Kamala blasts Pence for refusing to meet women alone

[_Jersey Girl]

RI I read the article in The Atlantic here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... Relief Society/449367/

Bringing that forward for others.

The article is dated 2015. It lists instances of denied access and other decisions/behaviors that were felt to be insulting to women involved. It also gives examples of how some people such as Jason Chavez have made an effort to create work arounds to provide access during business hours and that sort of thing.

This reminded me of something else. Here's a link to a March 2018 letter signed off by female senators (including Kamala Harris) complaining about the lack of effective measures in dealing with work place sexual offenses in DC itself.

https://www.murray.senate.gov/public/_c ... reform.pdf

Here are my only comments at the moment. These people live in a world that is completely foreign to me. The female senators note how many females dealt with workplace harassment and/or discrimination on the part of male counterparts, it discusses trainings and penalties.

It discusses everything but prevention. In The Atlantic article we read this:

It's no secret that Congress is dominated by men, but as women work to make inroads in the congressional boys club, some female staffers face a huge impediment to moving up: They're not allowed to spend one-on-one time with their male bosses.

It's very true that women have integrated into the "congressional boys club" and they're rightfully proud of it. So am I proud to see it happen. But what I see as a female who has worked in male dominated professions and with a bit of time and mileage under my belt, I see a mindset where women are rightfully proud of breaking through barriers, have worked hard to do it, and particularly because they have inserted themselves into positions that were previously dominated by males.

At the same time...they can't seem to acknowledge that the practices (such as business dinners, meetings outside of the office) were all practices created when the positions were held by predominantly males. Women are happy to have infiltrated the "boys club" but they selectively acknowledge that it is or was a boys club when it suits them--bragging rights.

The female senators who signed off on the linked to letter, acknowledge that harassment and discrimination is a problem. They apparently reject (at least does Kamala Harris) the idea that a male has a right to modify his own policies in order to prevent such abuse from taking place and cry "discrimination" on account of it when there are obviously work arounds to be had and if the women were truly interested in change in the workplace, they would be support such measures that create practices that prevent it.

Instead of crying...Discrimination! Discrimination! Discrimination! ---one note wonders.

They should be working on contributing to the creation of practices that help prevent such discrimination, harassment, and/or sexual behaviors from taking place.

They want to integrate into the "boys club" without acknowledging that their presence makes a difference to the dynamic interaction within the "boys club", they want to be treated as equals, they know they are being harassed and when males try to accommodate their presence, they reject that idea, too and instead of cooperatively and collaboratively suggesting improvements in the actual day to day practices, they condemn those who try to make them.

For ____ sake.

If it's been a matter of "this is how it's always been done" then with the integration of females into the workplace then the ____ practices need to change along with that integration. Otherwise it's a long drone of outcry with no progress being made.

Women want to be in the boys club, they want to make their mark and they will, but they want their impact recognized when it suits them. They are rightfully proud of their hard work, their climb to success, I as a female think they on account of their intelligence, their know how, their education, their drive and their female perspectives am proud as ____ that they are in there. That said, to think that they are there to change the face of DC without their presence impacting previously held practices is simply irrational.

The above linked letter disappoints me. It discusses trainings, processes and does everything but offer solutions to the problem and when males make modifications to avoid scandal or harm for all concerned, they ____ about that, too.

If they want to make a respected contribution to the dialogue and practices, I would like to see them offer workable solutions about transforming the way that business is done in DC.

I'm sure I haven't expressed myself fully or possibly even coherently. I've lost interest in the discussion for reasons that I think I've already stated on the thread.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I'm troubled by the notion that the women bear the burden of prevention here. Is it really too much to ask male employers "treat me like you treat the boys, including don't try and use your position to try and “F” me?' I don't think it is. I know I'm a non-random sample of one, but I've supervised both male and female employees as an owner of a firm, and I didn't find it difficult in the slightest. And I don't think I have anything resembling sexual restraint superpowers.
just give you less access tot he process than we give to me.

in my opinion, it's not a legitimate "solution" for men to say "well, if you are going to insist that we not use our position to try and Screw you and complain when we do, then we'll just give you less access to the process than we give to men. Two easy solutions are available to the men that are completely within their control: don't use your position to try and “F” your employees or don't meet alone with anyone.

