Vice President Pence’s “never dine alone with a woman” rule isn’t honorable. It’s probably illegal.

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/3/31/15132730/pence-women-alone-rule-graham-discrimination

 

“I don’t work with women. If they’re attractive, I’m too tempted. And if they’re not attractive, what’s the point?”

A male partner at a law firm casually made this pronouncement one day at lunch, hardly looking up from his plate. Everyone laughed and went back to eating — in the rough-and-tumble world of DC law, it wasn’t even the most obnoxious thing said that day. But this is no laughing matter for the women whose career opportunities are impeded by men who cavalierly dismiss half of the labor force and insist that they’ve behaved honorably by doing so.

This issue was thrust into the news this week when the Washington Post ran a piece on Karen Pence, the wife of our current vice president, and reminded readers of something Mike Pence said in 2002: He does not eat alone with a woman or attend an event where alcohol is being served unless his wife is present. The Twittersphere lit up like a Christmas tree with jokes and rants about Pence’s wife-rule. It’s not clear whether Pence still adheres to this practice, but there are men who do.

As the Atlantic observes, such arrangements are especially common within marriages between religious conservatives of various stripes. (It need not be only men who follow such strictures, but the emphasis is often on male temptation.) On Capitol Hill, where long days and late nights away from the family are part of the job, some Congressmen will not travel alone in a car with a female staffer, the National Journal has reported. Some politicians set gender-neutral rules that have a side effect of keeping them from being alone with women — such as excluding any staff from the office before 7 am or after 7 pm — but others clearly apply special rules to women.

To be sure, a politician’s declining to dine alone with a woman does not fall in the same category as a law partner refusing to work with women (or at least musing about refusing to work with women). Nonetheless, the practice described by Pence in that 2002 interview is clearly illegal when practiced by a boss in an employment setting, and deeply damaging to women’s employment opportunities.

Title VII, which governs workplace discrimination, does not allow employers to treat people differently on the basis of certain protected characteristics, one of which is sex. This means that an employer cannot set the terms and conditions of employment differently for one gender than for the other. This includes any aspect of the relationship between employer and employees — extending to benefits like equal access to the employer.

By law, working dinners with the boss could be considered an opportunity to which both sexes must have equal access

Employers are not permitted to classify employees on the basis of gender without proof that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for a particular job. A Pence-type rule could never satisfy this test. A male boss cannot casually cordon off certain jobs, tasks, or opportunities for men only. (I am assuming here that Pence does occasionally dine with men — table for two — without his wife present.)

Employers are also not permitted to base employment decisions on gender-based stereotypes — including the stereotype that women are temptresses, or incapable of having purely professional relationships with male bosses or co-workers.

Pence’s defenders said he was merely acting prudently, and expressed amazement at the all the fuss. Yet we know that women pay a heavy price for behavior that either resembles his or falls on the same continuum. We know this from anecdotal reports and surveys of women who report exclusion from travel, events, or one-on-one meetings with male bosses; from cases in which men have fired female subordinates to assuage jealous wives; and from decades of employment-discrimination litigation in which we get a picture of the everyday ways in which workplaces remain unequal for women.

Why might men refuse to work with women, either generally or one in particular? Some fear that temptation will cause them to overstep a marital boundary by having a consensual affair — or a legal boundary by engaging in unwelcome harassment. Others fear just the appearance of a sexual or romantic liaison — which could provoke wifely jealousy, concerns about sexual favoritism, or reputational harm to the male boss who might wrongfully be labeled a creep.

Some fear false accusations of sexual harassment, against which they can’t defend themselves because there aren’t any witnesses. Assuming these fears are legitimate (although some may be more about anxiety about women in leadership roles than marital fidelity), surely there are ways to alleviate them that do not curtail potentially productive business interactions?

The Iowa Supreme Court’s dubious ruling against the “hot hygienist”

An Iowa dentist made headlines a few years ago when he fired his longtime hygienist because his wife was jealous. The dentist directed sexually inappropriate comments at the (married) hygienist, complained that her scrubs were too tight and revealing, and asked questions about her sex life. The hygienist didn’t reciprocate with sexual innuendo, did not engage in a romantic or sexual relationship with the dentist, and put on a lab coat whenever he complained her clothing was “distracting.”

Nonetheless, the dentist fired the hygienist. The dentist’s wife viewed her as a “big threat” to their marriage, and the family pastor agreed that firing the “hot” hygienist was the best course of action. When the hygienist’s husband called the dentist to ask why his wife had been fired, the dentist reassured him that she was the best assistant he ever had and had done nothing wrong or inappropriate. But he was getting too attached and “feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her.” In a shocking 7-0 opinion, in 2013, the Iowa Supreme Court held in Nelson v. Knight that the hygienist’s firing did not constitute sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Think for a moment about the absurdity of this ruling, given the existence of a statute that prohibits employers from making employment decisions because of an employee’s sex. Is there any doubt that Melissa Nelson could have kept her job if she was a man? The hygienist got fired for being an attractive woman, plain and simple. The court did not see it that way, characterizing her firing instead as something that grew out of a particular interpersonal relationship and situation, falling back on the right of an employer to fire an employee for any nondiscriminatory reason.

