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

[alexava 6,973]

Rapture is right there with them.  Our president says he is allowed to grab women's genitalia because he is a star and that is just a privilege he inherited. Our veep says he discriminates against women because he can't control himself and thinks it appears scandalous. It all boils down to a f--------g clown show in the White House. I hope the deplorables are happy. That's what clowns are for anyway 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

9 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

You're viewing this from the perspective of Pence and his marriage. Try viewing it from the perspective of people who need to meet with the Vice President who would not able to because of this.

This sort of attitude that Pence has would not be a problem if Mike Pence was just a shop owner in Indiana with his own peculiarities, but it becomes a big problem if this view is more broadly shared in society and men occupy the vast majority of positions of power in our society. If men in positions of power won't meet in private with women but they will with men, then women are disadvantaged. Sexism, plain and simple.

I see the point about Mike Pence and his wife's marriage, but Pence's attitude, when held more broadly in a society dominated by men, presents a serious problem. Fine for his marriage, bad for equality.

There are ways to work around it.  I know pastors for instance who would not go to lunch or dinner alone with a woman but who would counsel them in private.  But he would only do so when his secretary was there and he had a window on his office where the secretary could see in.  She wouldn't be able to hear anything but she knew who all of his appointments were and she could glance in at any time.  It was a protective measure so that not only nothing untoward could happen, but it couldn't even be leveled as an accusation.

As I said, it's not the way I'd handle it.  I'd probably do something more like telling my wife any appointments I have that will be one on one with a woman, having them in place that are not totally secret (dinners or lunches in well trafficked public places, etc).  No meeting to discuss personal matters unrelated to the job (though I'd be willing to counsel a woman with my wife present as well if it's a personal matter).  But I think he's doing an admirable thing.  If this is really the problem that you think it is, with all his years of public life I'd think some woman would have stepped up by now to say how she thinks it hindered her career.

Pence isn't alone and he's not a kook.  There are ways to make situations like this work.  While it may not be practical for everyone, or there may be rare times where you make an exception, I think he's the one that's got it right and the ones carping about it are the ones that need to check themselves.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I wonder if he's agreed not to hire anyone pretty? 

Has this ever even been hinted at or suggested?  Is there any evidence of such?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't really think folks here are doing this, but some of the write-ups nationally strike me this way:

[AUUSN 823]

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

The VP's stance involves a married man dining alone with a woman. Perhaps you should read the link first before posting an irrelevant photo? 

I'm begging the question. Sorry you couldn't follow along.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

To me, even if Pence's boundaries are a bit further out than mine would be, he and his wife seem to be the only ones thinking realistically at all here.  They seem to get that for regular people, adultery doesn't happen in a vacuum.  It doesn't just spring out of the woodwork and pounce on you out of the blue.  It happens gradually, through a series of small compromises.  It starts small with little emotional connections, time spent together, small flirtations and things like that.  It develops over time until, when you have two people with a mutual attraction, things in common and time to grow into something more.  So one of the best ways to guard against it is to have some rules established ahead of time, before such things have a chance to get a start, much less take root.

He seems to get that we are all fallible given the right set of circumstances, pressures, moments of vulnerability and a willing counterpart.  We don't resist such things without having a plan in mind before the pressure of the moment hits.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

11 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Haggard's Law. 

I wasn't aware they had named it. I should have known though. When a phenomenon happens so often it usually gets a name. 

[AURaptor 1,122]

4 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I wasn't aware they had named it. I should have known though. When a phenomenon happens so often it usually gets a name. 

By that logic, the more one speaks out against monogamy and cherishing one's spouse... 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Let me just say this- I have no problem with people within a marriage agreeing to boundaries within their marriage in order to protect their bond. What I do have a problem with is being expected to applaud Mike Pence's marriage boundaries when he aligns himself with a man who has openly bragged about his sexual assault of women claiming he can do this because he is rich and famous and has no  regard whatsoever for the sanctity of marriage. It holds a glare of hypocrisy and I have little tolerance for that.

[AUUSN 823]

So now through this thread I hope the Alt-righties pause the next time they want to criticize a woman wearing an Abaya as some sort of oppressed woman. I usually subscribe to Tecumseh in matters like this:

[AURaptor 1,122]

[SaturdayGT 719]

 Pence would have been criticized if he had lunch or meetings with women other than his wife.  Its ridiculous, but comical to hear about stuff like this. 

