" club system.

[regentrude]

5 hours ago, Scarlett said:

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. 

Why limit it to the opposite sex? Same sex relationships exist, and being married to a person of the opposite sex is not a magic charm against possible same sex attraction.

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by regentrude

[Katy]

50 minutes ago, whitehawk said:

Some are speaking as though the Billy Graham rule were an equal opportunity thing: high-ranking women or high-ranking men can choose for themselves not to meet alone with people of the opposite sex. However, that's simply not an equal proposition: men are more likely to be in authority--Forbes says only 7.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and that constitutes an all-time high! Women who cannot have meetings with them are at a company status and economic disadvantage. How can you move up to replace an executive who moves on if you were excluded from having individual conversations?

Women are only a quarter of the US Senate and less than that in the House. How can you get that person's endorsement when you're running for office later if he would never listen to your ideas without a chaperone present?

As with race, what looks like a gender-blind policy (The boss won't meet alone with someone of the opposite sex) will tend to have the effect of continuing bias against the people who have been disadvantaged all along.

If someone else had had to be present for my performance reviews (violating my privacy) because my boss was male and I'm not, I would have been extremely unhappy with that.

 

 I have a lot of trouble believing these statistics are completely due to a glass ceiling in most professions though.  I think it has more to do with the choices women are more likely to make.  I think it's easy to say 80% of the regular contributors to this board, given the proper education and training, are capable of successfully managing a large company.  But I wouldn't want to.  I take way too much pleasure in the little moments.  Today my youngest son, born with several disabilities, had a huge personal milestone.  Being here to see that is way more fulfilling to me than my original goal when I entered college:  being a lawyer for 20 years and then entering politics. 

I decided that wasn't for me when I learned how little public attorneys make and how many hours partner-track lawyers are expected to work.  I don't think I'd even be capable of being a prosecutor knowing what I learned from doing foster care, I'd be a defense attorney. And while I see that female politicians today are clapping back at slut shaming and other such crappy sexist behaviors, I don't know many people who are interested in that foray that's practically required to go into politics who aren't narcissists incapable of real leadership. And I interned for a Senator in college and have met many of them.

And let's face it, most people have jobs, not careers.  The kind of careers that it takes to gain a senior leadership position in a fortune 500 company mean it often takes 60-80+ hours a week on the job.  Some of those hours might be over lunches, dinners, or on golf courses, but many are grinding in the office.  There's not enough money in the world to take me away from my kids that long.  Now you could argue we should switch to French hours and never let anyone work more than 12 hours a day or take less than 6 weeks of vacation a year but I don't see that happening.  It doesn't meld with the American meritocracy culture that reigns over that part of upper middle class society (right or wrong).

DH works for a fortune 500 company, and at his level and above either wives don't work, or they work for the same company.  Many of them are home with kids until done having kids, go back to school (often for an engineering degree), and then get promoted above their husbands in less than 10 years.  The company desperately wants more women in leadership but many of us aren't interested. 

I was with a group of kids who got recruited to come to my university early, before graduating high school, mostly based on early SAT scores.  Most of us are in a private facebook group now.  And what's most remarkable to me about how all of those gifted kids grew up is 1) How many of the men build and sold a business for more than $100 million dollars, several approaching a billion dollars, and then went on to found multiple other businesses.  Most of them with stay at home ex-wives because their marriages couldn't withstand that kind of negligence.  And 2) what a huge percentage of the women left the fields they planned to go into and either stay home with their children or went into a "female" profession like nursing or teaching.  Granted, many of those women are now school principals, started their own charter school, or they are nurse practitioners now.  I think more than 70% of the women who have had kids made choices like that. Those who didn't either 1) never had kids or 2) stayed in a career type of job (Google engineer, law firm partner) but their husband left their careers to stay home with the kids, at least until they were over 10.