But even that deeply misguided court would understand that a policy or practice of excluding or avoiding female employees in general is unlawful. In its opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court distinguished between an “isolated employment decision based on personal relations … driven by individual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person” and a “decision based on gender itself.” And if an employer “repeatedly took adverse employment actions against persons of a particular gender, that would make it easier to infer that gender … was a motivating factor.”

Vice President Pence’s “policy” applies to all women — not just one in particular. That is why it runs afoul of Title VII.

Men who isolate themselves from women are in the thrall of stereotypes

Men needn’t isolate themselves from women in the workplace out of fears of false allegations of harassment. The vengeful, spurned woman who ruins an honorable man’s life (think Demi Moore in Disclosure) is a backlash caricature with an outsize impact on the popular imagination. False claims of harassment are exceedingly rare and impossible to prove; even meritorious claims of harassment are hard to prove. Men shouldn’t worry about being led unto temptation because, well, it is entirely within their control whether to harass a subordinate or initiate an affair.

We have a president who brags about grabbing women by the ***** — and a vice president who won’t even have dinner with them. These are two sides of the same coin, both reflecting the fundamentally unequal sphere working women inhabit because of male behavior.

As for the prototypical jealous wife? Perhaps some counseling is in order — and some self-reflection about why either partner in the marriage would perceive the relationship to be so vulnerable as to be undermined by the mere proximity of other women outside the wife’s presence. In any case, women in the workplace have protected civil rights that outweigh such concerns.

Women have been shut out of equal employment opportunity for all of history. It’s long past time the doors to power and opportunity were opened, whether after hours, on a trip, or, gasp, at a working dinner with a male boss. After all, as the song “The Room Where It Happens” from the musical Hamilton puts it, sometimes “decisions are happening over dinner.”

Joanna L. Grossman is the Ellen K. Solender Endowed Chair in Women and Law at SMU Dedman School of Law. Her most recent book is Nine to Five: How Gender, Sex, and Sexuality Continue to Define the American Workplace. She is a regular columnist for Justia’s Verdict.

[AURaptor 1,122]

" Illegal " ????

 

1984 nonsense. 

 

[japantiger 4,051]

Good lord...we are truly lost when an honorable man puts his wife first is now somehow doing something wrong...these people are completely ****** up...

[Auburn85 432]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-is-why-we-have-to-stop-excusing-religious_us_58de92d9e4b0ca889ba1a567

 

Quote

 

Mike Pence Is Why We Have To Stop Excusing Religious Sexism

 

Soraya Chemaly

 

 

The Internet is on fire after an in-depth Washington Post profile of Vice President Mike Pence’s wife, Karen Pence. The article revealed that Pence explained, in 2002, that unless he is with his wife, he won’t eat alone with a woman or attend an event where alcohol is served, a spin on what evangelicals call the “Billy Graham Rule.” Twitter threads and think pieces have abounded. “Mike Pence’s ‘Billy Graham Rule’ has Internet yelling sexism,” blared a USAToday headline that could have read, but didn’t, “Mike Pence’s ‘Billy Graham Rule’ is sexist.”

What a luxury it is for a man to decide he can’t, and doesn’t have to, be unchaperoned in the presence of a woman who might be an evil temptress out to destroy him. And what a serious problem for women.

This quiet informal rule isn’t only a matter of Pence’s private life, but of his professional life and public policy. It is, if still true, ridiculous and a good illustration of the absurdity women have to put up with regularly. As Mother Jones’ Clara Jeffrey tweeted, “Would Pence dine with Theresa May? Angela Merkel? What, if he were to become POTUS, with female VP candidates?” Someone then asked her, “What sort of bosses have you had that required you to dine with them alone?” to which she replied, “I am the boss.”

In May 2015, Sarah Mimms wrote a lengthy Atlantic piece titled, Why Some Male Members of Congress Won’t Be Alone with Female Staffers. The starting point for her article was an anonymous survey of female staffers conducted by National Journal.Women aides described the many ways in which men who adhere to the Graham Rule left them out of meetings and professionally relevant recreational activities. The “never alone with a woman” rule makes it difficult for these women to do their jobs, become part of their workplace cultures and compete effectively for promotions.

