Kamala blasts Pence for refusing to meet women alone

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think it's already been explained why gender discrimination in this way is bad.

You mean the fantasy examples you've given that presume people have been adversely affected by not meeting with a male alone at dinner while drinking alcohol or in a hotel room? What people have been adversely affected by not having one-on-one meetings with their superiors? I'd argue leaders, whether it's in industry or government, who have a second or third person present when they conduct business actually improve the professional environment for everyone involved.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

You have no common sense. You have no street smarts at all.

You brought out the "women who dressed that way were asking for it" canard, but made it much worse by expanding it to a situation that itself wasn't as inherently dangerous as you seem to think it is.

You'd rather a Pence suspend such practices that show respect for himself and his associates, as well as his wife, leave both he and they wide open for allegations so you can crucify him like our truly misogynistic President who demonstrates no respect for anything or anyone but himself and his brand.

Nowhere on this thread has Pence's policy been quoted and only referred to. Harris, and now you, have blown it out of proportion and put the most contemptible spin on this policy that one could imagine without having a primary source for his statements to start with.

The man chooses to act with integrity and character and you cry discrimination. A man who acts with principle towards his marriage and his position, likely acts with principle in all his political and business relationships and if he didn't, EAllusion, his name would be plastered all over media with accusations by women he's discriminated against.

But we don't see accusations of discrimination against him by any women who have been denied access except by people like you and a Kamala Harris who only imagine that he does discriminate against women where there exists no discrimination at all.

We'll see if the other shoe drops. So far it hasn't.

Mike Pence was the most important figure in determining who staffed the leadership of the Trump administration, which is the most male dominated Federal government we've seen in decades. It is more male dominated than the Republican party itself is. You have to go back to Reagan, while women were still way behind in career parity, to find something similar. He also is widely reported to be a central figure in judge nomination picks, which also is the most male dominated we've seen out of a Presidential administration in quite some time. This is occurring as the proportion of women who are qualified for these positions has increased due to societal changes. These facts are "plastered all over the media" if you care to look. The odds there is at least some bias where men are inherently preferred in this admin and that this fact is driven at least in part by Mike Pence's preferences is a near certainty.

Yet, you don't see women coming out of the woodwork claiming they were personally discriminated against by Mike Pence. It's hard to know if you didn't get a position because of explicit or implicit biases or not and to what extent. That's how systemic discrimination works. People usually just don't announce to you (or even themselves) that you didn't get the job because you belong to a particular class. They just decided to go in a different direction.

What we do know is that Mike Pence has stated and never disavowed a personal policy that sets up unequal treatment of men and women that can have professional consequences that bias unequal outcomes between men and women. You say that is a good thing because you endorse a conception of male-female relations where men are dangerous predators and women are dishonest sluts to such an extent that it is inherently unsafe for them to be alone together in a professional context. So discrimination becomes a necessary evil to prevent the greater harm of sexual harassment/assault and/or false allegations. You call it "common sense" even though this viewpoint is neither common nor sensible.

Besides having the gender-relation insights of a fundamentalist from the 1940's, this viewpoint also just completely glosses over the fact that same-sex assault/harassment and false allegations can occur too. Men can be or say they were assaulted by men. Men can have affairs with men. Yet Mike Pence ain't out there refusing to meet alone with men. Apparently integrity doesn't extend to that.

[_EAllusion]

I think it's already been explained why gender discrimination in this way is bad.

You mean the fantasy examples you've given that presume people have been adversely affected by not meeting with a male alone at dinner while drinking alcohol or in a hotel room?

The specific policy quoted is that Pence will never meet a woman alone for a meal or be without his wife around women, even in mixed company, if alcohol is involved.

The key here is that Mike Pence avoids women in situations where he won't avoid men.

What people have been adversely affected by not having one-on-one meetings with their superiors? I'd argue leaders, whether it's in industry or government, who have a second or third person present when they conduct business actually improve the professional environment for everyone involved.

- Doc

If Mike Pence had a policy of never meeting anyone alone for a meal, then no one would be discussing this in gender discrimination terms. But that's not what was said. Women are specifically singled out. Because people develop rapport and exchange ideas at things like meals, and because professional and social contexts often cross paths, this sets up an inherent advantage for a class of people who have access to them when another class of people does not.

On this entirely separate rhetorical question of yours, the answer is anyone who is more comfortable meeting one on one with someone over multiple people. I perform much better in one on one interviews than I do in group interviews because I find the latter more intimidating and my interview skills are weaker than my actual job skills. Fortunately, unlike some people, I don't take my personal experience and project it onto the whole of humanity. But yes, it is possible that throwing more people in a room doesn't make it better for everyone.