For the record. I don't think that women bear the burden of prevention. I don't know where you are getting that from when I expressly stated:

They should be working on contributing to the creation of practices that help prevent such discrimination, harassment, and/or sexual behaviors from taking place.

And later stated in response to EA:

I think that women can be co-constructors of new and innovative practices.

I don't believe it's enough to ask men not to try to “F” their female counterparts. I also don't believe it's enough to think well this is how business is done in Washington when the way business is done in Washington clearly isn't supportive of preventing sexual misbehavior or the creation of discriminatory polices on the job.

Accepting that this is how business is done in Washington smacks of a generalized apathy that is foreign to me and how I think about things and people.

In a nutshell, I think it's entirely screwed up.

[Guest]

Hi Ceeboo,

Just wanted to throw a couple of thoughts into the mix.

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.

I may have stated that poorly. It might be clearer to say that he excludes them from the opportunity to dine alone with him or excluded from the list of people he would be willing dine alone with. But it's hard for me to understand how he isn't excluding women. For example, if I owned a restaurant and decided not to serve Christians, I think it would be fair to say that I'm excluding Christians from eating at my restaurant. Would you agree? If not, why not? If so, how do you think the restaurant example materially varies from the dining alone example?

He has made a personal decision that he doesn't do one on one dinners with member of the opposite sex.

Why do you think that it was a personal decision? How do you tell whether a decision is personal or not personal? And what do you think the consequences of a decision being "personal" are as opposed to "not personal?"

[Edited to replace "private" with "personal."]

So what. Does that mean he discriminates against women?

I'm not sure what you mean. I would say the practice of categorically excluding women from dining with them is a discriminatory practice. It treats people differently based on their sex. When he engages in it, I think it's correct to say that he is discriminating against women. Labeling a practice as discrimination isn't a claim that the person discriminates against women in other ways.

As a side note, law recognizes two basic categories of discrimination: de jure and de facto. The first is intentional or purposeful discrimination. The second is a practice that isn't intended to discriminate, but in fact is discriminatory in effect. I suspect the dinner alone rule is of the second type. But both have the same effect: excluding a category of people from something.

Or blocks their possible opportunities? I certainly don't think so but if you do, fine. We take different positions on the matter.

I think the more general question is: does it harm the individuals in the category being discriminated against? And that sets up what I think the actual argument is: analyzing the rights of the person engaging in the discriminatory practice vs. the harm caused by the practice.

I think there's a very good argument that the simple fact of being discriminated against is harmful. It's related to your objection to me treating people as groups rather than individuals. That's exactly what discrimination does: it treats people differently based on their group and not as individuals. Exclusion places a stigma on the excluded. That was the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education -- the exclusion of black student from white schools was harmful to the black students because of the stigma of inferiority attacked to it. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/

The Court decided another case, in which a black student had been admitted to a masters program at a white college because there was no comparable black college. However, the black student had to comply with restrictions applicable only to him. He had to sit in a specified row in the classroom, he had to eat at a designated table away from the other students, and he had to study at a designated table in the library away from the other students. In holding these restrictions unconstitutional, the Court found that the black student was harmed in the following ways:

The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. Such restrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/637/

Now, I'm not referring to those cases to argue that the alone dinner rule violates the Constitution. I cite them to illustrate that the type of harm that I'm talking about has been recognized in the U.S. for over 60 years. Impairment of the ability to "learn one's profession" is actual harm.

Now does the dinner alone rule do that? If Pence dines with male staff, aides or interns, one on one, but he doesn't do so with women, I think the answer is pretty clearly yes. Lots of government work, as well as mentoring, is done over dinner or drinks and not inside of an office or on the floor of the elected representatives. And if he also applies the dinner alone rule to business meetings with aides, staff or interns, the harm is greater.

Again, I'm not suggesting that we should invoke the law to force Pence to abandon his practice. (Although more information might make that appropriate). I'm criticizing him for making the choice that causes unnecessary harm. The solution isn't hard: don't dine alone with anyone. Or at least with staffers, aides, etc.

[_Jersey Girl]

He has made a personal decision that he doesn't do one on one dinners with member of the opposite sex.

Why do you think that it was a private decision? How do you tell whether a decision is private or not private? And what do you think the consequences of a decision being "private" are as opposed to "not private?"

He said personal. Not private.