One woman worked for a man for twelve years during which time he “never took a closed door meeting with me.” His refusal to meet with her “made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.” Male coworkers witnessed knowledgeable senior women being barred from key meetings. “I’d say, ‘she has more experience, this isn’t my area,’” reported one staffer. “They’d still say, ‘we need you to staff him tonight.’” Women who came forward in the survey would not share their names or the names of their employers for fear of retribution.

The Graham rule is based on two ideas, both of which reflect deeply impoverished views of human nature, debase men and impose real restrictions on girls and women.

One is that men are little better than animals who cannot control themselves and, so, can’t, ultimately, be held accountable. I have often heard men like Pence openly describe not hiring capable women because they might find them attractive, distracting and, from a marital perspective, disruptive. This equation was central to a 2013 Iowa Supreme Court case in which the all-male court reaffirmed the firing of a woman because she was too pretty and her employer viewed her as an “irresistible attraction.” In 2010, a woman sued Citibank for firing her for being “distracting” to the men in her office. The same ideas are the stuff that dress code enforcements that penalize girls and women for having the audacity to live in their bodies are made of. Men can and do control themselves. Predicating life on the idea that men can’t control themselves is a pillar of sexist discrimination.

Which brings us to the second idea, that in this world view women are understood in terms of their functionality to men, not ends in themselves but as means to children or sex. Either women are fulfilling a reproductive mandate or they are sex objects and temptresses. These assumptions might be among the most unifying shared by Pence and Donald Trump whose attitudes about women’s instrumentality appear to be the same. Pence is a man who calls his wife “mother” and Trump is one who sees all women through the filter of his sexual pleasure and violability, including, shamelessly, his own daughter. If you ever wondered what a walking/talking Madonna/Whore complex looks like you’d be hard pressed to find a better example than the dynamic duo currently in the White House

The fact that so many are eager to practice, tolerate or defend the acceptability of Pence’s “private” decision is a reminder of much deeper and less obvious issues that are rarely addressed as sexist. Gender essentialists are not just uncomfortable with women in the workplace, but actually hostile to them, particularly women in leadership roles. They can talk a good game and trot out sparkly loophole women, but they are measurably disinclined to create or enforce policies that help women achieve equality in the workplace. (For a good corky read: “Marriage Structure and Resistance to the Gender Revolution in the Workplace).

While conservatives like nothing more but to explain that women in the United States have achieved equality and should that we should consider ourselves lucky, the reality is that the United States, particularly under this administration, is a powerful reminder of how far women have yet to go.

There is no separating the fact that we are the most religious country in the industrialized world from the fact that we also have the worst record of institutionalizedsupport for women working outside of the home. We are the only country among peer countries to have no mandated family friendly workplace policies, and the only one in which the percentage of women entering the workplace has been steadily declining for years. The entire economy is grounded in maintaining powerful fraternal orders reliant on women’s unpaid and low wage care and domestic work.

Today, women are still primarily responsible for children, do an average of two hours more unpaid work a week and make up three quarters of minimum wage workers. Thirty-nine percent of working mothers are sole providers for their families, compared to 43 percent of men, who are twice as likely to be making more than $50K and more than six times as likely to be making six-figure incomes. The top jobs in America for women today remain the same as half a century ago. They are jobs in which women support other people – administrative assistant, teacher, nurse - overwhelmingly men making more money and enjoying higher status. And the higher up you go in any organization in the country, the fewer women you will find because they remain, in culture and norms, fraternities. Fraternity is one of the most powerful obstacles to freedom and equality that women, including in the US, face today.

The idea that a man cannot be alone with a woman he is not married to is the essence of maintaining fraternity in the professional and political worlds. Despite women’s monumental gains in the workplace, and the notions that patriarchy is dead, women are the richer sex, and the end of men is nigh, women are stuck at 17 percent of leadership and management positions — in politics, entertainment, media, religion or corporations.This is true even though we know that companies and countries with more equitable gender balanced leadership are demonstrably more productive and economically secure. Some people find it hard to come to terms with sexism, even as it’s grinding them into a fine powder.

Pence and his wife will do what they need to in order to safeguard their marriage, but let’ s not pretend that what they do is a strictly private matter. Pence’s marital arrangement is central to his proudly being part of the most white, most heterosexual, and most male administration of the past 40 years. It’s dishonest and destructive to suggest that the quality and pervasiveness of a politician’s practice of faith should be off limits or restricted to a tidy “culture war” box. The evanescent effects on the workplace of self-described religious beliefs like these make any statements about women’s equality moot in tangible, practical terms. Attitudes like his will keep women out of important roles in the White House and beyond.

We should be openly and publicly discussing the social, economic and political impacts and costs of Pence’s private religious beliefs on women’s political and social equality. God or not, call it what it is: sexism, plain and simple.

