Forum: Author Hangout

Oh, please... seriously?

Hey, seriously. The Trump campaign routinely quotes white supremacists, is led by white-supremacist 'alt-right' bigots, and they've shown little compassion for any women's group in existence. I don't think it's a stretch to assume the Mike Pense doesn't respect women or thinks they're intelligent enough to make choices (like whether to have abortions or not) that affect their own lives.

While the Republican party actively denies women the right to decide their own fates, they at least respect them enough to allow them to speak and invite them into their 'private boys' clubs' (inner sanctums).

I'm an elderly male. If I were found in a corner of our local public park, reading stories to a circle of children, with a girl in my lap...

When I tell friends I hang out at wattpad, and that wattpad is mostly teenage girls, you can't believe the looks I get. Then I have to quickly add that I mostly hang out in a club with adults that discusses the publishing industry.

I do not see any particular harm to that part of the population, so I would support his freedom to choose.

So the only objective of any politician should be "don't piss of white, rich males and you can do whatever you want to anyone else you want to?"

It's worked for several hundred years, now, and the current administration is pretty much reinforcing that approach.

It seems CW was addressing the morality/ethics of the action. As we all know, most politician seem to be lacking in those qualities.

As we all know, most politician seem to be lacking in those qualities.

most deny such qualities exist, especially the socialist leaning ones.

What Pence proposes is not a slight inconvenience. For women seeking advancement it is a very real impediment.

From what is said in this forum about what he said, he's not placing any blocks in their way. in the original post it was said:

Current Vice President Mike Pence stated publicly that he will not be alone with a woman not his wife, at a meal, a conference, etc.

There shouldn't be any reason for any business activity where he can't have a third person with him, and in a non-business situation he can have his wife with him. Given the options of:

a. Having a third person present when with a person of the other gender, or

b. Never meeting with or dealing with a person of the other gender, or

c. Being accused of doing or saying something inappropriate,

He chose (a) as the least risk to himself and others. He could have gone for (b) and put blocks in the paths of women, but he didn't.

The competition for advancement is fierce. The slightest inconvenience can make the difference in gaining a promotion. What Pence proposes is not a slight inconvenience. For women seeking advancement it is a very real impediment.

Two names: Mary Jo Kopechne, Monica Lewinsky.

Does that answer why women being alone with politicians can lead to problems?

Yeah, I know it's important to focus on the non-issues to avoid dealing with real issues.
Politics 101.

All it takes is one false accusation where you can't prove it false beyond a shadow of a doubt and the person's career and life is destroyed. With the number of angry rectums out there ready to do

And there's no male who would make (baseless) accusations about Pence propositioning him?

I've not yet heard of anyone being vilified due to a baseless accusation from a guy, but there are numerous examples of such accusations from females. Thus he's only going with the percentages.

I've not yet heard of anyone being vilified due to a baseless accusation from a guy,

Would this story about Elton John qualify?

There's also the situation found in Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, where one male employee, disciplined by his male supervisor for leaving work early without permission, took revenge by claiming that supervisor was sexually harassing him.

That came from just ten minutes on Google search. It isn't that hard to find cases.

Thus he's only going with the percentages.

Let's assume that (a) any specific woman would be more likely to bring about a baseless suit than any specific man, and (b) the person in question meets with more men than women.

In that case, it is still possible that the person is more likely to face a baseless suit from a man than a woman.

[Making up some numbers - 2% of women will bring a baseless suit, while 1% of men do so. I'm exaggerating here to make the math work. Out of 1000 meetings, 700 are with men, and 300 with women. This person will face 13 baseless suits, but 7 of them are from men.]

Let's also try a thought experiment. Suppose a VP Michelle Pence refuses to be alone with a man not her husband. I have little doubt that the defenders of Mike Pence would consider Michelle's behavior to be sexist and discriminatory. So why should Mike get a pass for his sexism?

He shouldn't.

Would this story about Elton John qualify?

As I said, I'd not heard of that or the other one, maybe because they don't happen as often as the other. In today's age anyone of either gender in a highly visible public position should never be alone with a person of the other gender.