[_Kevin Graham]

I met with a couple of people from the Mayor's office recently, to discuss doing a thing for the city. They happened to both be women, incidentally. My wife was accompanying me, mainly because we seem to be attached at the hip these days. They indicated it was up to me to bring her along, or not, and I chose to bring her because I like her company.

I never once felt disrespected nor disadvantaged because there were two of them, even though it was clear only one of them was doing the interviewing. Apparently it was fine that I brought my wife with me because now I'm going to do the thing.

It appears that in some people's world having additional people at the meeting was a result of some bizarre power imbalance, even though I can't quite figure it out. Viewing the world through the lens of power and culpability must be exhausting, but there you have it and here we are.

Crazy.

- Doc

Your personal feelings about an irrelevant anecdote doesn't negate the facts presented nor do they change the real world just because you don't perceive it as it is. I've hired three women in the past two years. These were one on one interviews. I don't have a personal policy of no private one on one meetings with women but if I did, I don't think it is hard to imagine a scenario where I interviewed more males than females because the latter's spouse was unable to attend. Especially in this field where most applicants are about equal on paper and I'm usually taking the first five people and making a decision from there.

It isn't about power or culpability, it is about one gender having an advantage over another due to circumstances beyond their control. An advantage that exists only because of a personal preference of an employer. So if I say "We're holding several interviews on Monday and we'll make our decision Tuesday morning... oh, and make sure your husband is there," what are the chances hubby can make it too? Maybe he works. Maybe he's out of town. Maybe he's not very presentable (i.e. he doesn't shower, sports a lumberjack beard, tattooed head to toe and a MAGA hat) or maybe he has to stay home with the toddler.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I got it. You can't pony up any proof anyone has been adversely affected by Pence's personal code of conduct. Meanwhile, you don't even consider, for one second, how Kamala sleeping with her employer affects men and women in the workplace. You know. Since she's making it a thing.

I see we've entered into EA's bizarro world again.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

KG,

There were two women in that meeting with the assumption I was showing up alone. You don't see me whining about not getting an opportunity to be alone with the woman. I find it utterly bizarre anyone would think it's a good idea to be alone with the opposite sex these days, in a professional environment. And I certainly would advise against married men or women spending time with members of the opposite sex alone in a social setting, especially if they're not comfortable doing so. While I, personally, can keep an open mind about people acting responsibly, history has shown us that not having another body around creates problems for far too many people. I don't see a problem if someone in a public or leadership position simply wants to be transparent and protective of their personal interests. So much more so if they're a politician.

- Doc

[_ajax18]

but I suspect people would regard that as more freakish than the open misogyny that comes from thinking women's sexual allure is so dangerous that it's not safe to be alone with them.

You're spinning this. It's not womens sexual allure or Pence's lack of self control. It's the fact that every man is considered guilty of any and every sexual harassment allegation any woman might choose to allege at any point in time (even 30 years from now) unless he has a witness present who can prove/testify otherwise.

Sexual harrassment allegations can inflict a lot of damage whether they are true or not, whether the man is convicted or not. Women don't normally just make up allegations unless of course the man is a political enemy who supports border enforcement and reduced welfare size and spending and the left needs to take him down by any means necessary.

[_Ceeboo]

Good God, what a thread.
Complete insanity on display.......Again.

[_canpakes]

Good God, what a thread.
Complete insanity on display.......Again.

I don’t know about ‘complete’ insanity, Ceebs. I can see valid points on both sides of the issue. I find it hard to get worked up by Pence’s self-policing policy and see some definite real-world practicality in it, but the fact that such a policy needs to be considered in the first place does speak to some very real issues or social conditions.

[_EAllusion]

You're spinning this. It's not womens sexual allure or Pence's lack of self control. It's the fact that every man is considered guilty of any and every sexual harassment allegation any woman might choose to allege at any point in time (even 30 years from now) unless he has a witness present who can prove/testify otherwise.

No, that is the defense of his behavior you decided to endorse from a random commentor responding to a Brietbart article. This is not to be confused with the fundamentalist evangelical cultural views it actually came from where the sexual temptation of women and all the ways it can ruin men and their relationships is essential.

Though, if this is what you sincerely think, then it avoids the fact that men can accuse men of sexual harassment too. So your straw man has to lean heavily on the assertion that only women are to be reflexively believed. But if you are going to be this untethered from reality already, then why not?

But then having a second person in the room doesn’t actually help you. It’s not like people don’t cover for one another. Automatically believing the accuser doesn’t care if a second person is covering. So I suppose we’re forced to just avoid women in the workplace. You know, for safety.