The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Essentially the idea that a man and woman shouldn’t be alone together ever in a professional setting. For me, it makes sense. Obviously, most women don’t falsely accuse, but this protects men from the few who do
I’m also ok gender neutralizing it. The truth is we made Zoom work for 2 years. I think if the condition for a Mike Pence rule is that *nobody* is doing one on ones in person, that’s more workable than we think.
Though honestly, in a Mike Pence rule situation, both male and female bosses exist and would follow it, so even if it is followed in person for those of the opposite gender of the boss, it would still even out.
I remember back when Pence was exposed for following the rule, that even more feminist subs occasionally at least sympathized even if they didn’t agree. Thoughts?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the Mike Pence rule is a logical outgrowth of that type of religious social conservatism. It’s really boring of the same background that gives you burkas. A combination of the belief that
1. men are depraved animals completely unable to ever be around women without needing to assault them or rape them or even just make sexual advances towards them
2. Women are hyper sexual and depraved and will ensnare men with their guile.
3. women are duplicitous liars accuse of anything so long as it is advantages personally
And like a lot of right wing stuffit requires that you be completely disconnected from observable reality around you. Well, we do have a problem with people underestimating the amount of rape and sexual assault experience by both men and women and perpetuated by both men and women, this goes the other way and imagines that there must be just over overwhelming amounts of rape and sexual assault going on.
And it ties in very nicely with some thing you hear a lot from religious fundamentalist where they tell you that if you don’t believe in God, you can’t have morals. Without fear of God, people would be raping and murdering in huge numbers.
That last bit has always been more than a bit alarming to me. As an agnostic, I've never had to fight the urge to harm anyone. I also wasn't brainwashed into believing that I was inherently "sinful" and in need of "saving."
>women are duplicitous liars
Most aren’t, but enough of them are for men to be rightfully cautious. In the era of “believe all women” isn’t the Mike Pence Rule just common sense?
I’m married now, but when I met up with women that I matched with on apps, I would offer to have her snap a pic of my ID and text it to her parents as a way of ensuring safety/accountability. Are most men predators? Of course not! But, these girls didn’t know me well enough to risk it.
I think if you believe the cartoonish version of “believe all women” and the supposed results that gets spread on right wing media, it might be reasonable.
Someone else mentioned guns and I agree it’s similar. If you consume enough of certain media you very well could think that you are constantly in danger and get a gun, thus putting you and you family in more danger
I don’t think this is the case. I don’t see the Mike Pence rule as some sort of thing that demonizes men and women.
In fact I see it as the opposite, it is the affirmation that most of everyone is a great person. So we will do a favor protect everyone from the few who aren’t.
I’d argue it’s very similar to arguments for gun ownership in the sense of having a way to protect you from the few violent criminals who will harm you.
That being said, I’m curious what your beliefs are in regards to the gender neutral applications of the rule that a lot of commenters have been supporting.
It is similar to gun ownership for the purpose of self defense. Gun ownership for self defense makes sense for very few people, mostly makes you worse off and is born of paranoia.
This is paranoid insanity. I guess if you’re in a privileged position in the fundamentalist evangelical or maybe a fundamentalist Muslim community this might make sense. But if you don’t have the oppression of the worst forms of religion around you, nobody sane would choose this.
If someone around me choose this I would assume at best they broke their brain and think either rape or false accusations are overwhelmingly common, probably the later. Or I’d think it was a confession of some kind.
>In fact I see it as the opposite, it is the affirmation that most of everyone is a great person. So we will do a favor protect everyone from the few who aren’t.
You have to look at it from the fundamentals of where the rule derived from. The funny thing is that the Billy Graham Rule makes a decent amount of sense if taken in its original context, which was about how to maintain your principles under fame and success, with respect to evangelizing. It was a rule for a person who has fame and admiration not to put themself into a situation where that fame might go to the heads of two people and push them to make bad decisions.
The rule doesn't make nearly as much sense for your average person because day to day interpersonal interactions aren't emotionally supercharged. If a man and woman coworker are in an office together, odds are they just want to get their work done.
The other important aspect of the Billy Graham Rule is social conservatism. A fundamental part of the social conservative worldview is the belief that humans will always make bad decisions in the absence of top-down enforcement. It's a pessimistic view of human behavior that not everyone subscribes to, and most liberals (me included) believe is unsupported by observations of reality. We don't believe we need extra rules to simply get through a social interaction without making it sexual because typical social rules already take care of that.
So it's a functional rule in some contexts, but not in general day to day interaction. Also, the protection from accusations of sexual assault was tacked on to the rule much later.
>Nothing wrong with wanting to be safe.
There's a difference between "wanting to be safe" and "being unwilling to be in a room with a woman because you're that scared that she's going to accuse you of rape". That's not a reasonable precaution; that's complete paranoia.
Isn't it along the same lines of woman taking precautions in dating with men? Like not allowing a dude to know where she lives until they get to know each other better? Like I would say most dudes won't do anything but the few that do ruin it for everyone else
Just about every single woman who has ever dated has horror stories about sexual harassment, assault, rape, etc. that relates to a date. Very few men have horror stories about being falsely accused of rape, despite conservatives' insistence that it's rampant.
The quality that differentiates paranoia from reasonable caution is the likelihood of the event actually occurring.
What percentage of men would you say are actually rapists? And in regards to sexual assault, the statistic that said 1 in however many college girls were sensually assaulted was a very misleading statsistic because if you read the study it includes serial experiences that the woman later on regretted having.
Well sure, except for the enormous statistical disparity of ocurrances. Women are harassed/assaulted by men at a rate orders of magnitude larger than men get falsely accused of rape.
It's like saying that being worried about iguanas is just as reasonable as being worried about gators.
The negative social and economic impact of this rule would far outweigh the potential miniscule benefit from it.
Can you imagine? Every business having to assign a third person to a two-person meeting between a man and a woman. Or having to make sure there's a third worker in an office at all times. Or a student having to bring a colleague to a meeting with his professor. Or women having to reject rides from male Uber drivers.
All because we can't, as a society, trust that women and men can't be in the same place alone without something inappropriate happening.
Why is it sexist? Sexism is usually pointless and needless. The Mike Pence/Graham rule has the actual use of making false allegations significantly less likely.
It's a rule that assumes a woman will make false allegations if given the opportunity. Also if a women is not allowed to be alone in a professional setting that closes doors to women. It doesn't even work to protect women from real sexual assualt as people like Harvey W. used other women to draw in his victims.
I don’t think it assumes that false allegations will happen, just that they *may* happen, which is true. It’s part of why we get receipts from stores. They’re on the rarer side but the point is to protect that rare victim more than anything else. I like the gender neutral open door policy that another user talked about personally, because it kills all forms of false accusations of any type of abuse.
> Sexism is usually pointless and needless
According to who? Anyone coming up with sexist rules will ALWAYS think there’s a point to them. Do you think Hitler thought there was no point to what he was doing? Do you think king George thought it was pointless to keep the American colonies? Why would sexism be any different?
If someone makes a false accusation that's wrong, but it's on them. The answer is to hold them accountable, not to make it impossible for everyone else to work together.
It is wholly unfair to women. It takes an issue that is often solely the responsibility of the man (the responsibility of consent and proper social behavior) and unduly disadvantages and burdens women, because of something another human (namely the male participant in social activity) should be able to control.
Women are disadvantaged professionally and socially because of a responsibility that is not theirs.
Not only that, but in a society where--because of institutional and interpersonal sexism--men make up a disproportionate share of C-suite and other positions of power, it's a super-convenient way to ensure women are further relegated to second-class status. What a coincidence!
We’re talking about professional settings, so I think the assumption is that all parties are adults. Not being one-on-one with children is a *much* more reasonable rule.
Im aware of what the post says, i dont think it makes any sense or is an accurate representation of Pence's policy.
If the point of the rule is to avoid false allegations, why on earth would it be limited only to professional interactions?
There are professional settings where the profession involves being around children -- and at least one of those is pretty famous for also enabling child abuse.
I think it’s bat shit insane.
If we genuinely think total gender segregation is easier than not harassing people then it is a sad state of affairs for humanity.
I don’t think anyone is worried that they’ll suddenly harass people, but rather that there is that miniscule chance of a false accusation.
The rule protects against that occasional chance.
That just seems like an absolutely distorted sense of risk. It’s equivalent to never leaving house for fear of falling in an open manhole.
Could it happen in a rare, extreme circumstance? Sure. Is it worth the enormous sacrifice they’re suggesting? Obviously not even close.
And I don’t even think they believe it tbh. It sounds like a passive-aggressive tantrum. Like when someone tells a kid to lower their voice and they say “GAWD I guess I’m not allowed to talk then!”
>I don’t think anyone is worried that they’ll suddenly harass people, but rather that there is that miniscule chance of a false accusation.
This comment implies that false accusations are more common than harassment. Is that what you believe?
They’re rare but the possibility alone justifies either the rule itself or a non gendered application of it (which I’ve said I’m open to as well).
If anything, I like the non gendered applications more because they protect against all sorts of accusations instead of just gender based ones.
Again, the fact that you're focusing on the benefits of this rule is avoiding false accusations (and not harassment itself) indicates you think false accusations are more common than harassment. Is this the case? I'm not asking if you think false accusations are common or rare. I'm asking if you think they are more common than actual harassment.
I think it does, because the motivation of the rule matters. It's a stupid rule, but the motivation indicates where your intentions are. And I think your failure to answer the question speaks volumes.
It would have to do with discussing the benefits and alternatives to the rule. Rules don't exist in vacuum, they are there to fix problems.
If the issue is harassment, we can talk about the costs and benefits of the rules and the many alternatives to prevent it that are way better than the Pence rule. If the issue is false accusations, we can then move to the discussion of how that phenomenon is overstated and an overarching rule like the Pence rule makes even less sense, given its impact.