[_Res Ipsa]

Jersey Girl, what I saw in your response was lots of stuff about what women should do and nothing about the responsibilities of the men. I saw them demeaned by characterizing them as "crying" and doing nothing else. That's what gave me the impression. Saying that women need to change the entire way business is done in Washington rather than simply ask for equal treatment and not be sexually harassed seems to me to put the lion's share of the burden (maybe the entire burden) on the women.

[_Res Ipsa]

He said personal. Not private.

Good catch. I'll edit the original.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl, what I saw in your response was lots of stuff about what women should do and nothing about the responsibilities of the men. I saw them demeaned by characterizing them as "crying" and doing nothing else. That's what gave me the impression. Saying that women need to change the entire way business is done in Washington rather than simply ask for equal treatment and not be sexually harassed seems to me to put the lion's share of the burden (maybe the entire burden) on the women.

I didn't say that women need to change the entire way that business is done in Washington.

When I use the words/phrases "contribute to" or "co-constructors" those comments include both men and women in the collaborative process.

And what might your objection be to that?

[_Res Ipsa]

Jersey Girl, what I saw in your response was lots of stuff about what women should do and nothing about the responsibilities of the men. I saw them demeaned by characterizing them as "crying" and doing nothing else. That's what gave me the impression. Saying that women need to change the entire way business is done in Washington rather than simply ask for equal treatment and not be sexually harassed seems to me to put the lion's share of the burden (maybe the entire burden) on the women.

I didn't say that women need to change the entire way that business is done in Washington.

When I use the words/phrases "contribute to" or "co-constructors" those comments include both men and women in the collaborative process.

And what might your objection be to that?

Objection? None. I explained how I got the impression I did. You corrected my impression. Done deal.

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Ceeboo,

Just wanted to throw a couple of thoughts into the mix.

Hey RI,

Thanks for the adding your below additional thoughts.

I may have stated that poorly. It might be clearer to say that he excludes them from the opportunity to dine alone with him

I agree with this - He has made a decision (for potentially various personal reasons) that he does not dine alone with any member of the opposite sex.

or excluded from the list of people he would be willing dine alone with.

"The list of people?" Like Mary, Barbara, Susan and Gertrude?

But it's hard for me to understand how he isn't excluding women.

He is excluding women has made a personal choice, that he need not explain in my view, that he does not dine alone with any female other than his wife.

For example, if I owned a restaurant and decided not to serve Christians, I think it would be fair to say that I'm excluding Christians from eating at my restaurant. Would you agree?

I would agree but I would also say that your example is a really ridiculous comparison.

If not, why not? If so, how do you think the restaurant example materially varies from the dining alone example?

See above.

Why do you think that it was a private decision?

I don't simply "think" it's a private decision. It is obviously a private one. Do you think that this personal decision was made by his dentist, his mailman and his barber?

How do you tell whether a decision is private or not private? And what do you think the consequences of a decision being "private" are as opposed to "not private?"

Huh?

I'm not sure what you mean. I would say the practice of categorically excluding women from dining with them is a discriminatory practice.

Fair enough. I don't agree.

It treats people differently based on their sex.

Nonsense! He doesn't "treat people differently based on their sex" - He just doesn't do one on one 's with females other than his wife.

When he engages in it, I think it's correct to say that he is discriminating against women.

Well, as this thread will clearly show, you're not alone in this regard.

I think the more general question is: does it harm the individuals in the category being discriminated against?

Again, I don't see discrimination here and in my opinion, to call it discrimination dilutes, cheapens and detracts from actual discrimination as well as the actual victims of discrimination.

I think there's a very good argument that the simple fact of being discriminated against is harmful.

I know you do. You have made your position very clear (I thank you for that). I take a different position on the matter. We need not agree - Perhaps clarity of our positions, which I think we have achieved, is what is most important.

Thanks for engaging.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sorry about substituting "private" for "personal." Brain fart. Thanks for your responses. By personal, do you just mean "made by a person?" or is there more to it?

ETA: Would you mind explaining why you think my restaurant/dine alone comparison is "ridiculous." I don't understand, and it would help me to know how you reached that conclusion.

[_Ceeboo]

Sorry about substituting "private" for "personal." Brain fart.

No biggie.

Thanks for your responses.

You're welcome and thanks for all of yours.

By personal, do you just mean "made by a person?" or is there more to it?

Yes, I mean made by a person (a.k.a. Pence)