I know there is plenty of privilege in my statements here, and that people who aren't given those educational opportunities or high earning spouses don't have the luxury of making those choices.  But we're not talking about small businesses here, we're talking about executives and CEO's on a golf course.  An obvious amount of privilege is inherent.

[katilac]

24 minutes ago, Katy said:

But we're not talking about small businesses here, we're talking about executives and CEO's on a golf course.  An obvious amount of privilege is inherent.

My dh is far from an executive or CEO and still spends a lot of time on the golf course (see my siggy, lol). Doing deals over food and golf is by no means limited to people making the kind of serious bank you talk about in your post.  

It's really pretty simple imo: having different rules for different people in the workforce is inherently unfair. It doesn't matter if it's your personal rule; there's no reason you can't apply it across the board. So, if you won't go to lunch alone with someone of the opposite sex, you should simply make the rule that you don't go to lunch alone with anyone. 

[katilac]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

Why limit it to the opposite sex? Same sex relationships exist, and being married to a person of the opposite sex is not a magic charm against possible same sex attraction.

Exactly. If evangelical pastor Ted Haggard had this rule, it did him no good whatsoever 😄

[Scarlett]

I bet this is the 50th time I have been involved in one of these discussions.  Things never change.  And I have no desire to change the world or even the mind of any of you.  
 

There is always someone who cries discrimination, and someone who says oh yeah, well what about same sex affairs.  And then a lot of discussion about ‘rules’ and legalism.  And lots and lots of examples of ‘being alone’  with opposite sex and how necessary it has been for your career/job.  And how the real problem is that anyone would care to raise an eyebrow about anyone’s behavior.  
 

I don’t have an absolute no exceptions mindset about it.  I do have a lot of experience and knowledge of how bad these things can go if attention is not paid to the possibilities.  
 

I am much more like what @Arctic Mama said up thread.....there are ways to live your life where you protect your reputation, reputation of your employees, your heart and the feelings of your spouse.  
 

YMMV. I am ok with you doing things your way. Hopefully if someone feels more like I do they will at least see they aren’t alone.  

Edited July 2, 2020 by Scarlett

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I bet this is the 50th time I have been involved in one of these discussions.  Things ever change.  And I have no desire to change the world or even the mind of any of you.  
 

There is always someone who cries discrimination, and someone who says oh yeah, well what about same sex affairs.  And then a lot of discussion about ‘rules’ and legalism.  And lots and lots of examples of ‘being alone’  with opposite sex and how necessary it has been for your career/job.  And how the real problem is that anyone would care to raise an eyebrow about anyone’s behavior.  
 

I don’t have an absolute no exceptions mindset about it.  I do have a lot of experience and knowledge of how bad these things can go if attention is not paid to the possibilities.  
 

I am much more like what @Arctic Mama said up thread.....there are ways to live your life where you protect your reputation, reputation of your employees, your heart and the feelings of your spouse.  
 

YMMV. I am ok with you doing things your way. Hopefully if someone feels more like I do they will at least see they aren’t alone.  

I just don't know why it has to be all or nothing. I mean, Harvey Weinstein is a person that existed. Women have trouble getting people to believe they were harassed or worse at work, right? People have affairs with people at work?

I don't feel like some boundaries for anyone of any gender are beyond the pale, nor do I think that having a rule means that someone is totally inflexible all the time or doesn't know how to think or is not mindful of how their boundaries might affect others. I'm sure some people are jerks! Some people are jerks! 

Is prude-shaming a thing? I feel like it's a thing.

[Scarlett]

13 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I just don't know why it has to be all or nothing. I mean, Harvey Weinstein is a person that existed. Women have trouble getting people to believe they were harassed or worse at work, right? People have affairs with people at work?

I don't feel like some boundaries for anyone of any gender are beyond the pale, nor do I think that having a rule means that someone is totally inflexible all the time or doesn't know how to think or is not mindful of how their boundaries might affect others. I'm sure some people are jerks! Some people are jerks! 