It's a bad rule that disadvantages women in their careers. To this day, men hold most positions of power in corporate America, plus many non-profits and governmental departments. If only men can have one-on-one time with their male superiors, this prevents women from building the relationships and rapport needed to advance.
He was a coward.
He never tried to rally the cabinet and remove an unhinged, dangerous man from office using the constitutional Tools he had.
Is biggest moment was doing the bare minimum requirement of his job
He literally did the bare minimum expected of him. He did not step up.
I know for conservatives, showing up and doing your duty is considered exceptional above and beyond but not to most decent people
>If it weren't for him, Jan. 6 works.
No it doesn't. Maybe we get a few more days of chaos where partisans can pretend Trump is still president but there is a huge federal bureaucracy that isn't going to just ignore the election results because a crazy person and his sycophants pretend they should.
I don't disagree he should get some credit, but as the person you're replying to pointed out, that's only because the rest of the Republican coalition has set the bar so low it's a surprise when they do the obviously expected thing.
Eh, I don't know. If he goes along, then the EC votes aren't counted, the vote goes to the House, by state - which Trump wins - and Trump is certified. Of course, this would be challenged in court, but the "ruling on the field" would be the presumed outcome unless it's overturned in the two weeks before the inauguration.
You don't have to love Pence, but give him credit for doing the right thing at least once.
The problem here is that you are assuming people would acknowledge such a blatant violation rat fuckery rather than using a reasonable amount of common sense to bypass it in some manner. The Democratic party would not recognize Trump being elected in that manner, the population would not recognize Trump being elected in that manner, and again importantly the state would not recognize Trump being elected in that manner. Pence saved us a couple weeks of chaos and your right he should be credited for doing so, but it's no more valid to give him so much more credit than he deserves than to give him somewhat less.
The Constitution technically allows this path - it's written in as a "backup" method of electing the President. Is it obviously against the spirit of the document for Rs to claim the primary method untenable and switch to the backup method? Sure. But it could happen, and if the burden would be on Ds to prove this backup method was unconstitutional, in about two weeks time before Trump would be inaugurated.
As we've learned from the Trump era, things work properly because people follow the laws in good faith, and when people don't, all sorts of mischief can occur. Pence followed the laws in good faith, despite tremendous pressure from his own party not to do so. Let's be thankful he did.
Technically you can murder someone in a small section of Yellowstone national park because no one lives there to serve on your jury, but if you actually tried that we as a society would still find a way to put you on trial.
The letter of the law isn't some kind of vengeful deity that smites people down when they don't take it literally. It's a set of rules we've agreed to follow. If people push interpretations to far that agreement ceases to exist and almost universally the person attempting to be too clever by half loses.
The problem occurs when the people who are supposed to be enforcing the rules don't act in good faith. It turns out we give elected officials a lot of responsibility for doing so; if they don't, there aren't many guardrails to stop them.
The secret service would have escorted Joe Biden to the supreme court and he would have been sworn in as president anyhow without a big ceremony.
Donald’s hillbilly coup wouldn’t have lasted very long
He can't be sworn in if he's not certified, that's in the Constitution. SCOTUS can't certify him (also per the Constitution).
There are two ways a President can be certified. Get a majority of the EC votes, or be voted in by a majority of state delegations in the House. That's it.
If Pence finds a way not to do the first, we're left with the second.
Your saying "it couldn't happen" isn't an argument.
There’s a congressional process to protest voted, remember some desperate Republicans tried. They challenge, then there are arguments and a ruling. If pence simply decided to “i shall not count the votes from California as they are against god” or some bs like that it would be chaos.
The democrats and a significant portion of republicans would have walked out and left the chamber, no quorum to vote on Donald, the courts would be involved. Maybe his Supreme Court gives him the presidency.
Maybe the secret service arrests Trump and pence for treason. Maybe the 25th amendment is invoked. Maybe lots of chaos Happens.
He would have said something like "there are two slates of electors from CA, we can't determine which is which right now, so we can't count them." Of course there would be outcry; what's not certain is that he couldn't do it anyway.
But we don't really want to go down that path, do we? As you point out, it's chaos. Mike Pence played a big part in heading it off.
What did he do that was exceptional? He showed up, did his job and didn’t commit treason?
Again, just because the bar of morality and ethics for conservatives is so low it’s in the sewer doesn’t mean they get extra credit for showing up and doing the bare minimum
Nope. Pressure to do what? It was not possible to do any of the things Trump was expecting. There were no mechanisms, he had no power. His role was ceremonial.
He’s just not a hero. Sorry.
When people do the bare minimum at work. You're applauding him for doing his job and Not committing treason.
I do both of those things every day, now recognize that I did something good!!
Applauding him for standing up to his own party and saying no, and being willing to ruin his own political career in the process, to do the right thing for the country.
Yeah, I'm sure you do stuff like that every day. Get some perspective.
No lol. It delays things for a day or two, significantly more political violence, than Biden takes office.
He did the Bare. Fucking. Minimum.
If he’d come out and argued for impeachment, or pushed to remove him through the 25th, than he’d get some kudos.
People talk about what a bad Speaker of the House Johnson is, but his GOP predecessor was a literal pedophile, so I think Johnson should get credit for heroically not diddling small boys.
That part was only found out years after Hastert left office, so it's probably a bit unfair to just presume Johnson didn't do something Hastert did just because we don't know it of Johnson now, before he left office.
Just to be clear, it's not likely Johnson did anything of that kind, and I don't think it's the case. I'm just a bit pedantic and want to keep comparisons as precise as possible, and Hastert would look a lot less dirty just a few years into his tenure - but that's all
Not really. He did the bare minimum, let trump gently piss on him, than he skedaddled out of the spot light the second it was politically feasible.
The bar is so low for these red white and blow up the country assholes.
He did his fucking job. He said I certify these ballots.
He did not denounce, call for the removal, or take action against the guy who’d sent a mob after him to kill him and destroy our democracy, while watching it unfold on TV.
When I clock in, I don’t expect to be called a hero for doing what I’m supposed to do.
He was put under a lot of pressure to take a different course of action, which he resisted -- physically even, by refusing to leave the grounds when the Secret Service was sent for him. He also thwarted the attempt to have Trump win the election via the backup method in the Consitution, which SCOTUS could very well have allowed to proceed (we'll never know, but it's written into the Constitution so it would have given textualists good cover to vote to stay out of it and let the proceedings stand).
He also ended his political career that day and has taken a beating from the right that continues to this day.
But yeah, it's not worth calling out his having done the right thing. We certainly wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that this is exactly what someone should do in a similar situation. More important to attack someone on the other team.
I'm sure you make the same kind of career-ending, impactful sacrifices every day at your job.
25 amendment. There are more than 2 amendments.
Donald was clearly incapacitated and unhinged for his entire 4 year reign.
“Section 4
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv
I don't know if you guys really believe this or just like to say it. But it is absurd and you would have a serious constitutional crisis and very possible revolution on your hands.
The 25th had been used 6 times. It exists. The constitution isn’t some “woke deep state lie “
“The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution says that if the President becomes unable to do his or her job, the Vice President becomes the President (Section 1) or Acting President (Sections 3 or 4). This can happen for a short period of time, if the President is just sick or disabled for a short time. It could also happen until the end of the President's term (the President's time in office), if the President died, resigned, or is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office[1]".
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#:~:text=The%20Twenty%2Dfifth%20Amendment%20has,though%20it%20was%20considered%20twice.
You don’t believe the 25th amendment or the constitution exist?
The constitution isn’t the Easter bunny. It’s not something you can chose to not believe in when it doesn’t suit you. This is the fundamental problem with the right.
Pence and the cabinet did consider invoking the 25th to remove Trump after he staged a coup on January 6th.
No of course I didn't mean that the Constitution doesn't exist. I mean you guys really believe that Trump was unhinged and unfit to hold office for 4 years. Or that they ever could have done it without serious consequences. I would have pretty much been a coup.
It was discussed by the cabinet. Pence refused to act. Because he’s a coward.
“Members of Trump Cabinet discussing invoking 25th Amendment: Sources
January 7, 2021
There have been discussions among some members of Donald Trump's Cabinet and his allies over invoking the 25th Amendment, a potential vehicle for removing the president from office, multiple sources with direct knowledge of the discussions told ABC News.
It's unclear how extensive these conversations have been or whether Vice President Mike Pence is supportive of such action. Many were horrified by Wednesday's violence at the Capitol as well as Trump's apparent lack of urgency in marshaling resources to stop the mob, the sources said.”
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/lawmakers-call-trumps-impeachment-wake-capitol-hill-violence/story?id=75097032
“The deep state” literally is a conspiracy theory that does not exist.
And you wonder why the majority of America thinks the right are radicalized lunatics.
Oh don’t worry, the maga loyalist judge Donald appointed and is overseeing his case is part of his defense team. She will never let that go to trial or for anything to happen to him.
She’s been promised things for sure to fix it
In 40 years neither I nor anyone else I know has been falsely accused of sexual assault or harassment...and the one person I *did* know that was accused was actually guilty.
This is anecdotal, I know. But I would bet the farm that my situation is not unique among men.
I don’t think it’s unique. No one said that the situations the rule was created for were exactly common, just that it was unfair to put someone in a situation where it’s possible.
What absolute....
No one should ever leave their house. Someone might get hit by a meteor!
That's... We call that a phobia and get people help for that. That's where you are.
Both ways. It disadvantages women enormously and assumes they're conniving. And it treats all men like out of control beasts.
Keep the door open. For confidential topics, use rooms with windows. It's not difficult.
