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

[homersapien 11,393]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

 

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.

bull**** right back atcha!  

From the article I just linked (emphasis mine):

.....The rule, famously articulated by the evangelical minister Billy Graham, is basically a guideline that says men and women should not meet alone, whether in offices, or cars, or other places in order to avoid illicit temptations or appearances of impropriety. It’s been adopted by other evangelical pastors and leaders (a history of its origin is here): The late founder of the evangelical university where I work was known for saying that he’d pass by a female member of his church walking in the rain if he were alone in his car to avoid the appearance of impropriety.......

....While I have tremendous respect for men who place their marriages before their work, such a rule befits the world of Mad Men more than the modern-day work world where women are to be treated as equals. But even more importantly, good character is even more trustworthy than the most well-intentioned rules.

Virtue ethics is better than the Billy Graham rule.

Virtue ethics relies on moral character that is developed through good habits rather than rules or consequences for the governing of behavior. Aristotle defined virtue as the mean between two extremes, one of excess and one of deficiency. It is a habit of moral character, which, because it is a habit, becomes a kind of second nature. As Aristotle explained, it does not depend upon rules.

 

To openly rely on such a rule is an admission one lacks the character to even trust himself.  

I don't vote on a set of rules, especially if those rules denigrate women.  I vote on the character of the candidate.

And this has nothing to do with religion, so don't use that as an excuse.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

All you do by repeating yourself is demonstrate an utter inability to see past your own biases about religious conservatives and sexuality.  It's not an excuse, it's a consistent pattern not just with you, but many from your side of the aisle.  Hold traditional sexual mores regarding homosexuality?  Must be suppressing one's own homosexual desires.  Decide to have some rules and guidelines that prevent one from ending up in potentially compromising situations?  Lacks character, can't be trusted, thinks all women are sexual predators.

I don't vote on a set of rules either.  But I think it's an indication of character when someone recognizes that we are all human and fallible, even with the best of intentions.  So they have some boundaries that are forward-thinking about situations (as opposed to waiting until they are in the midst of the situation) that could lead to moral compromise that don't edge right up to the line, but are a few paces back from it.  I take that as an indication of moral realism, humility and clear thinking.

[homersapien 11,393]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

All you do by repeating yourself is demonstrate an utter inability to see past your own biases about religious conservatives and sexuality.  It's not an excuse, it's a consistent pattern not just with you, but many from your side of the aisle.  Hold traditional sexual mores regarding homosexuality?  Must be suppressing one's own homosexual desires.  Decide to have some rules and guidelines that prevent one from ending up in potentially compromising situations?  Lacks character, can't be trusted, thinks all women are sexual predators.

I don't vote on a set of rules either.  But I think it's an indication of character when someone recognizes that we are all human and fallible, even with the best of intentions.  So they have some boundaries that are forward-thinking about situations (as opposed to waiting until they are in the midst of the situation) that could lead to moral compromise that don't edge right up to the line, but are a few paces back from it.  I take that as an indication of moral realism, humility and clear thinking.

Creating such a rule is an indication of someone who cannot rely on their own character to do the right thing. Why should I trust someone who doesn't trust themself?

Again, this is not about religious beliefs, it's about self-belief.  

But if you want to make the argument that religious people lack a strong self-belief compared to non-religious people, I won't argue with you.  That would actually make sense.

 

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, homersapien said:

Creating such a rule is an indication of someone who cannot rely on their own character to do the right thing. Why should I trust someone who doesn't trust themself?

No, it's an indication of someone who gets that good people can make bad choices given the right set of circumstances.  Anyone.  I wouldn't trust anyone that didn't have such an understanding.

 

Just now, homersapien said:

Again, this is not about religious beliefs, it's about self-belief.  

But if you want to make the argument that religious people lack self-belief compared to non-religious people, I won't argue with you.  That would actually make sense.

It's all about religious belief.  You just don't like that how that makes you look.

[homersapien 11,393]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, it's an indication of someone who gets that good people can make bad choices given the right set of circumstances.  Anyone.  I wouldn't trust anyone that didn't have such an understanding.

Even someone who "gets that good people can make bad choices" should recognize a bad choice when presented with one.  He doesn't trust himself to make such a decision.

Instead, he abides by a "rule" which inherently denigrates and discrimminates against all women in general.  That's not only childish - after all, they have to make a decision about obeying their "rule" also - but it harms other people (women). 