Is prude-shaming a thing? I feel like it's a thing.

😂 could be.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

The very same people who have championed equal opportunity for women's access to meetings and advancement opportunities (because that is at the core of this) have discussed confronting sexual harassment.  Sexual harassment is wrong.  Discrimination is wrong.  There are ways to prevent and confront those that do not limit women's prospects. 

[EmseB]

7 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

 Sexual harassment is wrong.  Discrimination is wrong.  There are ways to prevent and confront those that do not limit women's prospects. 

Agreed? There are only a few people insisting those boundaries must inherently limit women in particular.

Edited July 2, 2020 by EmseB

[Scarlett]

9 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

Sorry for the tone which may come across as harsh, I do not know how to ask otherwise.

 How do you pay for that "nice" meal you want to have ?

I came into this country to study, my parents though middle class in India could barely send me money because at that time $1 was 40 times my currency I think. I had to work to take care of my bills and study. When I graduated I had to find a job or lose my visa and leave. This was in the era before #Metoo. I did not have the luxury of looking at if my boss was a potential cheat. I went to sexual harassment classes the company mandated and I learned how to keep myself safe. The same way I tried to keep myself safe in my native country where any woman young or old is most likely to be groped in a given day. I could not avoid the public bus, so I saw to it I took the only "ladies special" bus or if I could not, carry a huge empty file in front of me to protect me when I was wearing clothes that covered me from neck to feet and with a scarf pinned in front of me. I had no choice and I learned to protect myself. I did not have the luxury of a car in my native country or even my own two wheeler like it is common for women now. Likewise, I did not have the luxury of not working if I wanted to stay in the country and had to choose the first well paying job I got based on the company reputation. 

I did get out of all that, but still work PT. I assume like me you don't have huge piles of money sitting somewhere. I don't know if you work FT or PT, or like mine DH is the only earning member of the family. I work PT now because I want to have some savings and not put the entire burden of running the household on DH. I do not want my children to have to face student loans the way DH and I did. While looking for my job it may mean I have to go and have a meal with a recruiting manager while DH works from home that afternoon to take care of DD4. No one is buying me a fancy meal on a corporate account and trying to woo me in Subway. We talk about what work it is, negotiate my hourly rate and I leave conscious of relieving DH because he is the one with the stable job. 

I cook very well, I don't want anyone to buy me a nice meal. Heck, I say without irony I can cook meals that can rival certain restaurants at times because I have invested my time to learn how to do that. But even to buy the ingredients, I need money and if I am not earning, I have to trust my DH who is earning even if he has to work with women or eat a meal as a "working lunch". It is not blind trust, I went to swim every morning pre-pandemic at 5:00 am and DH started the morning routine of the kids. DH assumes I go to the pool, I could very well cheat on him if I wanted to and cuckold him to use an old British word. A marriage is based on trust for me. I learned trust from my parents who despite always raising me sheltered chose to trust me to study thousands of miles away in America when my relatives discouraged them by slandering my character by the potential trouble I could get into. My father said "I trust your upbringing and I most of all I trust the Lord". With all I know of DH, I choose to trust him because of that to the point of choosing to work PT. Most of all, I trust the Lord before whom we both stood and took our vows to enable us to always be faithful to those. It may seem naive, but that is the way I live my life, I will not stunt DH or myself by putting artificial barriers to "protect" our marriage. If one of us cheats and our marriage implodes, I would rather it did than live a false life. 

Dh nor I feel we are living a false life or putting up artificial barriers.  We value our marriage and we have agreed on certain boundaries. I trust my husband completely.  I really am surprised at how much I trust him considering how badly I was betrayed in my first marriage.  
 

You and your husband have also apparently agreed on how to live your life.  So all is well with us both it seems.  

Edited July 2, 2020 by Scarlett

[Scarlett]

7 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

Re: Billy Graham

@Scarlett and @Jaybee I have to combine your posts and give a generic reply.

