Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:An employer that has a fraternization policy doesn't believe its employees can conduct themselves professionally, and is protecting itself from the very thing Pence is accomplishing on a personal level.
Does Pence have a written code of conduct for those who fall under his purview preventing them from meeting with the opposite sex one-on-one? Probably not.
This glosses over the gender discrimination element at the very core of what is being discussed. Since Pence isn't applying his meeting rules to men, he is not accomplishing what fraternization policies are attempting to achieve. Fraternization polices are not written with opposite gender interactions as the sole focus, and it would be legally dubious to do so. That he does not require those he has authority over to follow his example of sex-based discrimination, as far as you know, is irrelevant. It does bring up the point that leaders naturally place pressure on people beneath them to follow their example, either by modeling or because people believe it is in their interest to mimick their leader, but that's secondary to the complaint about how Pence's views are potentially harmful to women. Why that is the case has now been explained several times, and you've ignored it each time in preference for near constant lying about what others have thought, said, and done. It doesn't speak well of your views when you can only defend them with rank dishonesty.
Has Pence's personal code of conduct prevented women from advancing within his sphere of influence? I don't see it. In fact, he seems pretty progressive on that issue.
The thing about this type of discrimination is it creates subtle biases that are hard to disentangle from other influences on people's decision making. For example, people develop rapport during one on one work lunches. People tend to professionally favor those they share a rapport with. If one group of people have access to them and another does not, that group might have a have a professional advantage. To the extent that advantage has translated into advancement is very hard to know. That's part of why systemic discrimination is insidious.
Your assertion that Pence is "progressive" on female advancement seems dubious, especially when he's currently a high level official with influence over personnel in a government dominated by males to a degree that hasn't been seen in some time. There are reasons for why that might be that don't require discrimination. Republican women, for example, might not like the idea of working for people like Pence and Trump because of their attitudes towards women. But it also doesn't do much to bolster the case for him being progressive on female advancement. And if you plan on refuting this with tokenism, save your breath.
I don't think your attempt to move the overton window left will be successful, and will, more broadly, cause the center to eventually shift right
You exist in another universe if you think rejecting Pence's view is somehow coming from radical leftwing point of view. Mike Pence's rather segregationist position on gender relations is highly antiquated and is located firmly within the norms of religious fundamentalism. Most people don't share his social conservatism, which is why it's such an easy thing to use as a basis of criticism as a Democrat. The window you fear shifting has already shifted. If you are 1980's Rip Van Winkle, I apologize.
This is yet another example of you claiming something that isn't far right is therefore "leftist" while simultaneously claiming to be center-life yourself. It's an odd trait.
There are analogues in all major populations in the world.