Kamala blasts Pence for refusing to meet women alone

[_Ceeboo]

Sorry RI, I didn't see your ETA until now.

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.

Seriously?

If you really don't understand why I think it's a ridiculous comparison, I don't think any explanation I attempt will be helpful. Sometimes, like now, trying to add things to crystal clear water only muddies the water.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sorry RI, I didn't see your ETA until now.

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.

Seriously?

If you really don't understand why I think it's a ridiculous comparison, I don't think any explanation I attempt will be helpful. Sometimes, like now, trying to add things to crystal clear water only muddies the water.

Yes, seriously.

Here’s my experience, based on lots of years of crafting arguments. When I catch myself describing an argument, or in this case an analogy, as ridiculous or some similar term, it’s a huge red flag that I need to stop and check myself. And the way I check myself is to force myself to explain why. If I can’t, it means I need to back up and seriously consider the fact that it’s me who is wrong. When I see an opposing lawyer describe an argument of mine as ridiculous without further explaation, I just smile because I know he’s using that kind of emotive language because he’s got no counter argument.

I can explain exactly why I think the analogy is not ridiculous. I used it to argue that the dinner alone rule excluded women. And I constructed it to account for some of your earlier arguments. In both cases, the man made a personal decision, i.e., a decision made by a person. In both cases, the women were treated differently than the men purely on the basis of sex. In both cases, the men were able to participate in something that the women were prohibited from participating in. In both cases, I didn’t identify any specific women. Yet, despite all of these clear similarities, you assert that the women are excluded in one case but not the other.

And I am genuinely puzzled as to how that analogy rises to the level of bad, let alone “ridiculous.” I sincerely do not know what I’m missing. So I’m going to ask that you ponderize a little on the question: Why does Ceeboo think that the restaurant example is an example of exclusion but the dine alone example is not? Can you explain it to yourself in a way that makes sense? And if you can, would you be willing to share? And if you can’t, would you be willing to rethink your position on the exclusion issue?

[Guest]

I gave you the legal definition of harassment. I am telling you, flat out, that asking a person out for a drink, in of itself, is not something that ordinarily is considered sexual harassment in the workplace.

There is no legal definition, it all depends on the company. Some companies do not allow workers to have romantic relationships.

If you don't do this in a gender neutral manner, you are creating an unequal advantage for men, which is a clear reason why you don't want to have such a policy. It's discriminatory and impractical.

For ordinary people it really doesn't matter. In 2017 women held 51.6% of all management, professional, and related occupations. So if anything such a policy would mostly hurt young men. In the US young women are making more than young men. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

This is the very first paper you'll get a hit on if you search for research on false sexual assault allegation statistics in Google Scholar:

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage? ... &id=&page=

But don't you think the opposite also happens? As you said, "allegations of intimate violence are extremely difficult to verify or disprove".

[_MeDotOrg]

Pence reminds me of Ulysses, who had his crew tie him to the mast to resist the song of the sirens. Maybe that guy who does those political paintings of Trump could do one depicting the Democratic women of the House and Senate as the Sirens.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Pence reminds me of Ulysses, who had his crew tie him to the mast to resist the song of the sirens. Maybe that guy who does those political paintings of Trump could do one depicting the Democratic women of the House and Senate as the Sirens.

That's kind of prescient, actually. The dead men next to the sirens could be the men they used, sexually, to advance their careers. Like. You know. What Kamala Harris did to Willie Brown.

- Doc

[_Ceeboo]

Yes, seriously.

Here’s my experience, based on lots of years of crafting arguments. When I catch myself describing an argument, or in this case an analogy, as ridiculous or some similar term, it’s a huge red flag that I need to stop and check myself. And the way I check myself is to force myself to explain why. If I can’t, it means I need to back up and seriously consider the fact that it’s me who is wrong. When I see an opposing lawyer describe an argument of mine as ridiculous without further explaation, I just smile because I know he’s using that kind of emotive language because he’s got no counter argument.

I can explain exactly why I think the analogy is not ridiculous. I used it to argue that the dinner alone rule excluded women. And I constructed it to account for some of your earlier arguments. In both cases, the man made a personal decision, i.e., a decision made by a person. In both cases, the women were treated differently than the men purely on the basis of sex. In both cases, the men were able to participate in something that the women were prohibited from participating in. In both cases, I didn’t identify any specific women. Yet, despite all of these clear similarities, you assert that the women are excluded in one case but not the other.

And I am genuinely puzzled as to how that analogy rises to the level of bad, let alone “ridiculous.” I sincerely do not know what I’m missing. So I’m going to ask that you ponderize a little on the question: Why does Ceeboo think that the restaurant example is an example of exclusion but the dine alone example is not? Can you explain it to yourself in a way that makes sense? And if you can, would you be willing to share? And if you can’t, would you be willing to rethink your position on the exclusion issue?