The only American Evangelist I grew up knowing was Billy Graham. He was revered. This is an excerpt from his autobiography. Even now, there are old people who remember singing in the choir as part of his Evangelical meetings. 

https://billygraham.org/story/billy-grahams-memories-of-india/

He is a man who counseled presidents. To me, he is a man who had a powerful anointing of God. It grieves me that such a man of God had to prove to others that he was faithful to his wife by putting barriers around his marriage.  Why couldn't people trust that such a man of God would be faithful to his vows without these artificial barriers ? It would have never entered my mind to think that of Billy Graham or anybody for that matter. 

@Jaybee said preventing "appearance of evil". But isn't this like the story of the Pharisee and the publican where outward appearance mattered more while the more genuine one did not have that.

What about what is said in the bible about bearing false witness ? What is written in proverbs ? What about the verses about the tongue ? Aren't they supposed to be talking about how we speak.

The way I understand the Billy Graham rule it was to protect him from slander so his ministry could not be brought down. It absolutely grieves me that such a great warrior of God had to take steps like that. I come from a country where my church pastor prayed for me all the time. He would take me aside to do so and thought nothing of it. When I almost walked away from Christianity because of hurts,  doubts and not fitting in the American church, it was this pastor I turned to because of the trust factor other than my parents. If he had refused to be alone with me because I was a woman to pray for me, I would have not had that trust. 

Billy Graham was one of the greatest men of God to walk this earth. Why did he have to prove to Americans that his marriage was faithful by artificial means. ? Why wasn't what was known of his character enough ? Why couldn't people trust such a man to be faithful to his wedding vows ? It speaks to a toxic christian culture to me where people slander good men and they need to erect false barriers to prove how good they are or false prophets who manipulate people. It explains so much about American christianity to me that has always been baffling to me.

This entire post is kind of strange to me....especially the bolded.  He wasn’t Jesus.  And I don’t put that kind of description on anyone, especially one I don’t know personally.  And I don’t really know much about his policy but even so it neither means he was great or evil.  It is just the way he decided to live his life and protect his marriage.  Maybe he had a weakness he fought.  Maybe his wife was insecure and he wanted to make her feel safe.  Maybe he feared a big lawsuit over a real or made up story of infidelity.  All of those are valid reasons to be cautious with being alone with others.  
 

[Scarlett]

7 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

AM, I do not know how your faith walk was, but my faith walk was like this. My native country bible has only one version, not multiple. We do not have biblical aids like concordances in my language and at that time even the English versions were not widely available to me or if they were, it was too expensive for my family though we had a religious library. So I looked to faith mentors very much to base my walk on. My parents, my pastor and leaders of my faith. My outside faith mentor was Billy Graham.though I have never seen him in person.. The organization he was very much attached to his name as he was the  first employee called 'Youth for Christ and' still plays a huge role in my native country and played a very big role in my faith journey. I've never heard of it in America. I listened to his sermons when they were on tape from when I was a child.

I may have a different perspective someday AM. Not today, I am disappointed in him and myself for idealizing him so much. I try not to put people in front of the Lord, but I evidently gave Billy Graham a lot of importance. Though I never knew him it feels personal somewhat like I would feel if someone from my own family did something to disappoint me. It hurts and I do not know why and I am angry at myself for feeling that way. I actually cried a bit when I heard that and I rarely cry. I am just disappointed today AM.

You are upset and angry because you think his personal boundaries were too strict?  I am having a really difficult time understanding this.  

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

He preached living out a bold faith, not an anemic faith. For me, bold faith means not putting artificial means of showing the world that he was a faithful husband. Bold faith to me means trusting the Lord enough that whatever happens he will take care even a scandal.  He preached bold faith and could not face scandal if it came to that is what I see.  I come from a country where people die even now because they are christians. Persecution is real and if people can risk their lives for the Lord why couldn't the most prominent evangelist not care about what the world thought of him or his marriage ? Why wouldn't he risk even his empire for the Lord if it came to that ? That is what bold faith is to me. 