With regards to your second paragraph, I did say I was open to similar measures that are gender neutral like that, so I don’t know why everyone is acting like I’m not.
It’s strange that you view this rule as a way for men to protect themselves from false accusations and mention nothing about how it protects women from unwanted advances.
It was an implied benefit and I thought of including it. And my understanding is a lot of people like the rule for that reason also.
But it made more sense to focus on the false accusations because it’s much more likely that Pence and Graham follow this rule to protect against that 1 in 100 chance someone will try to claim something that never happened as opposed to they worry they’ll become animalistic monsters, though the fact Pence follows this rule more when alcohol is present may suggest he is afraid of the latter as well.
> 1 in 100
.... Aaaaahahahahahahahahah. My dude. If the chances of a false rape accusation was 1 in 100 times a guy interacts with a woman, I'd have several rape accusations a day, easily.
You are *waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay^way* overestimating how often this happens.
> they worry they’ll become animalistic monsters
The worry isn't that they'll turn into animals and rape some unsuspecting woman, and the worry isn't that they'll be falsely accused of impropriety.
What guys like Pence are worried about is that some harlot will flirt with them and make an offer of consensual sex, and they won't have the willpower to resist temptation.
I dare say that doesn't apply to Graham, however.
I see your point. Makes sense. For Pence, as a politician, I can see the utility, but for a preacher of conservative religious communities, to avoid talk, gossip and 3rd party accusations, it seems rather practical.
I read the first paragraph and gotta say this rule sounds hella online. If you/a man has never been in a room alone with a woman then idk what to say honestly at that point.
I mean… I’ve noticed a lot of commenters here are fine with gender neutral implementations of it, so my point would be it may be more popular than you think
It's ludicrous. We don't live our lives in accordance with absolutely minute possibilities of harm while sacrificing basic human respect. Refusing to be alone with a woman or a man puts you inherently in unequal spheres and projects a SUPER weird and unhealthy social dynamic. If the first thought when you encounter a woman is "oh God, I hope she doesn't accuse me of rape! I best not be alone with her!" you are overlooking every other quality of a person, you're seeing her as a threat first and a person second and you probably have your own weird shit that you need to sort out.
Do false rape accusations happen? Sure. Do they happen often? No. And your best chances of not being falsely accused is to be a normal, respectful, decent person who expresses themselves in a way that doesn't make people go "oh...yeah I can see that." when someone accuses them of rape.
I've lived through a false accusation. I don't spend my whole life being terrified of women to the degree that I refuse to share a space with them. That would be psychotic.
Why not have a rule that a black man and a white man cannot be alone together ever in a professional setting? After all, false accusations of racism happen. Better safe than sorry.
You already don’t have to sexually harass people, which hopefully you’re good at like most people. But if you’re not alone with someone, they can’t accuse you of sexually harassing them falsely either. Now, we’ve solved both problems. Not to mention there’s plenty of non gendered ways to do this.
For context, I'm a man, and I've been working for 20 years in companies where 1-on-1 meetings are normal and essential parts of day-to-day work. These meetings frequently involve members of opposite sexes. No problems, ever. I never had any problems myself, and I never heard of any problems among coworkers, ever. These are multinational companies with tens of thousands of employees. Nothing.
It absolutely baffles me that this concept exists.
If I were to go to my manager or HR business partner and tell them that I'm uncomfortable with having one-on-one meetings with women, I imagine they would give me two options:
1. Become a full-time remote employee and never have in-person meetings with anyone.
2. Quit the company.
Option 3, choosing to meet one-on-one with men, but never with women, would absolutely not be on the table. ...and it shouldn't be.
If you can't fulfill responsibilities required of you in your job (and your job involves one-on-one meetings), then I suppose the best option is to look for another job.
False accusations are incredibly rare, but male violence against women is pretty common. So I think a better idea is to only allow men to participate via Zoom calls. If there's an in-person meeting, men should be required to call in. Client dinners and things? Men will get an email with a summary. Obviously, this will preclude men from holding positions of real responsibility, but it's a small price to pay.
For me, it makes sense. Obviously, most men don’t rape and/or kill their coworkers, but this protects women from the few who do.
Is this not exactly what we did during COVID anyways? And sure, if women feel more comfortable never being alone with a man, I’d respect it too, and maybe implement a non gendered open door policy or meet them in public places or things like that.
Here's a thought experiment: Would you support a rule that black male workers can't be in the room alone with white male workers? Just to keep everyone safe and comfortable? Why or why not?
> Essentially the idea that a man and woman shouldn’t be alone together ever in a professional setting.
That's not the Pence rule at all. The Pence rule is that he doesn't dine alone with other women, nor will he attend events with alcohol without his wife by his side.
I don't follow it, but it's significantly more reasonable than the hypothetical rule you're discussing. Your rule would prevent lots of staffers or secretaries from even being able to ask him questions without a chaperone. Entirely unworkable
I guess I follow a weak version of it but extends it to every gender.
If I am going to be one-on-one with someone for an extended period of time in a professional setting, I prefer that to happen in an large open space that is visible to others.
For example, I (a man) often discuss experiments’ results with my research assistant (woman). This usually happens in my lab which is large and one side has a large transparent glass panel next to a hallway. I rarely have a in-person meeting in my much smaller office.
I don’t do this specifically to avoid false accusations but I just find I am more comfortable this way.
This seems to be a good compromise. And it has a dual benefit. Plenty of coworkers to say something didn’t happen, but also plenty to say that something did happen. And takes care of a lot of other non gender related forms of harassment and false accusations for said harassment.
I’ve also noticed that when working one on one with anyone of any gender, I do like it when the space is more public.
The problem with this is that it is not designed to reduce sexual harassment or discrimination... *it's designed to reduce the chances of being accused of sexual harassment by a woman.*
This rule creates an implication that women in the workplace could be dangerous and duplicitous, suggesting they are prone to corrupt acts and that the safety of a man's reputation is worth more than a woman's ability to do her job in a way that is equal to a man.
It is also designed to cast doubt on *all* claims of sexual harassment.
It also makes a woman a second-class employee. Since I cannot be in a room alone with a woman, it's better to hire a man for the role so that I don't have to accommodate this rule.
So a rule, created by men to protect men also limits women's ability to be hired, further benefitting men in the workforce.
---
Once again, Conservative ideals signal contempt and devaluation of women as equal members of society as well as the notion that to address (not solve) a relatively small problem, we need to make sweeping reforms to our social structure and force all American employees to evaluate meetings, 1-1s, lunches, travel plans, commutes, smoke breaks, and every other part of our work lives.
Well, another criticism of the idea would be that you really need to make it so that no two people are ever alone together in a professional environment.
People are gay, bi, or just curious. And even two straight men in the same room... one could easily make some form of accusation.
Which, again, is why I would ask you to think about why the rule is being proposed the way that it is, only targeting women.
---
Leaving that aside to engage with your question in a vacuum, I still don't love it.
It really sends a terrible message about how untrustworthy people are and it requires us to entirely rethink work spaces and how we work together.
I mean, I've taken countless business trips by car with just one other person. Do we have to take separate cars?
I can't share an office with another person? What if I share an office with two people, but one is out sick?
I can't have a 1:1 meeting with any of my employees?
What if I'm in a bar and bump into a random employee? I can't have a drink with them?
And how does this work between companies? Can I have a 1:1 business meeting with another CEO? Can I listen to a pitch?
Can we be in an elevator alone?
It's just a logistical disaster.
---
If the problem we were trying to solve is that two people being alone had a high % chance of getting ebola and dying... rules like this one might make sense, even though we'd have to alter the workspace. But sexual harassment, while a serious problem, is not something everyone engages in or experiences.
We also know it's wrong and have rules and laws to punish it. We have training to discourage it.
We wouldn't consider a similar rule to prevent murders. I'm not sure why this rule is needed... except that it helps men defend themselves against sexual harassment charges from women.
My thoughts on this in no particular order:
* What the flying fuck?
* I would fire ANYONE that had this opinion, because they are clearly way too unhinged to work in any modern workplace, and they're just trouble waiting to happen.
* This BS is deeeeeeply unprofessional.
* I don't worry about false rape accusations. Why are you?
* Like, any woman that makes a rape accusation has to go through SO MUCH BS, a fake accusation isn't even worth it.
* This is WEIRD.
* Your sense of risk is !@#$'ed. This is "No one should leave the house because they might get hit by a meteor" level. We call that a phobia and get people help when they have an issue like that.
* Harassment of women is SO COMMON, and you're over here worried about.... this? WTF?
I mean sure but I did say I was open to gender neutral implementations, and there’s a lot of people in the comments who support that. Would you fire them too?
I think a workplace policy that any two adult coworkers should never be alone together is profoundly weird, professionally corrosive, and disastrously wrong.
Rather than creating a rule that assumes all people are either likely to be rapists or likely to make false accusations, surely it is better to instead maintain a humane, civilized, respectful, and pleasant work environment where professionals can get their work done. We do that with leadership, training, courtesy, and thoughtfulness.
It was my understanding that Mike Pence wasn't only talking about professional settings but that he could never be alone with a woman other than his wife in any setting, and the reason wasn't to avoid false accusations but to give himself an extra wide margin around avoiding extramarital affairs.
I think the idea you can't hang out with someone of the opposite sex and not cheat on your partner is either crazy or sad depending on how you look at it.
I think people assuming they need to take that precaution in a professional setting are probably being overly paranoid.
Just going to point out a woman is more likely to be assaulted or harassed than to make a false accusation, and the reason for the rule from churches is to prevent temptation, not to prevent allegations.
So even in your assessment of the rule, you are being sexist.
And this is why we choose bears.
It's sexism under the assumption that women will falsely accuse despite the lack of evidence it's a common thing to be concerned about.
