Jump to content

Menu

Musing about something with attractive work partners


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would be bothered. I'm not gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination, but it's more than that. Dh and I have a great relationship and have been married a very long time. However, I recognize my own

Why the woman? Why should not the man who feels he needs to put up those rules reconsider the type of work he is in?

I have not read the responses yet bc I'm in a rush, but I'll tell you really quickly the conclusions I came to... My husband works in a job that has A LOT A LOT of infidelity associated with it,

As someone who was sexually harassed in the workplace once upon a time, I value the image of avoiding impropriety.

I’m not talking about your average work lunch with your coworkers that includes your boss or the occasional late meeting with clients who then leave and you are alone with your boss. All those things wouldn’t give me an inkling of inappropriateness.

What is inappropriate is when your boss goes out of his way to get you alone. That’s what I experienced. Like he was attempting to prove to me that see a date with me wouldn’t be so bad. I turned him down many times and I left before my year was up. 

Going back to the OP. What I looked like doesn’t really matter. That would be like saying what I wore would matter if I was raped. It’s not about beauty.

What is important to me and probably any other adult in the workplace is the ability to keep it professional in every situation. This is totally possible when men and women act like adults and not hormonal teens. 

My husband has many capital meetings with successful women that are heads of their department.   I have never even considered it as a cause for concern. He’s a professional who is highly respected because he knows his field. I would never in a million years expect him to doubt whether or not he should stay late in a meeting because it would mean being alone with them. It’s going to happen in the natural course of business. Avoiding it is rather unnatural and constricts ones ability to perform in a professional manner. 

I would think someone entering a business in this economic environment has their sh!t together and can keep it professional. If one is incapable of behaving themselves, then the other needs to be the one to call it out and shut it down. That’s all it takes. 

 

Edited by Plum
TMI
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 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. 

The Queen meets with her prime Minister's one on one each week, no aides. I think there were 13 total under her reign. All were men except Margaret Thatcher and Teresa May and both from the conservative party. The Queen also became one in her late 20's a young woman and a very beautiful one. 

Late Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan became prime minister at a very young age. I remember her being pregnant when she was prime minister and striding surrounded by men full covered complete with head scarf and as a child growing up being deeply impressed by that image. It was very powerful I remember it even now.  Her age, gender or being pregnant did not hold her back in a very conservative country. She had two brothers, yet she was the person her father chose as his successor. I grew up with Late Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister. Queen Rania of Jordon is an absolutely beautiful woman, she is the one who most often represents the country alone not her husband who is king. Sheikha Mozza is one of the wives of the Emir of Qatar and the most high profile because though she is fully covered, she represents her country. All these women are from conservative backgrounds and did/do not dress in western wear though they spoke/ speak English very well. Some were educated in the West. It may mean they travel with men, be alone with men not their husbands to do their job, shake hands with men who are world leaders, have dinner in a group of world leaders where they are the sole woman and so on. 

If gender excluded them they would not be in that position. The idea that politics does not require a man and a woman to have a private meal together is unfathomable to me. Is that why America despite being one of the biggest democracies never even had a female vice president let alone a president when conservative countries have had them ?

Edited by Dreamergal
Clarity
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Scarlett
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

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.

 

Scarlett! Spoiler alert next time geeeessshhhh

😉😆

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by EmseB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Scarlett
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

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 co side ring 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.  

You are a private citizen and you live your life according to your values. I have no problem with that. I only have a problem with people who are managers or CEOs or VPs who use that policy in their work and it does impact hiring even unconsciously. 

As for whole Billy Graham thing, it deeply saddens me and it sort of seismically changed what I thought of him and not in a good way.Christianity in America seems to always seek approval from the world not be "not of the world" and I just never thought Billy Graham was one of them.  I don't want to say anything more of a man I immensely respected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

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.  
 

He certainly wasn't Jesus but he was the face of evangelism around the world. One of the very first to have global crusades and in a country like mine where Christians are a tiny minority it absolutely sent a revival and thousands were saved. Entire ministries rose up after his visit to India I think in the 50s or 60s which play a huge role even now. I was not born when he visited, but I have seen people talk about his crusade and how they were in his choir decades after he came. Many American evangelists have since visited, but people barely know their name. Among Christians  in my native country he is considered a man of God with powerful anointing. People cannot name American presidents, but pretty much any christian even in my generation will know who Billy Graham is. He is thought of as a great man of faith.

Well, I will only say I immensely disagree on the way he lived his married life because that was not faith, but legalism and I thought he was not that because none of his sermons which I listen to even today led me to believe that. I am just disappointed. I guess I idolized him and should not have. 

