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

[Barnacle 9,064]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You tell me.

I misread your quote, actually. So, I owe you an apology. I read what you wrote as "isn't good to thinking people." 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

Just now, Barnacle said:

I misread your quote, actually. So, I owe you an apology. I read what you wrote as "isn't good to thinking people." 

No worries.

[AURaptor 1,122]

3 hours 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? 

This sentence is incomprehensible 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

6 hours ago, AUUSN said:

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

You ignorantly were begging for attention and I called you out. Deal with it.

[AUUSN 823]

20 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

You ignorantly were begging for attention and I called you out. Deal with it.

You forgot to use the word butt hurt...

[AUFAN78 3,894]

1 hour ago, AUUSN said:

You forgot to use the word butt hurt...

Well, thank you for handling the small details. 

[alexava 6,973]

It's ridiculous this is split by party here. Probably just because of who it is. If a democrat had said this I would declare him a dipshit too. I mean if I dine at a restaurant/ bar and drink four or nine and my colleague asks me to dance, I would be clear that she is not allowed to grind on me because that crosses the line. A meal even drinks is ok if my spouse knows. To eliminate that part of your business shows a weakness at least most likely a sickness. Grow the hell up folks..

[TitanTiger 20,472]

9 hours ago, alexava said:

It's ridiculous this is split by party here. Probably just because of who it is. If a democrat had said this I would declare him a dipshit too. I mean if I dine at a restaurant/ bar and drink four or nine and my colleague asks me to dance, I would be clear that she is not allowed to grind on me because that crosses the line. A meal even drinks is ok if my spouse knows. To eliminate that part of your business shows a weakness at least most likely a sickness. Grow the hell up folks..

And if it were a Democrat that had said this, I would applaud him.  And that's even though I don't share the same boundaries Pence and his wife do.  

It's not about party.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Progressive writer, author Ta-Nehisi Coates seems to get it:

Quote

I’ve been with my spouse for almost 15 years. In those years, I’ve never been with anyone but the mother of my son. But that’s not because I am an especially good and true person. In fact, I am wholly in possession of an unimaginably filthy and mongrel mind. But I am also a dude who believes in guard-rails, as a buddy of mine once put it. I don’t believe in getting “in the moment” and then exercising will-power. I believe in avoiding “the moment.” I believe in being absolutely clear with myself about why I am having a second drink, and why I am not; why I am going to a party, and why I am not. I believe that the battle is lost at Happy Hour, not at the hotel. I am not a “good man.” But I am prepared to be an honorable one.

This is not just true of infidelity, it’s true of virtually anything I’ve ever done in my life. I did not lose 70 pounds through strength of character, goodness or willpower. My character and will angles toward cheesecake, fried chicken and beer — in no particular order. I lost that weight by not fighting the battle on desire’s terms, but fighting before desire can take effect.

These are compacts I have made with myself and with my family. There are other compact we make with our country and society. I tend to think those compacts work best when we do not flatter ourselves, when we are fully aware of the animal in us.

Power changes people. People yell things from behind the shielding of their automobiles which they would never yell if walking down a sidewalk. This does not mean that power should be shunned; it means that we should be aware of its effects. I believe very much in self-defense, and totally understand why someone would keep a gun in the home. If I lived somewhere else, I might keep one too.

But I would not insist that I was the same person armed, with the power to take a life, that I was without it. I would insist on guard-rails.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/violence-and-the-social-compact/266514/

I don't know the exact extent of Coates' "guard-rails" with regard to his marriage.  Maybe that means he won't be alone in certain situations with a woman that he would with another man.  That's what it sounds like to me.  Certainly mimics his decision not to go to certain parties alone. If that "disadvantages" a woman in some way career-wise, I'm sure he's open to ways of addressing that in a different way.  But it doesn't mean that the only sign of maturity is that you don't have some self-awareness and that you don't have some personal rules that might seem odd to others.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Progressive writer, author Ta-Nehisi Coates seems to get it:

I don't know the exact extent of Coates' "guard-rails" with regard to his marriage.  Maybe that means he won't be alone in certain situations with a woman that he would with another man.  That's what it sounds like to me.  Certainly mimics his decision not to go to certain parties alone. If that "disadvantages" a woman in some way career-wise, I'm sure he's open to ways of addressing that in a different way.  But it doesn't mean that the only sign of maturity is that you don't have some self-awareness and that you don't have some personal rules that might seem odd to others.

Your taking what may be okay as a guardrail, i.e. Don't put yourself in purely social situations with another female, or don't drink at social events at which your wife isn't present, or don't drink at business related functions at all, and applying it to any business-related interaction. Boundaries on one's personal social life is fine-- but can I tell my boss I won't have a business lunch with a female? If I'm the boss, can I have lunch with my male subordinates but not my female subordinates?

[alexava 6,973]

49 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And if it were a Democrat that had said this, I would applaud him.  And that's even though I don't share the same boundaries Pence and his wife do.  