In some work environments in Australia it's been a policy to never be alone with a person of the other gender in a work situation. Having others there protects you and them and the organisation you work for.

edit to add: In a high political position it's easy to have an assistant, aide or clerk with you at any meeting - most usually do.

The odds are likely more strongly skewed then that.

Actually, the real odds are overstated.
*There are slightly over 150,000,000 employed people in the United States.
*The EEOC receives about 7,000 complaints of sexual harassment a year, of which 1 in six are men. Even if we double that for claims filed on a state or federal level, that's only 1% of 1% who file claims.

The number of false claims is much smaller - we're at about one false claim for every 100,000 or so workers.

For such a small number, you are willing to eliminate all chances of women working one-on-one with men. This is bad sexism.

---
There's another thing to consider.

Nearly one-third of the 90,000 charges of discrimination received by the EEOC last fiscal year included workplace harassment. That includes sexual harassment, from Mad Men­­–style boorishness to anti-trans persecution—as well as racial and ethnic harassment.

If we apply Pence's rule to this situation, we must conclude that it is unsafe for a white boss to have one-on-one meetings with anyone who isn't white. We simply have to be careful of false accusations of racial harassment. (Such a policy would be racism, of course, but I don't see how this is different from the sexism Pence advocates.)

Then we can't let any non-Christians meet one-on-one with Pence - false claims of religious harassment, don't you know? Continue with this, and only straight white cisgender Christian men can meet one-on-one with Pence.

This, of course, puts anybody who isn't a straight white cisgender Christian male at a political and a personal disadvantage.

Would you say that a White politician deliberately avoiding one-on-one meetings with a Black person, using "I might get falsely sued for harassment" as a pretext, is doing something morally wrong? If so, isn't Pence's behavior just as wrong?

Last I checked, that is a patient option, not so much for the doctor.

The requirement for a witness various with the laws of the location the practice is, the policies of the practice, the requirements of their liability insurer, the concerns of the doctor, and the concerns of the patient.

Many liability insurance companies set out requires the insured have to abide by in they do not want their policy voided and they're not covered. There's a wide range of subjects where the insurance companies impose rules on the clients if the clients want lower insurance rates - random drug testing, high quality security locks, security cameras, corporate behavior policies, etc.

This is bad sexism.

Agreed, but there is no good sexism.

that women are inherently temptresses---they can't help it, it's the way God made them---and that the only way to shield oneself from that temptation is to separate the sexes

It sounds to me that these men are saying, "As a man, I am not responsible for the lustful thoughts that keep me from controlling my actions. It is the woman's fault for my sexually driving me to attack her. The sight of a woman inflames my thoughts beyond my ability to control myself."

I wonder how these so called "MEN" act around a woman who is dressed in a garment that fully covers her body. Do they attack her because of what they imagine what she might look like.? When at home, do they lose control, when their daughters and female relatives dress in a more revealing manner within the man's home.

Little BOYS allow their emotions to control their actions, MEN control the emotions that might lead them into inappropriate actions.

edited to correct typo

The sight of a woman inflames my thoughts beyond my ability to control myself

Exactly. Which means it's the woman's fault, of course. She needs to be less inflaming so we'll cover her up and separate her.

Do they attach her because of what they imagine what she might look like.?

A girlfriend in high school countered my complaint about loose high-waisted dresses and smocks by saying more or less the same thing: "There might be something really interesting going on under there," or words to that effect.

bb

IT is not always enough to avoid evil ... in the programming field.

Writing "it" in all caps while mentioning programming can lead one to believe Information Technology is not always enough to avoid evil. LOL

Very true! How often we hear the corporate drone's excuse, "But the computer says ..."

AJ

Very true! How often we hear the corporate drone's excuse, "But the computer says ..."

That's due to the corporate or organisational policy, culture, and orders. I've worked in organisations where no one at the lowest three levels of work have any authority to do anything except leave work after finishing time, and it's only the lowest two levels that have client contact. The staff are ordered to follow what's on the file or computer record etc., and they can't do anything else.

That is not how it should be done, but it is the way it's done most of the time. What's worse is when you strike an employee who has trouble saying their own name right because they only have one brain cell, or less.