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's all about religious belief.  You just don't like that how that makes you look.

If this really is "all about" religious belief, then it only confirms my disdain for religion, especially the notion that religion is foundational to doing the right thing.

Pence should control his sexual urges instead of making stupid rules that have the effect of characterizing women as sexual objects and penalizing them for it.  

After all, if non-religious people can do it, it should be a cinch for him, huh?

[alexava 6,973]

So we should all stop following sports to avoid gambling addiction? Refuse medicine to avoid opioid abuse? Not answer the call to ministry for fear you suddenly become attracted to undeveloped children? 

Making a rule like that is likened to a farmer moving a bull to different pastures to avoid inbreeding. We don't need to elect that bull.... It screams sexism and shows he has a weak marriage. More troubling is it is a slap in the face to any potential female associates that they are perusing him for something more than business at hand. 

And this is the party that is trying to make it "A ok" for the mentally ill to buy guns. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, homersapien said:

And if someone who "gets that good people can make bad choices" they should recognized a bad choice when presented with one.

Instead, they make a "rule" to abide by which inherently denigrates and discrimminates against all women in general.  That's not only childish - after all, they have to make a decision about obeying their "rule" also - but in harms other people (women).

This is a wholly unrealistic understanding of human nature.  Everything looks like a bad choice away from the situation.  Amazing how greys suddenly present themselves if allowed to gradually wear one down over time, with a series of smaller compromises paired with the right set of circumstances, relational struggles, a willing partner, stress and pressure, etc.

The rule could be discriminatory (or even denigrating), but it is not so by its very nature.  It can be applied in a reasonable manner and accommodations made to remove the potentially discriminatory effects.  That you lack the imagination to see any such possibilities is a "you" problem, not a problem with the general rule.

 

Just now, homersapien said:

If this really is "all about" religious belief, then it only confirms my disdain for religion, especially the notion that religion is foundational to doing the right thing.

Pence should control his sexual urges instead of making stupid rules that have the effect of characterizing women as sexual objects and penalizing them for it.  

After all, if non-religious people can do it, it should be a cinch for him, huh?

Another "you" problem.  It confirms nothing except your own ideological blinders.

[homersapien 11,393]

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's all about religious belief.  You just don't like that how that makes you look.

And what do you mean by that exacly? 

[homersapien 11,393]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The rule could be discriminatory (or even denigrating), but it is not so by its very nature.

Now that is total BS.

It assumes -and treats - a woman is a sexual entity before anything else.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Another "you" problem.  It confirms nothing except your own ideological blinders.

I fail to see how this in any way represents an ideological issue. 

Perhaps that's the problem with your (miss) understanding of my position, which I could describe as your problem.

This is about personal respect and secondly - but just as important -  respect for women in general.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

12 minutes ago, alexava said:

So we should all stop following sports to avoid gambling addiction? Refuse medicine to avoid opioid abuse? Not answer the call to ministry for fear you suddenly become attracted to undeveloped children? 

There may be some people that may find such things necessary.  I don't have any proclivity toward excessive gambling, drug abuse or attractions to prepubescents.  Thus I don't avoid sports or refuse medicine or avoid children.  On the other hand, I'm pretty much like any other man on this planet in that I am fully capable of experiencing attraction to women other than my wife.  And I don't believe I would ever act on or attempt to pursue anything in that regard.  But I would still have some "guard rails" with my interactions with women that wouldn't happen with men.  Because I am not so arrogant as to believe that I could never get to a place where I could give into a morally compromising situation.  

And on that last issue you mentioned, I do work with pre-adolescents at our church.  And you know what?  We have rules about that.  We don't go into the restroom with any child over a certain age and there must be at least two adults present at all times - no one is to be left alone with children.  They are both to protect children and the adults who teach them.  Obviously it's not an exact parallel as we wouldn't allow anyone with a known past of pedophila to be with them rules or no rules.  But the rules not only protect the children, but they protect the teachers from being falsely accused.

 

Quote

Making a rule like that is likened to a farmer moving a bull to different pastures to avoid inbreeding. We don't need to elect that bull.... It screams sexism and shows he has a weak marriage. More troubling is it is a slap in the face to any potential female associates that they are perusing him for something more than business at hand. 

And this is the party that is trying to make it "A ok" for the mentally ill to buy guns. 

