Kamala blasts Pence for refusing to meet women alone

[_Jersey Girl]

No, I only got on here at the point where I posted when I realized that the entire thread turned to ____ and stated so.

I'll have a look. I'm so f'n disgusted right now.

I'm interested in your take.

I'll return.

[_Res Ipsa]

The opening post of this thread is a white supremacist agreeing with a comment on Brietbart that Kamala Harris criticizes Mike Pence’s willingness to meet with women because she wants to expose him to false allegations of sexual impropriety, but since she cannot she will have to fall back on charges of racism.

You look at this, see people criticizing Pence for his retrograde views on gender, and decide the problem is that the Democratic Party has been taken over by bigots as evidenced by their comments.

The OP contains statements by Harris that do not match the statements made about Pence's policy.

That's where the problem begins and continues throughout what used to be this discussion.

Yes, Harris clearly made an inference and didn't explicitly state it. She should have. But is it an unreasonable inference?

[_EAllusion]

The opening post of this thread is a white supremacist agreeing with a comment on Brietbart that Kamala Harris criticizes Mike Pence’s willingness to meet with women because she wants to expose him to false allegations of sexual impropriety, but since she cannot she will have to fall back on charges of racism.

You look at this, see people criticizing Pence for his retrograde views on gender, and decide the problem is that the Democratic Party has been taken over by bigots as evidenced by their comments.

The OP contains statements by Harris that do not match the statements made about Pence's policy.

That's where the problem begins and continues throughout what used to be this discussion.

That isn't a problem for any subsequent discussion because no comment in this thread hinges on Harris' characterization. It does not inform Ajax's nutty view that Harris is trying to expose Pence to false allegations. It it is not relevant to me discussing Pence's policy on meals, and it is not relevant to posters like yourself and Ceeboo who have defended generally not meeting alone with members of the opposite gender. No one in this thread is basing their criticism of Pence on what Harris said. Harris is overgeneralizing Pence's comment in a way that is probably, but not necessarily correct. Caution dictates rejecting that. And that caution exists in the very thread you are complaining about.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't know that, do you?

No idea. But, to harp on a theme, I find it strange that his office's immediate response was not "he does have private meetings with women" but rather "he's promoted women to leadership positions and relied on their advice." That's what we call non-responsive. Or less politely, dodging the issue.

I have a deep distrust of non-responsive answers. Especially from politicians. Of all flavors.

[_EAllusion]

Does he?

What gets me about that comment is that if you are willing to meet with one gender in a dinner setting, but the other gender must meet during business hours in an office setting, that clearly sets up an unequal dynamic. People are often different in those two different environments. It's easier to develop rapport with someone when you can cross social and professional contexts in that way. Those that get to sit down for a meal with the boss 1:1 are at an advantage all other things being equal.

I worked in an office where some employees were invited to after hours meals and others were not, and let me tell you, those that weren't included in that sure as hell weren't happy about it. Everyone there recognized the potential favoritism in it and, in this case, the favoritism was more than potential. It killed morale. The idea that people would or should be cool with such a workplace environment is dubious. I can't speak to Jersey Girl's feelings, but a lot of people would not be OK with this if it was happening to them even if think they would beforehand. In my case it wasn't gender based, but if it was, that would put the gender on the outs in second-class status. It is setting up a source of systemic bias.

[_EAllusion]

What gets me about that comment is that if you are willing to meet with one gender in a dinner setting, but the other gender must meet during business hours in an office setting, that clearly sets up an unequal dynamic. People are often different in those two different environments. It's easier to develop rapport with someone when you can cross social and professional contexts in that way. Those that get to sit down for a meal with the boss 1:1 are at an advantage all other things being equal.

I worked in an office where some employees were invited to after hours meals and others were not, and let me tell you, those that weren't included in that sure as hell weren't happy about it. Everyone there recognized the potential favoritism in it and, in this case, the favoritism was more than potential. It killed morale. The idea that people would or should be cool with such a workplace environment is dubious. I can't speak to Jersey Girl's feelings, but a lot of people would not be OK with this if it was happening to them even if think they would beforehand. In my case it wasn't gender based, but if it was, that would put the gender on the outs in second-class status. It is setting up a source of systemic bias.

While I'm interested in the propriety of this, it shouldn't be forgotten that this the dry tinder of an EEOC complaint waiting to be ignited.

[_Res Ipsa]

Does he?

What gets me about that comment is that if you are willing to meet with one gender in a dinner setting, but the other gender must meet during business hours in an office setting, that clearly sets up an unequal dynamic. People are often different in those two different environments. It's easier to develop rapport with someone when you can cross social and professional contexts in that way. Those that get to sit down for a meal with the boss 1:1 are at an advantage all other things being equal.

I worked in an office where some employees were invited to after hours meals and others were not, and let me tell you, those that weren't included in that sure as hell weren't happy about it. Everyone there recognized the potential favoritism in it and, in this case, the favoritism was more than potential. It killed morale. The idea that people would or should be cool with such a workplace environment is dubious. I can't speak to Jersey Girl's feelings, but a lot of people would not be OK with this if it was happening to them even if think they would beforehand. In my case it wasn't gender based, but if it was, that would put the gender on the outs in second-class status. It is setting up a source of systemic bias.