I think you have just misunderstood what bold faith means.  It doesn’t mean living as if there is no possibility of temptation or false accusation. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

The Pharisees were proud of having nothing to do with “sinners”. Amazingly Jesus loved them and ate with them- even the women. 

[Scarlett]

6 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

The Pharisees were proud of having nothing to do with “sinners”. Amazingly Jesus loved them and ate with them- even the women. 

True.  And he also told them to go and sin no more. 

[Scarlett]

7 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

It does not mean that. But how do we do that ? 

Is choosing sexism ok instead to protect oneself ?? Where does it say that ?  It is not at all biblical.

I have heard enough in American churches also about how women need to dress so as to not be a temptation for their brothers. I find that abhorrent. 

Why not talk about how men should guard their hearts or guard their eyes even when tempted ? That is christian and biblical. 

The Bible says to watch and pray so we do not fall into temptation. I think it is in one of the Gospels not have artificial barriers to not be in the presence of women. It talks about putting on the armor of God.  It talks about fearing the Lord, not what the world thinks.

That is what bold faith and resisting temptation is to me. Not sexism and patriarchy in the Lord's name as "resisting temptation". 

You are combining Christian principles with politics.  A couple of things to remember....1)this is an unjust world . 2)people are flawed.  3) most are doing the best they can.  4) when people know better they do better. 

[KungFuPanda]

I can’t imagine being married to someone who doesn’t trust you to eat lunch without jumping or being seduced by a co-worker. I’m guessing that marriage would have all sorts of ‘rules.’ 

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I can’t imagine being married to someone who doesn’t trust you to eat lunch without jumping or being seduced by a co-worker. I’m guessing that marriage would have all sorts of ‘rules.’ 

I can't speak for anyone else, but that is not how dh or I feel in the slightest.  We have no fear or lack of trust.  

[Katy]

29 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I can’t imagine being married to someone who doesn’t trust you to eat lunch without jumping or being seduced by a co-worker. I’m guessing that marriage would have all sorts of ‘rules.’ 

 

I don't know anyone who follows those rules who didn't set the rules for themselves.  Their spouse never set them up for them. To set them up for  your spouse would be abusive.

Everyone I know who follows these rules is a pastor.  They still mostly meet privately with people for counseling,  but if they get the wrong vibe will refer you out to someone else for counseling.

[KungFuPanda]

I’m having a hard time with this. If these men were truly “honorable” they would turn down jobs that include employee evaluations, counseling, travel, or working lunches. They don’t do that. They put female coworkers at a disadvantage to further their own careers and images. It’s gross. 

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I’m having a hard time with this. If these men were truly “honorable” they would turn down jobs that include employee evaluations, counseling, travel, or working lunches. They don’t do that. They put female coworkers at a disadvantage to further their own careers and images. It’s gross. 

Well, I do agree with that.  That men who are going to be that strict about things (and I am not saying dh and I are THAT strict) really should not go into positions where that is a common thing.  I am pretty sure some of this type thing, especially when made so public is a way to get attention....moral posturing I thing.  And that is icky too.

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

So, when it's been explained over and over again how this hurts women's careers, why don't people who know better do better?    From my side, it feels as though someone like Billy Graham just doesn't care about women, that he's willing to do certain damage to their careers to avoid even the slightest chance of risk to his career.  

I'm sure that's not how it seems from where you sit.  So, I'd love to hear from your perspective how you think of the argument that it is harmful to women's careers?  

I am not really sure it is hurting women that much.  But I don't know.  I think if you are an ambitious woman in field where this stuff is common you would not take a job from someone like Mike Pence. 

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Mike Pence won't even have lunch in the white house cafeteria with Ivanka in front of everybody because apparently it is harmful to his marriage. 🙄. So belongs there and who doesn't ? 