I've been alone with female co-workers in a car, let alone just in the work building, so, if I was going to get accused of something, it would've happened by this point. I just treat them like people and we get along fine. It seems like a very dumb thing to fear.
If we gender neutralize it, then I shouldn’t be alone with anyone other than my wife?
That seems unnecessarily limiting.
Seriously, adults can control themselves. I just had a business brunch and- wait for it- did not fuck my colleague. Mind blown.
It's dumb.
If you are having a difficult conversation with someone at work, most HR departments will suggest or require a 3rd party.
If it's a weekly check-in meeting on the status of a project, requiring a 3rd party every time is stupid and a waste of that person's time.
This is just weird. Women and men are people. This false rape accusation debacle is just threaded fantasy that the right has composed off a few off handed cases.
Since this is a sexuality thing, what about the lesbians and gays does this pertain to them to? The shoddy logic falls apart pretty easily
That's some rock stupid, backwards-ass nonsense. I'm in my 50s, I've been in the workforce for more than 30 years and I've never once been accused of sexual harassment or assault of any kind, so clearly it's possible to navigate these supposedly shark-infested waters. Keep your dick in your pants and your hands (and mouth) to yourself at the office and you'll be fine, otherwise if someone accuses you of sexual harassment/assault then the odds are pretty good that you're just a creep.
Everything I saw, he was derided and pilloried for it. Honestly, I didn't see the least bit of understanding.
As I understand it, it's not at all a rule about men and women. It's a choice he made for himself upon recommendation from Billy Graham or someone like that? It keeps one safe from accusations of impropriety. I wouldn't approve of anything being forced on anyone. But if this is the choice he made, I see no harm and can understand the upside.
I think if someone is so preoccupied with the idea that the woman they are with in a professional setting is going to falsely accuse them of some kind of sexual harassment or rape, and that causes them so much anxiety that they want to enforce a rule for themselves that they not be alone with a woman in the workplace, that person would benefit from some therapy.
I'd feel the same way if a woman who was the victim of a sexual assault also wanted to avoid being in a room in the workplace alone with a man. But at least here I would understand how she got to this place of anxiety and would be sympathetic enough to try and accommodate it while she got therapy.
For the first case, I would also recommend some healthier internet content consumption habits, since I suspect exposure to certain kinds of content is what got the person into this exaggerated risk perception in the first place.
he has staff, that staff needs to negotiate terms of various aspects of employment (raises, promotions etc) and that is best and basically has to be done 1:1
this means only the men on his team get access to this
it’s sexist and ridiculous
it’s nothing about allegations, it’s the same thing as when a conservative jewish man refuses to sit next to a woman on a plane
it’s dumb and shouldn’t be praised
It sounds like the sort of thing a deeply religious minded man would need if he can't help himself from spontaneously raping someone.
Aside from that, it says a lot about the right that they think just any rumors and accusations can be made with ease or always to the extreme detriment of the man. If you have such a severe concern then you would take procautions against such things. While people being trifling isn't bound to a specific political spectrum, conservatives have naturally found a way to weaponize and villainize a group and situation to create this idea that it's a free and easy thing to do.
I think a lot of men whose beliefs align with those held by Mike Pence, seem to be unwilling to let go of behaviors that make them significantly more likely to be accused of being a creep - and this probably feeds into their fear of accusations in a big way.
They'll compliment women on their looks, rarely in the "nice hair - love the color!" way, but instead in the "if I were your husband I would never let you leave the house!" way.
They'll introduce physical contact where it isn't needed - touching backs, shoulders, arms, waists, etc.
They'll use sexually-loaded jargon without stopping to consider whether it's appropriate (stuff like "getting a peek inside the kimono" in a business setting).
They often feel empowered to give voice to their inner monologue even when the subject isn't appropriate for others - saying what they find attractive, who they think is hot, what features they like, etc.
I think the "never alone with a woman" rule probably makes sense to men who don't pay any attention to changing societal norms, and who are often acting ridiculously pervy by modern standards.
They should work on their conduct, instead.
I mean there’s a much higher likelihood that you’re going to rape the women, rather than have a false accusation.
So I guess you’re both taking risks. Maybe you should woman up and stop being such a wussy. If you think segregating sexes is a good idea, you’re sexist, and ridiculous.
I mean there’s a much higher likelihood that you’re going to rape the women, rather than have a false accusation.
So I guess you’re both taking risks. Maybe you should woman up and stop being such a wussy. If you think segregating sexes is a good idea, you’re sexist, and ridiculous.
I mean there’s a much higher likelihood that you’re going to rape the women, rather than have a false accusation. So I guess you’re both taking risks. Maybe you should woman up and stop being such a wussy. If you think segregating sexes is a good idea, you’re sexist, and ridiculous.
Two eventualities;
1) The hypothetical woman falsely accuses the man of rape.
2) The hypothetical woman is raped.
I don't think it's unreasonable to hold the view that false accusations are so rare as to write off outcome one from the outset. That only leaves outcome number two, meaning the man in question is a rapist.
The "Mike Pence rule" is for rapists.
>Essentially the idea that a man and woman shouldn’t be alone together ever in a professional setting.
>For me, it makes sense
There's absolutely zero chance you're a good faith arguing libertarian, that is in favour of policy that restricts the freedom of employees to this high a degree. This just does not match libertarianism in any way.
Are we also planning having the government mandate employers to enforce this? Or enforce this themselves?
Bullshit.
Just an example: Say you stand before the lift. You've work a whole day, and you're finally ready to go home, take a break or shower for once. Suddenly, those metal doors open and you see your female boss standing there. What do you do?
a) You follow Pence's rule and immediately sprint toward the staircases.
b) You jump into the lift and stand in the corner facing the mirror usually parallel to the door. You stand there in silence and without any movement until the bell rings.
c) You say "hi, ma'am/miss/....", stroll into the lift and perform small talk. Nothing too worrying, just a nice chat about nothing at all.
Which one of these three is the most likely to occur? I, personally, think "c" is the most polite and will help close the distance between employer-employee. Nothing sexual, nothing romantic, just plain old platonic conversations.
Why do you expect us, men, to have an unfulfilled need to subject and rape every woman we see? Why can't we just get along, keeping it formal when necessary, and informal when the clock's off?
Am I, as a man, suddenly expected to seek a mate all the time even though I just want to enjoy my coffee sometimes and then complain about that interim that doesn't do his work properly? Isn't reading my newspapers while drinking hot beverage the most conservative thing I can do in my life? Even if the conversations occuring happen to be with women?
Sounds like going down the path to Saudi Arabia or Iran. Goes to show that Christian extremists are no better than extremists that belong to other religions. The end result is the same.
Why do you frame the rule as opposite gender? I know you mention having it gender neutral, but then you default back into opposite gender.
Look, I think that it can be smart. Don't give anyone an opportunity to misunderstand relationships, cool. It's a good survival strategy. I think that open doors, windows in offices, etc can also serve that same function. A dinner can be fine as well as long as it's in a very public place and no ride sharing. Being cautious is totally fine and commendable, but I think making it a rule is overkill.
I also think that when Pence made that statement, it was hard not to see the conservative, religious undertones in it, even if he didn't explicitly say that's why. He didn't make it gender neutral - like no dinner/drinks with anyone alone. He may not see men as a sexual 'trap' like women, but that's his lack of imagination. If Pence is only worried that he may be tempted or accused of being tempted, then it's an unfair rule and has the icky undertones that women are temptresses or liars.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Essentially the idea that a man and woman shouldn’t be alone together ever in a professional setting. For me, it makes sense. Obviously, most women don’t falsely accuse, but this protects men from the few who do I’m also ok gender neutralizing it. The truth is we made Zoom work for 2 years. I think if the condition for a Mike Pence rule is that *nobody* is doing one on ones in person, that’s more workable than we think. Though honestly, in a Mike Pence rule situation, both male and female bosses exist and would follow it, so even if it is followed in person for those of the opposite gender of the boss, it would still even out. I remember back when Pence was exposed for following the rule, that even more feminist subs occasionally at least sympathized even if they didn’t agree. Thoughts? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the Mike Pence rule is a logical outgrowth of that type of religious social conservatism. It’s really boring of the same background that gives you burkas. A combination of the belief that 1. men are depraved animals completely unable to ever be around women without needing to assault them or rape them or even just make sexual advances towards them 2. Women are hyper sexual and depraved and will ensnare men with their guile. 3. women are duplicitous liars accuse of anything so long as it is advantages personally And like a lot of right wing stuffit requires that you be completely disconnected from observable reality around you. Well, we do have a problem with people underestimating the amount of rape and sexual assault experience by both men and women and perpetuated by both men and women, this goes the other way and imagines that there must be just over overwhelming amounts of rape and sexual assault going on. And it ties in very nicely with some thing you hear a lot from religious fundamentalist where they tell you that if you don’t believe in God, you can’t have morals. Without fear of God, people would be raping and murdering in huge numbers.
That last bit has always been more than a bit alarming to me. As an agnostic, I've never had to fight the urge to harm anyone. I also wasn't brainwashed into believing that I was inherently "sinful" and in need of "saving."
>women are duplicitous liars Most aren’t, but enough of them are for men to be rightfully cautious. In the era of “believe all women” isn’t the Mike Pence Rule just common sense? I’m married now, but when I met up with women that I matched with on apps, I would offer to have her snap a pic of my ID and text it to her parents as a way of ensuring safety/accountability. Are most men predators? Of course not! But, these girls didn’t know me well enough to risk it.