[AURaptor 1,122]

12 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

What I do have a problem with is being expected to applaud Mike Pence's marriage boundaries when he aligns himself with a man who has openly bragged about his sexual assault of women claiming he can do this because he is rich and famous and has no  regard whatsoever for the sanctity of marriage. It holds a glare of hypocrisy and I have little tolerance for that.

So this has more about being against Trump than anything Pence says or does ? Well that makes a heck of a lot of sense. 

I guess you feel exactly the same about those who aligned themselves with Bill Clinton too, right ? Including Hillary Clinton ? 

[AUUSN 823]

Business on the golf course...

 

[Barnacle 9,064]

39 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Let me just say this- I have no problem with people within a marriage agreeing to boundaries within their marriage in order to protect their bond. What I do have a problem with is being expected to applaud Mike Pence's marriage boundaries when he aligns himself with a man who has openly bragged about his sexual assault of women claiming he can do this because he is rich and famous and has no  regard whatsoever for the sanctity of marriage. It holds a glare of hypocrisy and I have little tolerance for that.

It's one thing to expect you to applaud him, I agree. I don't expect anyone to applaud Mike Pence. What troubles me is when people use any opportunity they can to demean the other side, even when it means taking something good, and perverting it. 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Has this ever even been hinted at or suggested?  Is there any evidence of such?

Logical extension of his reasoning, isn't it?

[TexasTiger 12,831]

3 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

It's one thing to expect you to applaud him, I agree. I don't expect anyone to applaud Mike Pence. What troubles me is when people use any opportunity they can to demean the other side, even when it means taking something good, and perverting it. 

Not cheating on your wife is good. Declaring you won't dine with the opposite sex when such things are common in most professions, isn't an obvious good to thinking people.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

9 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

It's one thing to expect you to applaud him, I agree. I don't expect anyone to applaud Mike Pence. What troubles me is when people use any opportunity they can to demean the other side, even when it means taking something good, and perverting it. 

I can't see any good in Pence's decision when he paired with a man who has views that are extremely opposite of his own in regards to wives. Can two walk together unless they are agreed? 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

To me, even if Pence's boundaries are a bit further out than mine would be, he and his wife seem to be the only ones thinking realistically at all here.  They seem to get that for regular people, adultery doesn't happen in a vacuum.  It doesn't just spring out of the woodwork and pounce on you out of the blue.  It happens gradually, through a series of small compromises.  It starts small with little emotional connections, time spent together, small flirtations and things like that.  It develops over time until, when you have two people with a mutual attraction, things in common and time to grow into something more.  So one of the best ways to guard against it is to have some rules established ahead of time, before such things have a chance to get a start, much less take root.

He seems to get that we are all fallible given the right set of circumstances, pressures, moments of vulnerability and a willing counterpart.  We don't resist such things without having a plan in mind before the pressure of the moment hits.

Yeah, only he is realistic. Sounds like Trump opposite language. If he wants to limit it to purely social settings with female friends/acquaintances, fine. Beyond that is decidedly not realistic.

[Barnacle 9,064]

6 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I can't see any good in Pence's decision when he paired with a man who has views that are extremely opposite of his own in regards to wives. Can two walk together unless they are agreed? 

Fair enough, but as a general principle, you understand my point. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Not cheating on your wife is good. Declaring you won't dine with the opposite sex when such things are common in most professions, isn't an obvious good to thinking people.

It must be hard to engage in conversation on this board, with people you clearly think so little of. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

4 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Fair enough, but as a general principle, you understand my point. 

I understand your point. I just don't agree that this is a case of tearing down something that's good. Is Pence going to refuse to dine with Trump if there are females present knowing his President's affinity for grabbing women's genitalia? 

[Barnacle 9,064]

11 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I understand your point. I just don't agree that this is a case of tearing down something that's good. Is Pence going to refuse to dine with Trump if there are females present knowing his President's affinity for grabbing women's genitalia? 

I don't see the parallel. In one instance, Pence is claiming to be protecting his marriage. If Trump has a predisposition to grabbing women, wouldn't it be irresponsible for Pence to leave him alone with them? 

Edit: Sorry, that was your point, wasn't it? 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

5 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I don't see the parallel. In one instance, Pence is claiming to be protecting his marriage. If Trump has a predisposition to grabbing women, wouldn't it be irresponsible for Pence to leave him alone with them? 

Edit: Sorry, that was your point, wasn't it? 

In a way, yes. He has this moral code but by choosing to work with a man who has no moral code he has set himself up to potentially be put in situations that his own code is designed to protect him from. 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

22 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

It must be hard to engage in conversation on this board, with people you clearly think so little of. 

You tell me.