How do you know that?  And besides, why would Ivanka need to have lunch with the VP?  

[Katy]

23 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

So, when it's been explained over and over again how this hurts women's careers, why don't people who know better do better?    From my side, it feels as though someone like Billy Graham just doesn't care about women, that he's willing to do certain damage to their careers to avoid even the slightest chance of risk to his career.  

I'm sure that's not how it seems from where you sit.  So, I'd love to hear from your perspective how you think of the argument that it is harmful to women's careers?  

 

But Billy Graham has been dead for a while and when he started ministry most women didn't work.  It's not as if a woman was missing a promotion from being a secretary to being an evangelist because he wouldn't be alone with her. There was no where to promote a secretary to.  I think it's inappropriate to apply current standards to the 1950's-70's.  Sure he had RARE public events in the 80's and maybe 90's but he was mostly retired by then.

2 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Mike Pence won't even have lunch in the white house cafeteria with Ivanka in front of everybody because apparently it is harmful to his marriage. 🙄. So belongs there and who doesn't ? 

 

Now this is an argument I can get behind.  Pence is applying the same standards to now, and it's absolutely sexist and discriminatory.  Also there's no reason at all an assistant couldn't be with them in the white house cafeteria.  It's not like you're going to have a classified discussion in an open room.

[Scarlett]

18 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

*confused*

Weren't we discussing in this thread how the VP was the person who decided his marriage will be at risk if he so much as had lunch with a woman ?? Extrapolation from that, probably true.

Ivanka is one of the trusted advisers of the President her father. In that capacity. Since it is common in the normal world for people to have a working lunch without each other jumping the other's bones or having their marriages in danger, I suspect even Ivanka who is the President's daughter will not be able to have lunch with the VP if she wanted to have a working lunch for some reason not to say anything of Betsey DeVoss or Elaine Chao. Basically any woman that is . 

So you are just assuming that Ivanka needed to have lunch with MP and he refused.  All I am saying is no need to dream up examples of how much this is a problem .  And I don't think Ivanka will  be harmed in any way by not being able to eat alone with MP.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Ivanka has a huge other advantage, so I'm not really worried about her.  I'm worried about the message MP's policy sends to the country, but my heart isn't breaking for Ivanka. 

But what about examples that other people have given on this thread from their own professions?  If I made a rule that mothers could come find me after school for a quick private conversation about their child with a disability, but fathers had to either make an appointment and wait until a certain space was open, or to allow me to bring in a chaperone, and violate their kids' confidentiality, would you consider that fair?  If whoever posted the engineering example on this thread, has to regularly go home to her family an hour later, because she stayed late to make up the work that could have taken place at a table over lunch with a colleague while they were in the field, is that fair?  Were the female reporters denied access to Mississippi Republican gubernatorial candidates, unless they provided their own chaperones treated fairly?  These aren't examples that people are "dreaming up".  

 

They are not examples of women being hurt. All the examples you gave in this post are women who DID NOT have a problem.  Oh wait I see there is an example of reporters having to have a chaperone....I did hear about that on NPR....but most of what you posted was not a problem.  And I just can't get to worked up about people having to adjust their life one way or another to make other people feel comfortable.  

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

It wasn't a problem, because none of us have the policy.  They are examples of where the policy would be a problem if someone had the policy.  

 

Ok.  My point is it isn't a law, and I don't think it is actually something that is put in place enough, or so rigidly that anyone is ACTUALLY harmed. Are you saying men should be forced to eat a meal alone with one of his employees? 

[katilac]

15 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

They are not examples of women being hurt. All the examples you gave in this post are women who DID NOT have a problem.  Oh wait I see there is an example of reporters having to have a chaperone....I did hear about that on NPR....but most of what you posted was not a problem.  And I just can't get to worked up about people having to adjust their life one way or another to make other people feel comfortable.  