First, for clarity, a little table setting:
I am not an opposing lawyer
My posts are not intended to win a case for a client.
My posts are neither arguments or crafted with 30 years of experience.

In my mind , your comparison is ridiculous. Like comparing the 911 terror attacks with a second grader who threw a piece of his gum at a parked car (gradation and perspective is very valuable in all things.) One of these caused great harm and actual victims the other causes no harm with no real victims from my view.

Now, a better comparison would have been if you would have said that the owner of a restaurant refuses to allow any Christians to sit in his car at the drive in movies. You see, it's really not about the "Christians" it's about the space that he has reserved for a select few (and he, like you and I, have the right to make such personal decisions and we need not offer an explanation and/or reason to the rest of the world for making them)

We all get to decide our own boundaries, spaces and personal policies. In this particular case, Pence has made a personal decision about a particular boundary that he has set. While there may be countless reasons for him creating such a space in this regard (or creating a boundary if you like) he ought not be forced to change it or justify it to anyone.

for what it's worth - As I have mentioned upthread - Over the last 25+ years, I have never had a one on one dinner/drinks with a member of the opposite sex. I made this decision long ago - for many personal reasons - a mere one of them is how I personally view my commitment to my marriage and how I want to protect and honor my wife. You see, in my book, one on one dinner/drinks with a female belong strictly to my wife and only my wife. It's the space I have created for us. You need not agree with my personal choice (or Pence's) but the freedom for each of us to make these kinds of personal choices are critically important in my opinion.

by the way, I should add this as well. My personal decision (I surely won't speak for Pence) has absolutely nothing to do with a concern that I wouldn't be able to control myself during a one on one dinner with a female other than my wife (That's also a ridiculous suggestion. To be clear, I'm not saying you made that suggestion) - Rather, It has everything to do with MY marriage - MY wife - and the boundaries/space that I have set for us in our marriage.

Have I discriminated against women? While I don't think so, this thread clearly shows that many believe I have/do indeed discriminated against women. That's okay by me though, sometimes people find other things much much more important than being labeled as a women discriminator. I can live with that.

Lastly, It is also my opinion that when we start screaming discrimination in cases like this, we are really raveling a very dangerous road that impacts, cheapens and distracts from the countless cases or actual discrimination - as well as the countless actual victims of discrimination.

(Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are now excused, please make your way to the jury room in an attempt to arrive at a verdict. Once you have reached a verdict, please return and post your decision)

[Guest]

Now, a better comparison would have been if you would have said that the owner of a restaurant refuses to allow any Christians to sit in his car at the drive in movies. You see, it's really not about the "Christians" it's about the space that he has reserved for a select few (and he, like you and I, have the right to make such personal decisions and we need not offer an explanation and/or reason to the rest of the world for making them)

I would agree that it does not hurt a Christian to not be able to sit in his car, but this is not a good comparison to what is being discussed, which is someone like Pence being in a position to advance people's professional career. If he will sit down one on one with men and not women for any activities that can affect who gets advanced professionally, then it is a clear, and unfair, advantage to men. Do you not see this?

Have I discriminated against women? While I don't think so, this thread clearly shows that many believe I have/do indeed discriminated against women. That's okay by me though, sometimes people find other things much much more important than being labeled as a women discriminator. I can live with that.

Yes you have discriminated against women, but not in a way, that I can see, that would be unfair. This kind of discrimination is not bad. Most people will not go on dates with people of the same gender. Is that discrimination. YES, but perfectly fine discrimination.

[_EAllusion]

Yes you have discriminated against women, but not in a way, that I can see, that would be unfair. This kind of discrimination is not bad. Most people will not go on dates with people of the opposite gender. Is that discrimination. YES, but perfectly fine discrimination.

It really depends on what his job is. Earlier in the thread I tried to point out that if he never finds himself in a situation where there is opportunity to discriminate against women by enforcing his rule of never meeting with them alone, that's great for him, but it does not match what needs to be done in many jobs.

Yesterday, I met with women professionally alone 4 times. If I just started refusing to do that while maintaining my meetings with men, my behavior would be not only be inappropriately discriminatory, it would be illegal. If I went to my manager and said this is my new rule, I'd effectively be turning in my verbal resignation.

[_Themis]

It really depends on what his job is. Earlier in the thread I tried to point out that if he never finds himself in a situation where there is opportunity to discriminate against women by enforcing his rule of never meeting with them alone, that's great for him, but it does not match what needs to be done in many jobs.

Yesterday, I met with women professionally alone 4 times. If I just started refusing to do that while maintaining my meetings with men, my behavior would be not only be inappropriately discriminatory, it would be illegal.

Which I stated in the part of the post you did not quote. That is why in the part you did post I said as far as I could see, meaning I don't know what his job entails.

[_Ceeboo]

Yes you have discriminated against women, but not in a way, that I can see, that would be unfair.

Huh?

Most people will not go on dates with people of the opposite gender.

Unless this is a typo, you really should think about refraining from further posts.