ETA: 

 

Video of his arrival in India. He met national leaders. Other evangelical leaders have come from America and other countries, but not like this. He was treated like a world leader.  I have a memory of running on the beach in my native country as a child when pope John Paul II visited. My mother has a memory of Billy Graham's visit like that. 

Edited by Dreamergal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, @Dreamergal, I really think you are vastly overemphasizing this one point about him.  He was a flawed man like every single one of us, but he loved the Lord, led his family well, lived according to his convictions, and worked hard in ministry.  You’ve kind of flown way over into left field on this one, he really isn’t what one would call a legalist, but he was definitely sensitive to the pitfalls of a public ministry and safeguarding against false accusations, which most of us would consider wise.

You’ve gotten way imbalanced in your interpretation of how much weight he put on this one point - which is to say, not very much.  It was just an aspect of his ministry and walk and not a particularly critical one???

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Uh, @Dreamergal, I really think you are vastly overemphasizing this one point about him.  He was a flawed man like every single one of us, but he loved the Lord, led his family well, lived according to his convictions, and worked hard in ministry.  You’ve kind of flown way over into left field on this one, he really isn’t what one would call a legalist, but he was definitely sensitive to the pitfalls of a public ministry and safeguarding against false accusations, which most of us would consider wise.

You’ve gotten way imbalanced in your interpretation of how much weight he put on this one point - which is to say, not very much.  It was just an aspect of his ministry and walk and not a particularly critical one???

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.

Edited by Dreamergal
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

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

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. 

Edited by Dreamergal
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

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. 

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". 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.’ 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

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. 

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 ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scarlett said:

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. 

No, this toxic combination of misogyny, sexism, patriarchy and politics is uniquely American. It is why my skin crawled when I sat in certain churches in America and I could not understand why.

I've seen this before, just not in this version. In my native country, it masquerades in the guise of culture and tradition and you are beaten down so much by it, christianity does not need to do anything about it and thus the church is safe except it's own unique versions like the "submit" verses. Now even that is changing.

Unjust world is poverty, diseases, not sexisms or patriarchy or misogyny which bad men invent for control. People are flawed yes, but that does not hold water anymore because that excuse has been used to justify everything from justifying slavery by using the bible to right now. 

In my opinion, Billy Graham did not do the best he can. His preaching was his best. The life he lived was so less than what he preached and it was as far as I know a deliberate choice and that makes my heart hurt for him because when he preached he spoke of glorious God and bold faith. It also explains so much about his son to me,

I agree with when people know better they do better. My father was raised in patriarchy and he did not know better. He always thought giving me equal opportunity as a girl in terms of education did not make him one because I had friends from other religions who were stopped from pursuing higher education. Patriarchy makes a loving father like mine forbid his daughter from playing outside when I reached puberty and so many other things which my brother was allowed and I was not. It came to a reckoning when I wanted to come to America. The father I have today is not the father I grew up with and his love for me changed him because he fought against all he was raised as "good", stood up for me against extended family who tried to dissuade him and trusted me enough to send me alone. That is what I have seen when people who know better do better. It is love that changes, trust that is unconditional even if you cannot understand. It is letting go of control. It made me see that this is what the love of God the heavenly father must be like because my earthly father loves me so much and definitely played a part in why I am a christian even now. 

Edited by Dreamergal
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

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

*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 . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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.  

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 I was covered up from neck to feet, with just my hands, face and feet showing with a scarf pinned up. It meant carrying an empty file always in front of me 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.

Edited by Dreamergal
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by LucyStoner
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

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

When you justify systems like that you are without your knowledge you are standing in the way

As for any of these systems not being in America like Patriarchy, misogyny, sexism I thought so too. It is not visible very much in secular society but absolutely has a chokehold on the church in my experience. As for groping, happens here too, not on a daily basis, but definitely happened to me here because I used a lot of public transport systems. 

Edited by Dreamergal
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

When you justify systems like that you are without your knowledge you are standing in the way

As for not any of these systems not being in America like Patriarchy, misogyny, sexism I thought so too. It is not visible very much in secular society but absolutely has a chokehold on the church in my experience. As for groping, happens here too, not on a daily basis, but definitely happened to me here because I used a lot of public transport systems. 

I’ve been in American churches my whole life, except when overseas.  Trust me when I say a big chunk of them don’t actually have that problem, unless just following scripture is a problem.  It’s not some institutional bias of Christianity at all in a healthy body.  The ones I know who have those issues struggle with imbalanced theology in general though.  It’s not some blanket rule, maybe you just need to find a better congregation who is focused on obedience to the Lord and love and respect of one another in the body as an outworking of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...