Your inability to think beyond the most ridiculously narrow way of seeing this is not my problem. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And what do you mean by that exacly? 

It makes you look irrationally biased against religious people.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Now that is total BS.

It assumes -and treats -  a woman is a sexual entity before anything else.

For someone who normally can think more broadly, you are failing miserably at the moment.  It assumes, nor treats, a woman as any such thing.  And I know women who have similar rules about being alone with other men as well.  

[Barnacle 9,064]

Don't we all have internalized rules that govern our behavior, whether we make them public or not? Don't those rules come from our moral character, developed through habit and experience?

Is someone like Dave Ramsey less trustworthy with his money because he has a rule that he won't use credit cards?

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

It makes you look irrationally biased against religious people.

I have expressed no bias toward Pence's religious beliefs in my arguments.  It is you who is making that argument.

However, to the extent he - or you for that matter - uses his religion to justify his discrimmination against women, it is an insult to his religion.  (See previous article I linked which was written by an evangelical minister.  She 'gets' it.)

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, homersapien said:

I have expressed no bias toward Pence's religious beliefs in my arguments.  It is you who is making that argument.

However, to the extent he - or you for that matter - uses his religion to justify his discrimmination against women, it is an insult to his religion.  (See previous article I linked which was written by an evangelical minister.  She 'gets' it.)

His religious beliefs are a large part of the motivation for his rules.  It's his view of the sacredness of his marriage and his desire not to put himself in any situations where he could in any way threaten that.  It's also a general pattern of yours that any time someone acts on their religious beliefs in regard to sexuality, you always manage to find some way to be dismissive of it.  This thread and your posts in it do not exist in a vacuum.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

For someone who normally can think more broadly, you are failing miserably at the moment.  It assumes, nor treats, a woman as any such thing.  And I know women who have similar rules about being alone with other men as well.  

You are wrong.

Put yourself into the woman's position.  What sort of message does it send to you if your boss arbitrarily refuses to have a private lunch or dinner with you without a chaperone?

It's ironic that you accuse me of thinking narrowly.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are wrong.

Put yourself into the woman's position.  What sort of message does it send to you if your boss arbitrarily refuses to have a private lunch or dinner with you without a chaperone?

It's ironic that you accuse me of thinking narrowly.

I have put myself in the woman's position.  I have had to decide how I'd handle these kinds of situations before.  It's not arbitrary; it's reasoned and reasonable.  So long as my boss found other ways to allow me access and the ability to speak privately with him, it's not a big deal.

If this has been such a big problem for women working with Pence, where are all the ones lining up to tell us how he hurt their careers and made them feel like objects?

The reason I say it's you thinking narrowly is that you cannot see any way to accommodate both concerns here.  In your mind, such a way doesn't seem to exist.  Pence must capitulate to the way YOU think about it.  

[AURaptor 1,125]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are wrong.

 

No room for disagreement or different views...

You're wrong  !!

[homersapien 11,393]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It makes you look irrationally biased against religious people.

BS.  You are trying to play the anti-religion card when it doesn't apply.

Most religious people I have known and work with have no such rule.  As far as I know, Pence's rule is not proscribed by Christian ideology.

Again, see the article I linked earlier written by a Christian evangelical minister:

"Virtue ethics relies on moral character that is developed through good habits rather than rules or consequences for the governing of behavior."

Pence is basically admitting that he lacks the moral character to trust himself to have a private business dinner with a woman, so needs to preempt even the possibility of that challenge with a "rule".

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, homersapien said:

BS.  You are trying to play the anti-religion card when it doesn't apply.

Most religious people I have known and work with have no such rule.  As far as I know, Pence's rule is not proscribed by Christian ideology.

I have similar rules, they just aren't as strict as his are.  Billy Graham had this rule during his ministry years.  There are many Christians of both sexes who are at the very least guarded about such situations or they have a general rule of not doing that.  It's both to prevent any compromising situations from developing as well as to guard against any accusations or appearances of impropriety.  It's not dissimilar to ethical guidelines and practices in various industries.  Some apply them very strictly - avoiding even the appearance of something untoward, even if that makes doing business more complicated.  Others follow the legal and ethical requirements codified in law to the letter.

No, his rule isn't an absolute requirement of Christian theology.  The proactive stance to avoid potential moral compromise is though.