I agree. But on a spectrum of harm, only dinner would be less harmful than no meetings period.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It should be noted that Kamala Harris is member of the Baptist faith:

https://www.nndb.com/people/824/000163335/

So, the shots being taken at Pence's faith, the idea that his faith in woo and therefore he's an idiot because of his woo-faith, is unevenly being applied. Kamala Harris also believes in woo.

- Doc

Who here has argued that Pence’s evangelical beliefs prove he is an idiot?

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 1#p1172681

- Doc

[_Ceeboo]

I'm glad you stuck around.

I'm not.

You and I appear to have a disagreement over the relevance of race and religion to the discussion. (I assume we no longer disagree on sex.) So what I'm going to do is rewind to my comment and proceed as if you had responded: "Why is the fact that Pence and I are white evangelicals relevant to the discussion."

Here is my argument. People tend to be blind to problems that they don't personally experience. If I rely only on my direct, personal life experience, I would conclude that there is no racial discrimination. No one has ever discriminated against me based on my race. In fact, again based on my direct personal experience, America is color blind.

But if I reach out beyond my direct personal experience, it looks different. Just to take an example, there is pretty good evidence that black folks are policed at a higher rates than whites, are pulled over for traffic stops at higher rates than whites, get charged at a higher rates than whites for the same infractions, etc. It would never cross my mind that I would get pulled over for driving through a swanky neighborhood on a pretext. But for lots and lots of black folks, the experience is the opposite.

You, Ceeboo, may be perfectly colorblind when it comes to race. But that's not universally true, and sadly its not true enough to avoid creating a generally different set of experiences for white folks and black folks when it comes to interactions with the policy. And the fact that I have white skin means that my direct experiences will lead me to underestimate the existence of harmful racial discrimination.

Good stuff. Thanks.

We all make judgments on what the world is like based on our own experience. But it does mean that people tend to not notice or underestimate harm that they don't experience.

Read that twice. Thanks again for sharing some of your wisdom. Truth be told, that was very valuable for me.

Pence's dinner rule doesn't just affect Pence. It also affects women that he excludes from dinner.

He doesn't exclude them from dinner. He has made a personal decision that he doesn't do one on one dinners with member of the opposite sex. So what. Does that mean he discriminates against women? Or blocks their possible opportunities? I certainly don't think so but if you do, fine. We take different positions on the matter.

When you say that the only interests that we can even talk about are Pence's, you are not looking at the women.

I never said that. You can talk about anything you like. I was only talking about Pence because his policy/decision is the subject of the thread.

And I don't think it's just a coincidence that the only person you are seeing is the person who is most like you.

Because he is white, male and Evangelical? Not buying it.

It takes effort to consider that a problem exists even though you've never experienced that problem.

I agree and I often fall short in this regard.

But what 's far worse to me is your condemnation of folks for even talking about how such a policy would be harmful to women.

I wasn't condemning folks for talking about "how such a policy would be harmful to women." I don't agree that such a policy would be harmful to women.

I know we would all like to believe that we would behave in certain ways under hypothetical circumstances. But we don't really know, do we. It's easy to say "I would treat Denzel Washington same way" because we haven't had to put our money where our mouth is.

Perhaps but I'm pretty freaking sure I would take the exact same position if we were talking about Denzel - or Hillary - or the 7/11 clerk.

Would you have jumped in, guns a blazing' anddefended a liberal, black, female, atheist professor who would dine privately with the female students but not the 10% of the student body who was male?

Absolutely, without question.

Calling everyone who disagreed with you a "radical leftist" and insulting their views as bizarre or unhinged?

Yeah, I over did that a tad. I own it.

So, the fact that you share certain characteristics, including race, sex, and religion, with Pence is relevant because it illustrates and explains the fact that you are blind to the impact of Pence's actions on the women because you are falling prey to shortsightedness.

I don't think so. His characteristics are completely irrelevant in my view - At least they sure ought to be.

And, it illustrates the absurdity of pretending that only one person in the interaction can even be discussed.

I wasn't pretending that. Pence was the one person being discussed. If you want to add the name of a woman who has been discriminated against, go for it. I'll discuss it.

Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is another perfectly good explanation for your refusal to even consider the impact on anyone other than Pence

My "refusal to even consider the impact on anyone other than Pence?" LOL

But here's the thing: there is a huge difference between me being wrong about the relevance of something in an argument and me being a bigot who is a threat to America. And you haven't even attempted to make that case. (Pro-tip: it never does.) In fact, you've based it on a lie: that I never see people as individuals. So, make your case. Lay out, in clear steps, your argument that I'm a threat to America.

Point taken. I offer you my sincere apology.

[_Ceeboo]

I mean this is the friendliest way possible. Shut it, Ceebs.

Okay!