How is one parent being denied the same access to a teacher not a problem? How is someone having to work late because they can't have the same working lunch not a problem?

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

How is one parent being denied the same access to a teacher not a problem? How is someone having to work late because they can't have the same working lunch not a problem?

Those things happened to whom?

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Dreamergal said:

I had to have my life adjusted to make people "comfortable".

It meant taking "ladies special" buses available only at a certain time and the other option would be public buses with a high risk of groping because women were expected to put up as "that is what some boys do". It meant eve teasing. It meant all these even when you are covered up from neck to feet, with just your hands, face and feet showing with a scarf pinned up. It meant carrying an empty file always in front of you to prevent from being groped every single day. 

It meant my friends who had better marks than me not able to have a college education because their families would not allow. It meant not being able to have the same freedoms as my brother because my father thought he should "protect" me. It meant a life of yearning, lost dreams and compromise, compromise, compromise that one day when I wanted something so much and worked so hard for and it could be taken away from me I lashed out. It broke me before my father could see  how much damage it caused living a life like that. I was raised in a loving home, but patriarchy and sexism has so many hidden wounds you either swallow it to survive or you break.

It changed the way my brother saw the world. My niece is raised like my nephew. She can play, run and dream like her brother can. My father weeps when he saw how my brother and I raise our daughters and has apologized over and over again for things I know he did not know. I always knew he loved me, but there was never an honest and open relationship. It is there now. It took me close to breaking before he changed his views. 

You don't have to get worked up about it. Just don't stand in the way of people who have had enough and want to break the system.

How am I standing in anyone's way?  And you are comparing this thread to another country that is vastly different.  

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

No, I'm saying that if a man won't eat a meal alone with every employee, he shouldn't eat a meal alone with any employee.  

Shrug.  Ok.  I don't have a problem with that.  But then again I don't make laws and I don't make rules for anyone else.  

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Those things happened to whom?

As Curious said, if a teacher follows this rule, that is the inevitable result. If work colleagues follow the rule, that is an inevitable result. 

So you know that there are people in the working world who follow this rule, but you don't think it ever has negative consequences? That's not reasonable. 

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Perhaps you haven't been a working parent with young children, but I can tell you that when I was one, being able to get home in time to see my kids and eat dinner with them, and put them to bed wasn't some small thing.  Losing that wouldn't have been a small adjustment to make someone comfortable.  It would have been a major loss for us, in order to make a man comfortable.

Perhaps you haven't been the parent of a child with major communication needs, who is required to rely on professionals.  I am, and I can tell you that those conversations are critical.  

I am sure.  Thankfully you haven't had a problem.  

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

As Curious said, if a teacher follows this rule, that is the inevitable result. If work colleagues follow the rule, that is an inevitable result. 

So you know that there are people in the working world who follow this rule, but you don't think it ever has negative consequences? That's not reasonable. 

No, I don't know personally of anyone in the working world who has had a negative consequence to this rule.  Do you?

[LucyStoner]

28 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

They are not examples of women being hurt. All the examples you gave in this post are women who DID NOT have a problem.  Oh wait I see there is an example of reporters having to have a chaperone....I did hear about that on NPR....but most of what you posted was not a problem.  And I just can't get to worked up about people having to adjust their life one way or another to make other people feel comfortable.  

 Maybe try to have some empathy?  Would that be impossible?  You have never been harmed by these types of restrictions, but if you can't fathom how they are harmful for people in other situations, maybe try and understand that you might not know what you don't know?   Compassion is rarely a waste.  

Edited July 2, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 Maybe try to have some empathy?  Would that be impossible?  You have never been harmed by these types of restrictions, but if you can't fathom how they are harmful for people in other situations, maybe try and understand that you might not know what you don't know?   Compassion is rarely a waste.  

I do have empathy.  I have yet to know of one single person who actually has been harmed in any way by this.  That is all I am saying.  

