Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:"Hi, @SenKamalaHarris: I’m a female Senior Advisor to Mike Pence & am wondering why you are repeating this false claim?" tweeted his press secretary, Alyssa Farah. "He’s elevated women to positions of leadership throughout his career & relies on their advice & counsel. Get your facts straight."
- Doc
I missed where Farah reveals that she has participated in a one-on-one dinner with Pence.
Why would she require a one-on-one dinner with him? She seems to be doing quite well for herself. This thread is straight up bizarre.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
ceeboo wrote:...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.
And that's your experience coming into play, and I appreciate it. Dinner alone is not one of the ways I have chosen to honor my marriage commitment. One way I do that is through not having sex with anyone other than my wife. It's something reserved only for her. But I don't limit that to other women. I don't have sex with other men, either. So I'm naturally curious. Have you had dinner/drinks alone with other men over those 25 years? If so, if you reserve dinner alone with a woman to your wife to honor and protect her, why don't you do the same with men? Why do you see the two situations as different in terms of honoring and protecting your wife?
You made an extremely strong point here, res Ipsa, very well put.
Carrying your argument over into the public sphere, it highlights very clearly that the underlying rationale for the decision carries some gender-based assumptions that are not acceptable in the workplace.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Why would she require a one-on-one dinner with him? She seems to be doing quite well for herself. This thread is straight up bizarre.
- Doc
I don’t know if such a meeting would be required. I only mention that she’s not admitting one ever occurred.
Interesting, though, that as his spokesperson, there very well may be plenty of occasions in which she’s traveling with Pence when his wife is not accompanying them, but where it may be advantageous to meet over dinner to discuss their mutual business.
Makes me wonder - is a one-on-one lunch or breakfast also off the table?
Thanks, Lemmie. I think there’s a tangled up mess of assumptions there. When I thought of the comparison, my first reaction was, stealing from Ceebs, “that’s ridiculous.” Following my own rules, I asked myself why. And I didn’t have a good answer. Been thinking about since I posted. Still don’t.
It’s funny what one can find when turning over one’s own rocks.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.
Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.
'Come on, girl,' said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. 'We monks don't go near females.' He told Tanzan, 'especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?'
'I left the girl there,' said Tanzan. 'Are you still carrying her?'
Contrasted with -
'Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
'But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
'And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
'And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.'
…
'Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
'Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
'And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.'
In a sense, both sources are saying similar things but coming at them in such different ways one ends up in very different places when reflected on and extrapolated into individual behavior. Pence's background is certainly most aligned with the later source. Perhaps EA is right in thinking whether or not Pence actually doesn't meet with women in professional settings one-on-one, it works to his advantage to be seen as doing that precisely because it's right out of the New Testament. Arguing that it may or may not affect other people in some way that is damaging has no ability to sway someone whose views are based on the latter source because at its core it is not the purpose of Christian moral thinking.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:'I left the girl there,' said Tanzan. 'Are you still carrying her?'
Contrasted with -
''And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.'
Eastern wisdom generally views the problem as attachment, western religion as sin. Attachment is something you yourself generate, sin is the result of temptation, something you avoid. Failure to let go of attachment leads to the continuation of your own suffering, continuing to sin means eternity in hell. Depending who you ask, you are saved by the Grace of God and not your good works. Eastern disciplines tend to see your suffering as a direct result of your own attachment.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
People have affairs because they develop too close relationships with other people at work. People sometimes develop these romantic entanglements while intending not to, but they always make deliberate decisions to foster their adulterous relationship. Some people are more prone to this than others. That's just human nature. If you are a person who is at risk for infidelity during meals alone with someone else, then maybe you shouldn't meat with others during meals alone. But in order to not discriminate against an entire gender, you need to carry that policy over with everyone. And if you have the type of job where it is not feasible to avoid business over one on one dinners, then it sounds like you need to get a different job.
EAllusion wrote:If you are a person who is at risk for infidelity during meals alone with someone else, then maybe you shouldn't meat with others during meals alone.
EAllusion wrote:If you are a person who is at risk for infidelity during meals alone with someone else, then maybe you shouldn't meat with others during meals alone.