 

 

Just now, homersapien said:

Again, see the article I linked earlier written by a Christian evangelical minister:

"Virtue ethics relies on moral character that is developed through good habits rather than rules or consequences for the governing of behavior."

Pence is basically admitting that he lacks the moral character to trust himself to have a private business dinner with a woman, so needs to preempt even the possibility of that challenge with a "rule".

I'm sorry if the evangelical minister you quote isn't the stone tablets handed down from Mt. Sinai on the matter.  No, rules alone aren't a panacea for anything.  But that doesn't mean rules aren't reasonable and good.

[homersapien 11,393]

24 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I have put myself in the woman's position.  I have had to decide how I'd handle these kinds of situations before.  It's not arbitrary; it's reasoned and reasonable.  So long as my boss found other ways to allow me access and the ability to speak privately with him, it's not a big deal.

If this has been such a big problem for women working with Pence, where are all the ones lining up to tell us how he hurt their careers and made them feel like objects?

The reason I say it's you thinking narrowly is that you cannot see any way to accommodate both concerns here.  In your mind, such a way doesn't seem to exist.  Pence must capitulate to the way YOU think about it.  

Correct.  

All he needs to do is have private business meetings with women without coming on to them sexually.   But that's apparently too hard for him to do.

I think you are finally starting to get it.

Meanwhile, if he and the women he interacts with are OK his rules, good for them.  God forbid I prevent them from whatever stupid behavior they are mutually OK with.

But that doesn't change what I think about it.

And it doesn't remove the message being sent to the woman involved, even if she decides to put up with it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, homersapien said:

Correct.  

Hence, my entirely accurate take on your narrow thinking.

 

Just now, homersapien said:

All he needs to do is have private business meetings with women without coming on to them sexually.   But that's apparently too hard for him to do.

I think you are finally starting to get it.

Meanwhile, if he and the women he interacts with are OK his rules, good for them.  God forbid I prevent them from whatever stupid behavior they are mutually OK with.

But that doesn't change what I think about it.

And it doesn't remove the message being sent to the woman involved, even if she decides to put up with it.

More repetitive bull**** I've already dispensed with.

 

[homersapien 11,393]

"Dispensed with"?  My, but we are full of ourselves this morning. That sounds like Rapture.

Look, I am not saying Pence cannot do whatever he wants.  

So, to change my opinion, he needs to act like a responsible adult and quit insulting women. (That's what I meant when I said "correct", not that I would force him to.

My opinion of his behavior is that it's an admission of his own character flaws and an insult to women in general, not to mention childish.

If that is being "narrow minded" then you are narrow minded for believing I don't have a right to my opinion.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Incidentally, homer, did you read this part of your linked article carefully?

 

Quote

...And yet as soon as I type these words, I am checked by a sense of undue pride in my own self-mastery, remembering that it is exactly such that goes before a fall.

While most Vox readers are at least passingly familiar with Billy Graham (and now his “rule”), many may not know about his grandson, Tullian Tchividjian, once a Presbyterian minister like his grandfather, but now disgraced after a series of extramarital affairs involving women under his ministerial care. The distance between the rule and its fall is, apparently, just one generation — and perhaps one dose of a sense of invincibility.

Of course, one need not look far to find myriad examples of such failures and betrayals. If these don’t give us pause, then we are imprudent indeed.

Prudence, in fact, is what seems to be missing from the conversation about the vice president’s “rules.” And I don’t mean prudence in the way that some supporters of the Billy Graham rule are using the term. Prudence as properly understood is a virtue, not a rule.

It is the virtue most applicable in the context of guarding against workplace romances, the habit of making right decisions. Prudence, which literally means foresight, is the mean between cunning and negligence. It is wisdom in action.

While prudence does not rely on rules, it doesn’t shun them either. Failure to acknowledge this would be as foolish as praising the federal Title IX regulations out of one side of the mouth while mocking Pence’s personal protections against sexual misbehavior out of the other. I would be unable to serve half of my students if I had a rule not to meet with a man alone, and the same would be true of my male colleagues and their students. On the other hand, because of this necessity, my school (like most) has windows on all office doors and a rule that those windows are not to be covered. This is prudent. The lack of any guiding principles is a deficiency, specifically the vice of negligence....

In essence, she isn't even questioning having such rules in place, she's just disagreeing over where to draw them.