[katilac]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

No, I don't know personally of anyone in the working world who has had a negative consequence to this rule.  Do you?

The personal experiences of two people have nothing to do with the issue on a large scale. That's like the people who say we musn't be in the midst of a global pandemic because they personally don't know someone who has died of Covid-19. Our personal experiences are not the be-all, end-all. 

Part of what's so insidious about this rule is that it leaves people plenty of plausible deniability. You can't prove a person didn't land a certain client because they weren't able to lunch and/or meet privately with the decision makers. You can't prove a certain sale wasn't made because the person wasn't allowed to play golf with the decision makers. Yet, it's very easy to prove that meals and golf clearly matter in the business world, because companies put out a great deal of money paying for them. 

An individual who will meet with some people and not others, dine with some people and not others, is just as harmful as, say, a golf club that will admit some people (white men) and not others (black or female people). 

For more specific examples on how it can be harmful, and why it can get someone in legal trouble, you might read Why the 'Mike Pence Rule' is Bad Business and how the rule hurts women.

I don't care what anyone does personally if the decision only has personal consequences. The minute consequences spread to other people because of a personal decision, I have a problem. 

[katilac]

16 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I do have empathy.  I have yet to know of one single person who actually has been harmed in any way by this.  That is all I am saying.  

But you don't have the kind of job where it is something you would see, and your personal experience is irrelevant to disproving harm. 

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, katilac said:

But you don't have the kind of job where it is something you would see, and your personal experience is irrelevant to disproving harm. 

That is true.  However even on this huge board, with all kinds of y’all having come out of corporate America I am not seeing that it is currently a widespread problem.  

Edited July 2, 2020 by Scarlett

[LucyStoner]

28 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I do have empathy.  I have yet to know of one single person who actually has been harmed in any way by this.  That is all I am saying.  

 

If you don't see how women benefit from the mentorship of high level professionals (who are still mostly male), you aren't really trying very hard to find the information you claim that your empathy hinges on.  

You say you have empathy and I believe that you believe that you do.  Still, simply saying something is true doesn't make it so.  

If you need to know specific examples from specific people who are harmed, is that really reflective of empathy?  

You've seen examples of it in this thread. 

You seem to be suggesting that if you don't know a single person harmed, that means no one is.  Do you think that everyone harmed by this type of sexism immediately details their story and publishes it? A lot of people don't.  They don't have the words or the time or the inclination to share their stories.  I was discriminated against on the basis of gender in the workplace.  When I consulted a lawyer to quit my job (imagine having to consult a lawyer to safely leave a job, yeah it was bad), I didn't say anything about the gender discrimination to the lawyer because I didn't even see it clearly in my anxiety to get out of there.  She saw it for what it was and asked if I wanted to sue.  Actually she said "it sounds like someday, someone is going to sue this man for sexual harassment and discrimination, do you want it to be you?"  I said no, I just want to get out of their without him coming after my professional reputation.  I spent several years blaming myself for what I had experienced.  

-You aren't reading or listening to many (any?) of the longer pieces on this topic that are readily available to you for free on the internet.  We need to read and think deeply before we prognosticate.  

Here's some links:

https://hbr.org/podcast/2018/10/when-men-mentor-women

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/pences-gender-segregated-dinners/521286/

https://hbr.org/2017/05/men-shouldnt-refuse-to-be-alone-with-female-colleagues

https://blog.powertofly.com/study-shows-men-are-avoiding-women-at-work-2640112018.html

https://leaderonomics.com/business/challenge-womens-access-mentorship

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by LucyStoner

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

That is true.  However even on this huge board, with all kinds of y’all having come out of corporate America I am not seeing that it is currently a widespread problem.  

Why does it have to be a widespread problem to be important? If your dh is fired over something unfair, should I shrug in response and say, well, I am not seeing that as a widespread problem Scarlett, so quit worrying about it?