 

 

 

[AURaptor 1,122]

19 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Good lord...we are truly lost when an honorable man puts his wife first is now somehow doing something wrong...these people are completely ****** up...

This is why they lose.

x 1000

ETA  - So, a quick review... 

Alone, in a side room of the Oval Office, with an intern... " personal, private business ".  No big deal. 

Being ALLOWED to grab women by their meow-meow ... OUTRAGEOUS ! Worst human EVER !!! 

Openly stating devotion for ones soul mate, and stating his own personal views on dining with the opposite sex w/ out his significant other = RELIGIOUS BIGOT !! EXACTLY THE SAME AS IMPOSING SHARIA LAW !!!  

[PUB78 1,358]

The depravity of the left continues on.

[AURaptor 1,122]

 So this week in the news, vice president  voices love & devotion  for wife, Left feigns outrage. 

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

20 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

 So this week in the news, vice president  voices love & devotion  for wife, Left feigns outrage. 

Always something that needs some outraging about. You are so right Raptor.

[homersapien 11,362]

30 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Always something that needs some outraging about. You are so right Raptor.

Geez. What a lapdog.  And to Rapture no less.  

[AUFAN78 3,894]

53 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Geez. What a lapdog.  And to Rapture no less.  

Your thoughts on the VP's stance?

[AURaptor 1,122]

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Your thoughts on the VP's stance?

Homer is too busy acting like a scorned 7 yr old girl. 

[AUDub 11,147]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Your thoughts on the VP's stance?

Childish. Sexist. Stupid. 

[AURaptor 1,122]

4 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Childish. Sexist. Stupid. 

It's none of those. But best of all, his personal code of conduct does not affect you in the least. 

[AUDub 11,147]

11 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

It's none of those. But best of all, his personal code of conduct does not affect you in the least. 

LOL OK Raptor. Whatever you say.

[AURaptor 1,122]

22 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

LOL OK Raptor. Whatever you say.

What's so funny ? Are you so lacking  at seeing his point of view, whether it's to set up guard rails on oneself or for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety that you dismiss this, out of hand ? He's speaking of himself. As a public figure, or just as a husband, father.. why does this bother you so much ? 

[homersapien 11,362]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Homer is too busy acting like a scorned 7 yr old girl. 

Still butt hurt, huh?

[homersapien 11,362]

12 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Your thoughts on the VP's stance?

Assuming it's even serious, I think it's a pathetic revelation of his character that he doesn't trust himself to be alone with a woman to the point he needs "rules" to prevent himself from misbehaving.  

[homersapien 11,362]

32 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

What's so funny ? Are you so lacking  at seeing his point of view, whether it's to set up guard rails on oneself or for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety that you dismiss this, out of hand ? He's speaking of himself. As a public figure, or just as a husband, father.. why does this bother you so much ? 

Ben, you left out arrogant.

[AURaptor 1,122]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Assuming it's even serious, I think it's a pathetic revelation of his character that he doesn't trust himself to be alone with a woman to the point he needs "rules" to prevent himself from misbehaving.  

OR... he doesn't trust the media / bloggers who may see him out with someone to report the fact. Hell, even Jimmy Carter confessed to have lusted in his heart. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Perhaps not wanting to be alone with a woman isn't really about a moral code to protect his marriage. Maybe he just doesn't prefer women at all, deep inside. He does protest a little too loudly on homosexuality. And we all know the Right has a penchant for screaming "you can't do that" while doing exactly that in the closet or airport bathroom. Just saying.....

 

[AURaptor 1,122]

8 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Perhaps not wanting to be alone with a woman isn't really about a moral code to protect his marriage. Maybe he just doesn't prefer women at all, deep inside. He does protest a little too loudly on homosexuality. And we all know the Right has a penchant for screaming "you can't do that" while doing exactly that in the closet or airport bathroom. Just saying.....

 

You really are speaking from a position of ignorance. Elle. He also said he'd not go out with one of guys either.  And many religious folks do take a suspicious eye towards homosexuality. Not just conservative Christians. Though the views of Pence on this matter have been grossly exaggerated to the point of slander. 

His business is his own. Even if I personally find it excessive or needlessly cautious, why should I be concerned ? It's not like he's daring the media to try and find him having an extra marital affair, like Gary Hart did. ( Before getting caught - cheating on his wife )   

[AURaptor 1,122]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Geez. What a lapdog.  And to Rapture no less.  

 

Homer ( far right ) , not taking kindly to being ignored. 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

Still butthurt I see.   

[AURaptor 1,122]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Still butthurt I see.   

You're confused. Again. 

[japantiger 4,051]

Some of these responses are mind boggling.  How did we produce multiple generations this ****** up?   Heller was right, "all it takes is no character...".