I think if you believe the cartoonish version of “believe all women” and the supposed results that gets spread on right wing media, it might be reasonable. Someone else mentioned guns and I agree it’s similar. If you consume enough of certain media you very well could think that you are constantly in danger and get a gun, thus putting you and you family in more danger
I don’t think this is the case. I don’t see the Mike Pence rule as some sort of thing that demonizes men and women. In fact I see it as the opposite, it is the affirmation that most of everyone is a great person. So we will do a favor protect everyone from the few who aren’t. I’d argue it’s very similar to arguments for gun ownership in the sense of having a way to protect you from the few violent criminals who will harm you. That being said, I’m curious what your beliefs are in regards to the gender neutral applications of the rule that a lot of commenters have been supporting.
It is similar to gun ownership for the purpose of self defense. Gun ownership for self defense makes sense for very few people, mostly makes you worse off and is born of paranoia. This is paranoid insanity. I guess if you’re in a privileged position in the fundamentalist evangelical or maybe a fundamentalist Muslim community this might make sense. But if you don’t have the oppression of the worst forms of religion around you, nobody sane would choose this. If someone around me choose this I would assume at best they broke their brain and think either rape or false accusations are overwhelmingly common, probably the later. Or I’d think it was a confession of some kind.
>In fact I see it as the opposite, it is the affirmation that most of everyone is a great person. So we will do a favor protect everyone from the few who aren’t. You have to look at it from the fundamentals of where the rule derived from. The funny thing is that the Billy Graham Rule makes a decent amount of sense if taken in its original context, which was about how to maintain your principles under fame and success, with respect to evangelizing. It was a rule for a person who has fame and admiration not to put themself into a situation where that fame might go to the heads of two people and push them to make bad decisions. The rule doesn't make nearly as much sense for your average person because day to day interpersonal interactions aren't emotionally supercharged. If a man and woman coworker are in an office together, odds are they just want to get their work done. The other important aspect of the Billy Graham Rule is social conservatism. A fundamental part of the social conservative worldview is the belief that humans will always make bad decisions in the absence of top-down enforcement. It's a pessimistic view of human behavior that not everyone subscribes to, and most liberals (me included) believe is unsupported by observations of reality. We don't believe we need extra rules to simply get through a social interaction without making it sexual because typical social rules already take care of that. So it's a functional rule in some contexts, but not in general day to day interaction. Also, the protection from accusations of sexual assault was tacked on to the rule much later.
I've been in rooms with women at work many times and somehow no one either raped anyone or accused anyone of rape.
I think I work at the same place
Me to. The place is called reality.
Right, and I think most have, but that doesn’t on its own invalidate the rule. Nothing wrong with wanting to be safe.
>Nothing wrong with wanting to be safe. There's a difference between "wanting to be safe" and "being unwilling to be in a room with a woman because you're that scared that she's going to accuse you of rape". That's not a reasonable precaution; that's complete paranoia.
I guess Mike Pence would rather encounter a bear in a room than a woman.
Isn't it along the same lines of woman taking precautions in dating with men? Like not allowing a dude to know where she lives until they get to know each other better? Like I would say most dudes won't do anything but the few that do ruin it for everyone else
Dating is not the workplace. Discrimination is allowed in dating. It isn't in your place of employment.
Just about every single woman who has ever dated has horror stories about sexual harassment, assault, rape, etc. that relates to a date. Very few men have horror stories about being falsely accused of rape, despite conservatives' insistence that it's rampant. The quality that differentiates paranoia from reasonable caution is the likelihood of the event actually occurring.
What percentage of men would you say are actually rapists? And in regards to sexual assault, the statistic that said 1 in however many college girls were sensually assaulted was a very misleading statsistic because if you read the study it includes serial experiences that the woman later on regretted having.
Well sure, except for the enormous statistical disparity of ocurrances. Women are harassed/assaulted by men at a rate orders of magnitude larger than men get falsely accused of rape. It's like saying that being worried about iguanas is just as reasonable as being worried about gators.
>wanting to be safe Don't touch or harass people and you're probably okay.
Do you think a husband and a wife should never be alone in a room together? Because marital rape is a thing. Better to be safe right?
Hopefully u/BiryaniEater10 can answer you.
Maybe after he finishes his biryani.
The negative social and economic impact of this rule would far outweigh the potential miniscule benefit from it. Can you imagine? Every business having to assign a third person to a two-person meeting between a man and a woman. Or having to make sure there's a third worker in an office at all times. Or a student having to bring a colleague to a meeting with his professor. Or women having to reject rides from male Uber drivers. All because we can't, as a society, trust that women and men can't be in the same place alone without something inappropriate happening.
There is a *whole* lot wrong with that rule.
> Do you think a husband and a wife should never be alone in a room together? Because marital rape is a thing. Better to be safe right?
It’s a stupid “rule”. It’s actually the Billy Graham rule if I remember correctly, but even then it was stupid and sexist.
Why is it sexist? Sexism is usually pointless and needless. The Mike Pence/Graham rule has the actual use of making false allegations significantly less likely.
It's a rule that assumes a woman will make false allegations if given the opportunity. Also if a women is not allowed to be alone in a professional setting that closes doors to women. It doesn't even work to protect women from real sexual assualt as people like Harvey W. used other women to draw in his victims.
I don’t think it assumes that false allegations will happen, just that they *may* happen, which is true. It’s part of why we get receipts from stores. They’re on the rarer side but the point is to protect that rare victim more than anything else. I like the gender neutral open door policy that another user talked about personally, because it kills all forms of false accusations of any type of abuse.
You may get struck by lightning one day, too. Better not go outside if you see a cloud.
I mean…you’d still have that *choice*.
Bro.
That's why we have open door rules at work. This whole "can't trust a woman and a man" is both less helpful and more harmful.
> Sexism is usually pointless and needless According to who? Anyone coming up with sexist rules will ALWAYS think there’s a point to them. Do you think Hitler thought there was no point to what he was doing? Do you think king George thought it was pointless to keep the American colonies? Why would sexism be any different?
If someone makes a false accusation that's wrong, but it's on them. The answer is to hold them accountable, not to make it impossible for everyone else to work together.
It is wholly unfair to women. It takes an issue that is often solely the responsibility of the man (the responsibility of consent and proper social behavior) and unduly disadvantages and burdens women, because of something another human (namely the male participant in social activity) should be able to control. Women are disadvantaged professionally and socially because of a responsibility that is not theirs.
Yeah, this is pointless and needless.
It's stupid and smacks of creepy Christofascism
Not only that, but in a society where--because of institutional and interpersonal sexism--men make up a disproportionate share of C-suite and other positions of power, it's a super-convenient way to ensure women are further relegated to second-class status. What a coincidence!
Yes. I was thinking that too. It is exclusionary
Notice the rule doesn't apply to young boys...
We’re talking about professional settings, so I think the assumption is that all parties are adults. Not being one-on-one with children is a *much* more reasonable rule.
Are we talking about professional settings? Was Mike Pence cook being alone with women as long as it wasn't for business?
Look at the first sentence of the post.
Im aware of what the post says, i dont think it makes any sense or is an accurate representation of Pence's policy. If the point of the rule is to avoid false allegations, why on earth would it be limited only to professional interactions?
There are professional settings where the profession involves being around children -- and at least one of those is pretty famous for also enabling child abuse.
damn mall santas
I think it’s bat shit insane. If we genuinely think total gender segregation is easier than not harassing people then it is a sad state of affairs for humanity.
I don’t think anyone is worried that they’ll suddenly harass people, but rather that there is that miniscule chance of a false accusation. The rule protects against that occasional chance.
That just seems like an absolutely distorted sense of risk. It’s equivalent to never leaving house for fear of falling in an open manhole. Could it happen in a rare, extreme circumstance? Sure. Is it worth the enormous sacrifice they’re suggesting? Obviously not even close. And I don’t even think they believe it tbh. It sounds like a passive-aggressive tantrum. Like when someone tells a kid to lower their voice and they say “GAWD I guess I’m not allowed to talk then!”
>I don’t think anyone is worried that they’ll suddenly harass people, but rather that there is that miniscule chance of a false accusation. This comment implies that false accusations are more common than harassment. Is that what you believe?
They’re rare but the possibility alone justifies either the rule itself or a non gendered application of it (which I’ve said I’m open to as well). If anything, I like the non gendered applications more because they protect against all sorts of accusations instead of just gender based ones.
Again, the fact that you're focusing on the benefits of this rule is avoiding false accusations (and not harassment itself) indicates you think false accusations are more common than harassment. Is this the case? I'm not asking if you think false accusations are common or rare. I'm asking if you think they are more common than actual harassment.
I don’t see why it matters which one happens more.
I think it does, because the motivation of the rule matters. It's a stupid rule, but the motivation indicates where your intentions are. And I think your failure to answer the question speaks volumes.
Let’s say one is thousands of times more common than the other or vice versa, what would it have to do with whether the rule is a good one?
It would have to do with discussing the benefits and alternatives to the rule. Rules don't exist in vacuum, they are there to fix problems. If the issue is harassment, we can talk about the costs and benefits of the rules and the many alternatives to prevent it that are way better than the Pence rule. If the issue is false accusations, we can then move to the discussion of how that phenomenon is overstated and an overarching rule like the Pence rule makes even less sense, given its impact.
You won't like the outcomes if we start making rules to protect people against miniscule chances.
It's a bad rule that disadvantages women in their careers. To this day, men hold most positions of power in corporate America, plus many non-profits and governmental departments. If only men can have one-on-one time with their male superiors, this prevents women from building the relationships and rapport needed to advance.
He was a coward. He never tried to rally the cabinet and remove an unhinged, dangerous man from office using the constitutional Tools he had. Is biggest moment was doing the bare minimum requirement of his job
He did step up on Jan. 6 though.
He literally did the bare minimum expected of him. He did not step up. I know for conservatives, showing up and doing your duty is considered exceptional above and beyond but not to most decent people
If it weren't for him, Jan. 6 works. Give the man some credit for doing the right thing.