It's not about party.

Those boundaries show an unhealthy sickness and hypocrisy that should disqualify him from public office. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Your taking what may be okay as a guardrail, i.e. Don't put yourself in purely social situations with another female, or don't drink at social events at which your wife isn't present, or don't drink at business related functions at all, and applying it to any business-related interaction. Boundaries on one's personal social life is fine-- but can I tell my boss I won't have a business lunch with a female? If I'm the boss, can I have lunch with my male subordinates but not my female subordinates?

Those things don't exist in silos.  Social and business things exist in a Venn diagram, not compartmentalized boxes.  

Personally, I'd probably take a business lunch with a female colleague or subordinate.  But my wife would know all the details (time, place, etc).  I'd choose a restaurant that is more suited to professional situations, not something romantic or with more secluded seating.  Something that is well-trafficked during the lunch hour.  But there might be other workarounds that one could come up with as an alternative to give female subordinates comparable access that doesn't involve sharing a meal.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, alexava said:

Those boundaries show an unhealthy sickness and hypocrisy that should disqualify him from public office. 

Utterly ridiculous.  Thankfully, I don't think your extreme view on this is anywhere near the majority.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Those things don't exist in silos.  Social and business things exist in a Venn diagram, not compartmentalized boxes.  

Personally, I'd probably take a business lunch with a female colleague or subordinate.  But my wife would know all the details (time, place, etc).  I'd choose a restaurant that is more suited to professional situations, not something romantic or with more secluded seating.  Something that is well-trafficked during the lunch hour.  But there might be other workarounds that one could come up with as an alternative to give female subordinates comparable access that doesn't involve sharing a meal.

Your first point illustrates why it is problematic to have an outright ban. Your other qualifications regarding the restaurant make perfect sense. Your last point tends to clash with your first.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

I'm sure we can argue for several more pages about the pros and cons of Pence's marriage code. However I think the most disturbing thing about Mike Pence is that he was Paul Manafort's pick for VP. 

[AURaptor 1,122]

3 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I'm sure we can argue for several more pages about the pros and cons of Pence's marriage code. However I think the most disturbing thing about Mike Pence is that he was Paul Manafort's pick for VP. 

Get over it. He's the VP. Trump chose him, they won the election, he's a solid individual. Good grief 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

23 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Your first point illustrates why it is problematic to have an outright ban. Your other qualifications regarding the restaurant make perfect sense. Your last point tends to clash with your first.

I think having a rule doesn't mean that in certain specific cases you can't make an exception.  Maybe that's just me.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think having a rule doesn't mean that in certain specific cases you can't make an exception.  Maybe that's just me.

Well, you don't claim adherence to the position attributed to Pence which hasn't included exceptions.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Well, you don't claim adherence to the position attributed to Pence which hasn't included exceptions.

Some may make exceptions.  Others may come up with alternatives/workarounds.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Some may make exceptions.  Others may come up with alternatives/workarounds.

Then there may not necessarily be disagreement. 

Do you think an employer should be able to fire an employee who won't take a business lunch with a client?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Then there may not necessarily be disagreement. 

Do you think an employer should be able to fire an employee who won't take a business lunch with a client?

Not unless he or she was unwilling to come up with some other accommodation for meeting with the clients.  Personally I don't find a hard and fast rule like this practical in all situations.  But if the employee is able to accomplish their quotas/goals doing this an atypical way, I don't think they should be fired.  If they are losing out on big potential customers or not making their performance standards, sure.

 

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Utterly ridiculous.  Thankfully, I don't think your extreme view on this is anywhere near the majority.

It's not extreme.  It reveals issues with a candidate's relationship with women and his wife, not to mention being unprofessional. 

I wouldn't want to vote for a man who is not confident in himself to behave professionally and honorably.  I would take his word for it and vote for someone else.

And I can imagine that most women would feel even stronger about it as they are being characterized.

[AURaptor 1,122]

It's an extreme view. Going out of ones way to find issue over absolutely nothing 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's not extreme.  It reveals issues with a candidate's relationship with women and his wife, not to mention being unprofessional. 

Bull****.  It reveals how easily the Left assumes the worst (or even asinine) motives behind anything a religious conservative does or believes with regard to human sexuality.

 

Quote

I wouldn't want to vote for a man who is not confident in himself to behave professionally and honorably.  I would take his word for it and vote for someone else.

And I can imagine that most women would feel even stronger about it as they are being characterized.

And I prefer to vote for people who are aware that we are human and that we are all capable of making wrong choices given the right set of circumstances, pressures, opportunities and so on.  It's a recognition of our fallenness and a position of humility rather than arrogance.

[homersapien 11,362]

Good insight read from a woman's persective:

The problem with “don’t eat alone with women”: good character is better than strict rules

An evangelical university professor on the controversy around Vice President Mike Pence’s rules of conduct.

http://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/4/1/15142744/mike-pence-billy-graham-rule