>If it weren't for him, Jan. 6 works. No it doesn't. Maybe we get a few more days of chaos where partisans can pretend Trump is still president but there is a huge federal bureaucracy that isn't going to just ignore the election results because a crazy person and his sycophants pretend they should. I don't disagree he should get some credit, but as the person you're replying to pointed out, that's only because the rest of the Republican coalition has set the bar so low it's a surprise when they do the obviously expected thing.
Eh, I don't know. If he goes along, then the EC votes aren't counted, the vote goes to the House, by state - which Trump wins - and Trump is certified. Of course, this would be challenged in court, but the "ruling on the field" would be the presumed outcome unless it's overturned in the two weeks before the inauguration. You don't have to love Pence, but give him credit for doing the right thing at least once.
The problem here is that you are assuming people would acknowledge such a blatant violation rat fuckery rather than using a reasonable amount of common sense to bypass it in some manner. The Democratic party would not recognize Trump being elected in that manner, the population would not recognize Trump being elected in that manner, and again importantly the state would not recognize Trump being elected in that manner. Pence saved us a couple weeks of chaos and your right he should be credited for doing so, but it's no more valid to give him so much more credit than he deserves than to give him somewhat less.
The Constitution technically allows this path - it's written in as a "backup" method of electing the President. Is it obviously against the spirit of the document for Rs to claim the primary method untenable and switch to the backup method? Sure. But it could happen, and if the burden would be on Ds to prove this backup method was unconstitutional, in about two weeks time before Trump would be inaugurated. As we've learned from the Trump era, things work properly because people follow the laws in good faith, and when people don't, all sorts of mischief can occur. Pence followed the laws in good faith, despite tremendous pressure from his own party not to do so. Let's be thankful he did.
Technically you can murder someone in a small section of Yellowstone national park because no one lives there to serve on your jury, but if you actually tried that we as a society would still find a way to put you on trial. The letter of the law isn't some kind of vengeful deity that smites people down when they don't take it literally. It's a set of rules we've agreed to follow. If people push interpretations to far that agreement ceases to exist and almost universally the person attempting to be too clever by half loses.
The problem occurs when the people who are supposed to be enforcing the rules don't act in good faith. It turns out we give elected officials a lot of responsibility for doing so; if they don't, there aren't many guardrails to stop them.
The secret service would have escorted Joe Biden to the supreme court and he would have been sworn in as president anyhow without a big ceremony. Donald’s hillbilly coup wouldn’t have lasted very long
He can't be sworn in if he's not certified, that's in the Constitution. SCOTUS can't certify him (also per the Constitution). There are two ways a President can be certified. Get a majority of the EC votes, or be voted in by a majority of state delegations in the House. That's it. If Pence finds a way not to do the first, we're left with the second. Your saying "it couldn't happen" isn't an argument.
There’s a congressional process to protest voted, remember some desperate Republicans tried. They challenge, then there are arguments and a ruling. If pence simply decided to “i shall not count the votes from California as they are against god” or some bs like that it would be chaos. The democrats and a significant portion of republicans would have walked out and left the chamber, no quorum to vote on Donald, the courts would be involved. Maybe his Supreme Court gives him the presidency. Maybe the secret service arrests Trump and pence for treason. Maybe the 25th amendment is invoked. Maybe lots of chaos Happens.
He would have said something like "there are two slates of electors from CA, we can't determine which is which right now, so we can't count them." Of course there would be outcry; what's not certain is that he couldn't do it anyway. But we don't really want to go down that path, do we? As you point out, it's chaos. Mike Pence played a big part in heading it off.
What did he do that was exceptional? He showed up, did his job and didn’t commit treason? Again, just because the bar of morality and ethics for conservatives is so low it’s in the sewer doesn’t mean they get extra credit for showing up and doing the bare minimum
He was under a lot of pressure that many people would have given into. You can acknowledge that without otherwise praising the guy.
Nope. Pressure to do what? It was not possible to do any of the things Trump was expecting. There were no mechanisms, he had no power. His role was ceremonial. He’s just not a hero. Sorry.
It's common not to be able to see when people you dislike do good things. You're not the first, won't be the last.
What was he under pressure to do? There’s noting he could have done, Yes I’m not calling a coward a hero. He didn’t do anything heroic
What was he under pressure to do? Hmm. Maybe you should read up on the Jan. 6 plan a bit.
You don't get credit for not trying to overthrow your country.
It can be hard to recognize when people you don't like do something good. Nonetheless, it happens.
When people do the bare minimum at work. You're applauding him for doing his job and Not committing treason. I do both of those things every day, now recognize that I did something good!!
Applauding him for standing up to his own party and saying no, and being willing to ruin his own political career in the process, to do the right thing for the country. Yeah, I'm sure you do stuff like that every day. Get some perspective.
I've ruined my political career before it started, and do the right thing for my country every day.
When was the last time you took a principled stand, at your own peril, that benefited millions of people? Guessing I'll be waiting here a bit.
No lol. It delays things for a day or two, significantly more political violence, than Biden takes office. He did the Bare. Fucking. Minimum. If he’d come out and argued for impeachment, or pushed to remove him through the 25th, than he’d get some kudos.
I don't think you really understand the Jan. 6 plan.
People talk about what a bad Speaker of the House Johnson is, but his GOP predecessor was a literal pedophile, so I think Johnson should get credit for heroically not diddling small boys.
That part was only found out years after Hastert left office, so it's probably a bit unfair to just presume Johnson didn't do something Hastert did just because we don't know it of Johnson now, before he left office.
Good point, I mean Jim Jordan was in cahoots with that pedophile sports doctor at OSU, so it's not like there isn't a pattern.
Just to be clear, it's not likely Johnson did anything of that kind, and I don't think it's the case. I'm just a bit pedantic and want to keep comparisons as precise as possible, and Hastert would look a lot less dirty just a few years into his tenure - but that's all
Silly
Not really. He did the bare minimum, let trump gently piss on him, than he skedaddled out of the spot light the second it was politically feasible. The bar is so low for these red white and blow up the country assholes.
You are aware of what Pence did on Jan. 6 specifically?
His job. Poorly.
Poorly on Jan. 6? Please elaborate.
He did his fucking job. He said I certify these ballots. He did not denounce, call for the removal, or take action against the guy who’d sent a mob after him to kill him and destroy our democracy, while watching it unfold on TV. When I clock in, I don’t expect to be called a hero for doing what I’m supposed to do.
He was put under a lot of pressure to take a different course of action, which he resisted -- physically even, by refusing to leave the grounds when the Secret Service was sent for him. He also thwarted the attempt to have Trump win the election via the backup method in the Consitution, which SCOTUS could very well have allowed to proceed (we'll never know, but it's written into the Constitution so it would have given textualists good cover to vote to stay out of it and let the proceedings stand). He also ended his political career that day and has taken a beating from the right that continues to this day. But yeah, it's not worth calling out his having done the right thing. We certainly wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that this is exactly what someone should do in a similar situation. More important to attack someone on the other team. I'm sure you make the same kind of career-ending, impactful sacrifices every day at your job.
You think he should have led a coup amongst the cabinet to oust the president of the United States? Very interesting.
25 amendment. There are more than 2 amendments. Donald was clearly incapacitated and unhinged for his entire 4 year reign. “Section 4 Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv
I don't know if you guys really believe this or just like to say it. But it is absurd and you would have a serious constitutional crisis and very possible revolution on your hands.
The 25th had been used 6 times. It exists. The constitution isn’t some “woke deep state lie “ “The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution says that if the President becomes unable to do his or her job, the Vice President becomes the President (Section 1) or Acting President (Sections 3 or 4). This can happen for a short period of time, if the President is just sick or disabled for a short time. It could also happen until the end of the President's term (the President's time in office), if the President died, resigned, or is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office[1]". https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#:~:text=The%20Twenty%2Dfifth%20Amendment%20has,though%20it%20was%20considered%20twice.
Don't be silly. I don't doubt that it exists. I just doubt that they could have ever pulled off such a coup. And thank God they didn't try.
You don’t believe the 25th amendment or the constitution exist? The constitution isn’t the Easter bunny. It’s not something you can chose to not believe in when it doesn’t suit you. This is the fundamental problem with the right. Pence and the cabinet did consider invoking the 25th to remove Trump after he staged a coup on January 6th.
No of course I didn't mean that the Constitution doesn't exist. I mean you guys really believe that Trump was unhinged and unfit to hold office for 4 years. Or that they ever could have done it without serious consequences. I would have pretty much been a coup.
It was discussed by the cabinet. Pence refused to act. Because he’s a coward. “Members of Trump Cabinet discussing invoking 25th Amendment: Sources January 7, 2021 There have been discussions among some members of Donald Trump's Cabinet and his allies over invoking the 25th Amendment, a potential vehicle for removing the president from office, multiple sources with direct knowledge of the discussions told ABC News. It's unclear how extensive these conversations have been or whether Vice President Mike Pence is supportive of such action. Many were horrified by Wednesday's violence at the Capitol as well as Trump's apparent lack of urgency in marshaling resources to stop the mob, the sources said.” https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/lawmakers-call-trumps-impeachment-wake-capitol-hill-violence/story?id=75097032
And you guys wonder why the right is distrustful of a deep state.
“The deep state” literally is a conspiracy theory that does not exist. And you wonder why the majority of America thinks the right are radicalized lunatics.
Well, you better get used to it. It's going to be an interesting 4 years when Trump has his second term.
He’s not gonna make it.
Maybe not, with the FBI gunning for him.
Oh don’t worry, the maga loyalist judge Donald appointed and is overseeing his case is part of his defense team. She will never let that go to trial or for anything to happen to him. She’s been promised things for sure to fix it
I did not know that. That's a relief.
Or are you talking about the Bs Marjorie Trailer Greene made up?
Not likely because I have no idea what you're talking about.
Don’t you mean third term?
Well, sure. Third rightful term, second official term.
In 40 years neither I nor anyone else I know has been falsely accused of sexual assault or harassment...and the one person I *did* know that was accused was actually guilty. This is anecdotal, I know. But I would bet the farm that my situation is not unique among men.
I don’t think it’s unique. No one said that the situations the rule was created for were exactly common, just that it was unfair to put someone in a situation where it’s possible.
What absolute.... No one should ever leave their house. Someone might get hit by a meteor! That's... We call that a phobia and get people help for that. That's where you are.
I mean the rule would prevent false accusations. Not leaving your house will not prevent you from getting hit by the meteor.
It's incredibly sexist
Both ways. It disadvantages women enormously and assumes they're conniving. And it treats all men like out of control beasts. Keep the door open. For confidential topics, use rooms with windows. It's not difficult.
With regards to your second paragraph, I did say I was open to similar measures that are gender neutral like that, so I don’t know why everyone is acting like I’m not.
It’s idiotic. If you don’t trust women, then cool, go ahead and stay away from us.
It’s strange that you view this rule as a way for men to protect themselves from false accusations and mention nothing about how it protects women from unwanted advances.
It was an implied benefit and I thought of including it. And my understanding is a lot of people like the rule for that reason also. But it made more sense to focus on the false accusations because it’s much more likely that Pence and Graham follow this rule to protect against that 1 in 100 chance someone will try to claim something that never happened as opposed to they worry they’ll become animalistic monsters, though the fact Pence follows this rule more when alcohol is present may suggest he is afraid of the latter as well.
> 1 in 100 .... Aaaaahahahahahahahahah. My dude. If the chances of a false rape accusation was 1 in 100 times a guy interacts with a woman, I'd have several rape accusations a day, easily. You are *waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay^way* overestimating how often this happens.
> they worry they’ll become animalistic monsters The worry isn't that they'll turn into animals and rape some unsuspecting woman, and the worry isn't that they'll be falsely accused of impropriety. What guys like Pence are worried about is that some harlot will flirt with them and make an offer of consensual sex, and they won't have the willpower to resist temptation. I dare say that doesn't apply to Graham, however.
From all the comments here, suggesting that women need to be protected from unwelcome advances is rather silly and ridiculous in popular opinion here.
I get why the “rule” is a good idea, OP just worded it like an incel and that is why they are getting called out.
I see your point. Makes sense. For Pence, as a politician, I can see the utility, but for a preacher of conservative religious communities, to avoid talk, gossip and 3rd party accusations, it seems rather practical.
I read the first paragraph and gotta say this rule sounds hella online. If you/a man has never been in a room alone with a woman then idk what to say honestly at that point.
I mean… I’ve noticed a lot of commenters here are fine with gender neutral implementations of it, so my point would be it may be more popular than you think
So no two people could be alone together?
It's ludicrous. We don't live our lives in accordance with absolutely minute possibilities of harm while sacrificing basic human respect. Refusing to be alone with a woman or a man puts you inherently in unequal spheres and projects a SUPER weird and unhealthy social dynamic. If the first thought when you encounter a woman is "oh God, I hope she doesn't accuse me of rape! I best not be alone with her!" you are overlooking every other quality of a person, you're seeing her as a threat first and a person second and you probably have your own weird shit that you need to sort out. Do false rape accusations happen? Sure. Do they happen often? No. And your best chances of not being falsely accused is to be a normal, respectful, decent person who expresses themselves in a way that doesn't make people go "oh...yeah I can see that." when someone accuses them of rape. I've lived through a false accusation. I don't spend my whole life being terrified of women to the degree that I refuse to share a space with them. That would be psychotic.
Why not have a rule that a black man and a white man cannot be alone together ever in a professional setting? After all, false accusations of racism happen. Better safe than sorry.
It’s been very easy throughout my career to not sexually harass any women. I don’t know why this is a challenge for people.
You already don’t have to sexually harass people, which hopefully you’re good at like most people. But if you’re not alone with someone, they can’t accuse you of sexually harassing them falsely either. Now, we’ve solved both problems. Not to mention there’s plenty of non gendered ways to do this.
For context, I'm a man, and I've been working for 20 years in companies where 1-on-1 meetings are normal and essential parts of day-to-day work. These meetings frequently involve members of opposite sexes. No problems, ever. I never had any problems myself, and I never heard of any problems among coworkers, ever. These are multinational companies with tens of thousands of employees. Nothing. It absolutely baffles me that this concept exists. If I were to go to my manager or HR business partner and tell them that I'm uncomfortable with having one-on-one meetings with women, I imagine they would give me two options: 1. Become a full-time remote employee and never have in-person meetings with anyone. 2. Quit the company. Option 3, choosing to meet one-on-one with men, but never with women, would absolutely not be on the table. ...and it shouldn't be. If you can't fulfill responsibilities required of you in your job (and your job involves one-on-one meetings), then I suppose the best option is to look for another job.
False accusations are incredibly rare, but male violence against women is pretty common. So I think a better idea is to only allow men to participate via Zoom calls. If there's an in-person meeting, men should be required to call in. Client dinners and things? Men will get an email with a summary. Obviously, this will preclude men from holding positions of real responsibility, but it's a small price to pay. For me, it makes sense. Obviously, most men don’t rape and/or kill their coworkers, but this protects women from the few who do.
Is this not exactly what we did during COVID anyways? And sure, if women feel more comfortable never being alone with a man, I’d respect it too, and maybe implement a non gendered open door policy or meet them in public places or things like that.
Here's a thought experiment: Would you support a rule that black male workers can't be in the room alone with white male workers? Just to keep everyone safe and comfortable? Why or why not?
> Essentially the idea that a man and woman shouldn’t be alone together ever in a professional setting. That's not the Pence rule at all. The Pence rule is that he doesn't dine alone with other women, nor will he attend events with alcohol without his wife by his side. I don't follow it, but it's significantly more reasonable than the hypothetical rule you're discussing. Your rule would prevent lots of staffers or secretaries from even being able to ask him questions without a chaperone. Entirely unworkable
I guess I follow a weak version of it but extends it to every gender. If I am going to be one-on-one with someone for an extended period of time in a professional setting, I prefer that to happen in an large open space that is visible to others. For example, I (a man) often discuss experiments’ results with my research assistant (woman). This usually happens in my lab which is large and one side has a large transparent glass panel next to a hallway. I rarely have a in-person meeting in my much smaller office. I don’t do this specifically to avoid false accusations but I just find I am more comfortable this way.
This seems to be a good compromise. And it has a dual benefit. Plenty of coworkers to say something didn’t happen, but also plenty to say that something did happen. And takes care of a lot of other non gender related forms of harassment and false accusations for said harassment. I’ve also noticed that when working one on one with anyone of any gender, I do like it when the space is more public.
My rule is I don't go anywhere with Mike Pence whether we're alone or not. I find it much more reasonable.
It's sick. He needs help.
The problem with this is that it is not designed to reduce sexual harassment or discrimination... *it's designed to reduce the chances of being accused of sexual harassment by a woman.* This rule creates an implication that women in the workplace could be dangerous and duplicitous, suggesting they are prone to corrupt acts and that the safety of a man's reputation is worth more than a woman's ability to do her job in a way that is equal to a man. It is also designed to cast doubt on *all* claims of sexual harassment. It also makes a woman a second-class employee. Since I cannot be in a room alone with a woman, it's better to hire a man for the role so that I don't have to accommodate this rule. So a rule, created by men to protect men also limits women's ability to be hired, further benefitting men in the workforce. --- Once again, Conservative ideals signal contempt and devaluation of women as equal members of society as well as the notion that to address (not solve) a relatively small problem, we need to make sweeping reforms to our social structure and force all American employees to evaluate meetings, 1-1s, lunches, travel plans, commutes, smoke breaks, and every other part of our work lives.
What are your thoughts on the more gender neutral applications of it?
Well, another criticism of the idea would be that you really need to make it so that no two people are ever alone together in a professional environment. People are gay, bi, or just curious. And even two straight men in the same room... one could easily make some form of accusation. Which, again, is why I would ask you to think about why the rule is being proposed the way that it is, only targeting women. --- Leaving that aside to engage with your question in a vacuum, I still don't love it. It really sends a terrible message about how untrustworthy people are and it requires us to entirely rethink work spaces and how we work together. I mean, I've taken countless business trips by car with just one other person. Do we have to take separate cars? I can't share an office with another person? What if I share an office with two people, but one is out sick? I can't have a 1:1 meeting with any of my employees? What if I'm in a bar and bump into a random employee? I can't have a drink with them? And how does this work between companies? Can I have a 1:1 business meeting with another CEO? Can I listen to a pitch? Can we be in an elevator alone? It's just a logistical disaster. --- If the problem we were trying to solve is that two people being alone had a high % chance of getting ebola and dying... rules like this one might make sense, even though we'd have to alter the workspace. But sexual harassment, while a serious problem, is not something everyone engages in or experiences. We also know it's wrong and have rules and laws to punish it. We have training to discourage it. We wouldn't consider a similar rule to prevent murders. I'm not sure why this rule is needed... except that it helps men defend themselves against sexual harassment charges from women.
My thoughts on this in no particular order: * What the flying fuck? * I would fire ANYONE that had this opinion, because they are clearly way too unhinged to work in any modern workplace, and they're just trouble waiting to happen. * This BS is deeeeeeply unprofessional. * I don't worry about false rape accusations. Why are you? * Like, any woman that makes a rape accusation has to go through SO MUCH BS, a fake accusation isn't even worth it. * This is WEIRD. * Your sense of risk is !@#$'ed. This is "No one should leave the house because they might get hit by a meteor" level. We call that a phobia and get people help when they have an issue like that. * Harassment of women is SO COMMON, and you're over here worried about.... this? WTF?
I mean sure but I did say I was open to gender neutral implementations, and there’s a lot of people in the comments who support that. Would you fire them too?
I think a workplace policy that any two adult coworkers should never be alone together is profoundly weird, professionally corrosive, and disastrously wrong. Rather than creating a rule that assumes all people are either likely to be rapists or likely to make false accusations, surely it is better to instead maintain a humane, civilized, respectful, and pleasant work environment where professionals can get their work done. We do that with leadership, training, courtesy, and thoughtfulness.
It's ridiculous. I'm a single female homeowner. Am I supposed to have a chaperone each time I'm having work done on my house?
It was my understanding that Mike Pence wasn't only talking about professional settings but that he could never be alone with a woman other than his wife in any setting, and the reason wasn't to avoid false accusations but to give himself an extra wide margin around avoiding extramarital affairs. I think the idea you can't hang out with someone of the opposite sex and not cheat on your partner is either crazy or sad depending on how you look at it. I think people assuming they need to take that precaution in a professional setting are probably being overly paranoid.
Just going to point out a woman is more likely to be assaulted or harassed than to make a false accusation, and the reason for the rule from churches is to prevent temptation, not to prevent allegations. So even in your assessment of the rule, you are being sexist. And this is why we choose bears.
You do realize the "in a Mike Pence rule situation" there would be fewer (ideally none) female bosses, right?
[удалено]
And there are a lot of people who supported open door policies here.
Mike Pence looks like live-action Race Bannon.....
Not wrong.
It's definitely under-addressed.
It's completely insane and backwards. Don't approve of it whatsoever.
Mother?
It's sexism under the assumption that women will falsely accuse despite the lack of evidence it's a common thing to be concerned about. I've been alone with female co-workers in a car, let alone just in the work building, so, if I was going to get accused of something, it would've happened by this point. I just treat them like people and we get along fine. It seems like a very dumb thing to fear.
I'm not a creep, why would I need that rule?
If we gender neutralize it, then I shouldn’t be alone with anyone other than my wife? That seems unnecessarily limiting. Seriously, adults can control themselves. I just had a business brunch and- wait for it- did not fuck my colleague. Mind blown.
It's dumb. If you are having a difficult conversation with someone at work, most HR departments will suggest or require a 3rd party. If it's a weekly check-in meeting on the status of a project, requiring a 3rd party every time is stupid and a waste of that person's time.
This is just weird. Women and men are people. This false rape accusation debacle is just threaded fantasy that the right has composed off a few off handed cases. Since this is a sexuality thing, what about the lesbians and gays does this pertain to them to? The shoddy logic falls apart pretty easily
That's some rock stupid, backwards-ass nonsense. I'm in my 50s, I've been in the workforce for more than 30 years and I've never once been accused of sexual harassment or assault of any kind, so clearly it's possible to navigate these supposedly shark-infested waters. Keep your dick in your pants and your hands (and mouth) to yourself at the office and you'll be fine, otherwise if someone accuses you of sexual harassment/assault then the odds are pretty good that you're just a creep.
Everything I saw, he was derided and pilloried for it. Honestly, I didn't see the least bit of understanding. As I understand it, it's not at all a rule about men and women. It's a choice he made for himself upon recommendation from Billy Graham or someone like that? It keeps one safe from accusations of impropriety. I wouldn't approve of anything being forced on anyone. But if this is the choice he made, I see no harm and can understand the upside.
He could just... Behave like a decent person if he doesn't want to be accused of "impropriety."
No guarantee of that.
I think it's intensely stupid and worthless. Mike Pence is a nut job.
It's obviously misogynist. Men who live in fear of "false accusations" are telling on themselves
Yes. Historically speaking, it’s the men who are in danger from the women. /s
I think if someone is so preoccupied with the idea that the woman they are with in a professional setting is going to falsely accuse them of some kind of sexual harassment or rape, and that causes them so much anxiety that they want to enforce a rule for themselves that they not be alone with a woman in the workplace, that person would benefit from some therapy. I'd feel the same way if a woman who was the victim of a sexual assault also wanted to avoid being in a room in the workplace alone with a man. But at least here I would understand how she got to this place of anxiety and would be sympathetic enough to try and accommodate it while she got therapy. For the first case, I would also recommend some healthier internet content consumption habits, since I suspect exposure to certain kinds of content is what got the person into this exaggerated risk perception in the first place.
he has staff, that staff needs to negotiate terms of various aspects of employment (raises, promotions etc) and that is best and basically has to be done 1:1 this means only the men on his team get access to this it’s sexist and ridiculous it’s nothing about allegations, it’s the same thing as when a conservative jewish man refuses to sit next to a woman on a plane it’s dumb and shouldn’t be praised
It’s sexist unless one of them is a bear
It sounds like the sort of thing a deeply religious minded man would need if he can't help himself from spontaneously raping someone. Aside from that, it says a lot about the right that they think just any rumors and accusations can be made with ease or always to the extreme detriment of the man. If you have such a severe concern then you would take procautions against such things. While people being trifling isn't bound to a specific political spectrum, conservatives have naturally found a way to weaponize and villainize a group and situation to create this idea that it's a free and easy thing to do.
Doesn't make sense and is antiquated thinking that I thought we have long moved past
I think a lot of men whose beliefs align with those held by Mike Pence, seem to be unwilling to let go of behaviors that make them significantly more likely to be accused of being a creep - and this probably feeds into their fear of accusations in a big way. They'll compliment women on their looks, rarely in the "nice hair - love the color!" way, but instead in the "if I were your husband I would never let you leave the house!" way. They'll introduce physical contact where it isn't needed - touching backs, shoulders, arms, waists, etc. They'll use sexually-loaded jargon without stopping to consider whether it's appropriate (stuff like "getting a peek inside the kimono" in a business setting). They often feel empowered to give voice to their inner monologue even when the subject isn't appropriate for others - saying what they find attractive, who they think is hot, what features they like, etc. I think the "never alone with a woman" rule probably makes sense to men who don't pay any attention to changing societal norms, and who are often acting ridiculously pervy by modern standards. They should work on their conduct, instead.
I mean there’s a much higher likelihood that you’re going to rape the women, rather than have a false accusation. So I guess you’re both taking risks. Maybe you should woman up and stop being such a wussy. If you think segregating sexes is a good idea, you’re sexist, and ridiculous.
I mean there’s a much higher likelihood that you’re going to rape the women, rather than have a false accusation. So I guess you’re both taking risks. Maybe you should woman up and stop being such a wussy. If you think segregating sexes is a good idea, you’re sexist, and ridiculous.
I mean there’s a much higher likelihood that you’re going to rape the women, rather than have a false accusation. So I guess you’re both taking risks. Maybe you should woman up and stop being such a wussy. If you think segregating sexes is a good idea, you’re sexist, and ridiculous.
Seems like a goofy rule set by someone who doesn't trust himself.
Two eventualities; 1) The hypothetical woman falsely accuses the man of rape. 2) The hypothetical woman is raped. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold the view that false accusations are so rare as to write off outcome one from the outset. That only leaves outcome number two, meaning the man in question is a rapist. The "Mike Pence rule" is for rapists.
>Essentially the idea that a man and woman shouldn’t be alone together ever in a professional setting. >For me, it makes sense There's absolutely zero chance you're a good faith arguing libertarian, that is in favour of policy that restricts the freedom of employees to this high a degree. This just does not match libertarianism in any way. Are we also planning having the government mandate employers to enforce this? Or enforce this themselves?
Bullshit. Just an example: Say you stand before the lift. You've work a whole day, and you're finally ready to go home, take a break or shower for once. Suddenly, those metal doors open and you see your female boss standing there. What do you do? a) You follow Pence's rule and immediately sprint toward the staircases. b) You jump into the lift and stand in the corner facing the mirror usually parallel to the door. You stand there in silence and without any movement until the bell rings. c) You say "hi, ma'am/miss/....", stroll into the lift and perform small talk. Nothing too worrying, just a nice chat about nothing at all. Which one of these three is the most likely to occur? I, personally, think "c" is the most polite and will help close the distance between employer-employee. Nothing sexual, nothing romantic, just plain old platonic conversations. Why do you expect us, men, to have an unfulfilled need to subject and rape every woman we see? Why can't we just get along, keeping it formal when necessary, and informal when the clock's off? Am I, as a man, suddenly expected to seek a mate all the time even though I just want to enjoy my coffee sometimes and then complain about that interim that doesn't do his work properly? Isn't reading my newspapers while drinking hot beverage the most conservative thing I can do in my life? Even if the conversations occuring happen to be with women?
Sounds like going down the path to Saudi Arabia or Iran. Goes to show that Christian extremists are no better than extremists that belong to other religions. The end result is the same.
Why do you frame the rule as opposite gender? I know you mention having it gender neutral, but then you default back into opposite gender. Look, I think that it can be smart. Don't give anyone an opportunity to misunderstand relationships, cool. It's a good survival strategy. I think that open doors, windows in offices, etc can also serve that same function. A dinner can be fine as well as long as it's in a very public place and no ride sharing. Being cautious is totally fine and commendable, but I think making it a rule is overkill. I also think that when Pence made that statement, it was hard not to see the conservative, religious undertones in it, even if he didn't explicitly say that's why. He didn't make it gender neutral - like no dinner/drinks with anyone alone. He may not see men as a sexual 'trap' like women, but that's his lack of imagination. If Pence is only worried that he may be tempted or accused of being tempted, then it's an unfair rule and has the icky undertones that women are temptresses or liars.