His administrative assistants have always been men, or he's never been in his office with her? That is almost inconceivable, really. 

 

I have no issue with this, other than it's kind of sad that he (or an entire group of religious, apparently) think this needs to be their rule.

 

My wife owns a small, 1 person, business. If she could never meet with a potential male client 1:1, we'd be broke.

 

I think that's a poor generalization of what his value system is. We talk to athletes all the time about not putting themselves in bad situations. Pence takes that to an extreme, I agree, but with all the crap that happens in those types of situations, it's hardly unreasonable to take precautions.  Just look at Bill Clinton. That's the other extreme.

 

Oh, and it has nothing at all to do with the idea that women aren't people.  Talk about a mis-characterization.

 

Pence is hardly an angel, but seriously, this is not his problem.  Not even close.

 

I think few of us, or at least me, would have a problem if this was his own personal philosophy. And I might agree with you that it is probably a good one simply to protect yourself as a celebrity since it's easy to see the media snapping up some pics innocent or not and at minimum forcing you to explain yourself.

 

However I do have a problem with the fact that pretty much every conservative site that defended him didn't do so based on the idea that he was protecting his image from unscrupulous media members but instead defended him by saying that he was right to avoid women because it's somehow immoral. Those judgmental scumbags can mind their own GD business.

 

And I do disagree with Pence's tactic because while it protects him, it puts his female subordinates and compatriots at a considerable disadvantage to his male subordinates and compatriots when it comes to furthering their own personal goals.

Keeping women out of the room to honor one's wife is akin to asking women to keep covered up or else they're asking for it.   

Nunes steps down from Russia probe.   GOP goes nuclear over Gorsuch nomination.

No big shock -- but McConnell is such a hyprocite talking about obstructing the judicial process.  I still am not sure how he does not just burst into flames.

 

I have heard the Nunes replacement is just as disinterested investigating Russia as he was.

 

No big shock -- but McConnell is such a hyprocite talking about obstructing the judicial process.  I still am not sure how he does not just burst into flames.

It's maddening the extent that the GOP, esp. its leaders, are willing to sacrifice legislative rules and precedence to gain political victory, and yet cry foul when the Democrats won't let them have their victory within the rules.  

I think its this supreme court pick that will be the only enduring legacy of the Trump's election.  A stolen court seat, and perhaps a stolen election.  What true American Patriots. 

 

It's maddening the extent that the GOP, esp. its leaders, are willing to sacrifice legislative rules and precedence to gain political victory, and yet cry foul when the Democrats won't let them have their victory within the rules.  

I think its this supreme court pick that will be the only enduring legacy of the Trump's election.  A stolen court seat, and perhaps a stolen election.  What true American Patriots. 

 

War in the middle east and Korea will be his legacy. 

 

It's maddening the extent that the GOP, esp. its leaders, are willing to sacrifice legislative rules and precedence to gain political victory, and yet cry foul when the Democrats won't let them have their victory within the rules.  

I think its this supreme court pick that will be the only enduring legacy of the Trump's election.  A stolen court seat, and perhaps a stolen election.  What true American Patriots. 

 

Meh. I save my outrage for the things that Democrats wouldn't do if the roles were reversed.

 

Keeping women out of the room to honor one's wife is akin to asking women to keep covered up or else they're asking for it.   

 

I don't think this is a fair analogy at all.

 

I think it goes way too far/is too restrictive, and is very unfair to professional women, but it does come from a place of honoring a marriage, acknowledging one's own weakness, and protecting a public position.

 

Meh. I save my outrage for the things that Democrats wouldn't do if the roles were reversed.

 

Yeah, both sides play dirty on this stuff.  And they're both loud hypocrites when the other side does it.

 

Yeah, both sides play dirty on this stuff.  And they're both loud hypocrites when the other side does it.

Oh okay.  I hate this false equivalency.  The Republicans have been far, far more obstructionist than the Dems.  And to be fair, I'm glad the DNC and Hillary were dealt a loss in spite of their stacking the deck.  But as a matter of course, while there is dirty play on both sides, in both type and degree the GOP overwhelmingly wins the day.  (But her emails!)

 

it does come from a place of honoring a marriage, acknowledging one's own weakness, and protecting a public position.

I'm sure Muslims frame the origin and necessity of the burka with similarly honorable intentions.  

 

If the way one acknowledges one's weakness and honors their marriage is by treating an entire gender as sin-magnets, those intentions are not just misplaced but perpetuate many of the harmful conservative narratives about women.

 

I mean, I'd get if Pence wouldn't go to the strip club or the GOP dance party, but the-keep-the-woman-out-of-the-room is unjustifiable nonsense that's rooted in sexism.

I'm sure Muslims frame the origin and necessity of the burka with similarly honorable intentions.

 

If the way one acknowledges one's weakness and honors their marriage is by treating an entire gender as sin-magnets, those intentions are not just misplaced but perpetuate many of the harmful conservative narratives about women.

 

I mean, I'd get if Pence wouldn't go to the strip club or the GOP dance party, but the-keep-the-woman-out-of-the-room is unjustifiable nonsense that's rooted in sexism.

You don't see a difference between an individuals actions and behaviors imposed on others?

Oh okay. I hate this false equivalency. The Republicans have been far, far more obstructionist than the Dems. And to be fair, I'm glad the DNC and Hillary were dealt a loss in spite of their stacking the deck. But as a matter of course, while there is dirty play on both sides, in both type and degree the GOP overwhelmingly wins the day. (But her emails!)

Seems obstructionism is the trend, and Republicans were last in a position to obstruct. If the tables were turned it would be the opposite.

 

You don't see a difference between an individuals actions and behaviors imposed on others?

 

Not allowing your female employees to be in the room with you, like your male employees, is not one person's action with no impact on others.

 

Not allowing your female employees to have a drink or dinner with you, like your male employees, is not one person's action with no impact on others.

 

the list goes on and on. This impedes a woman's ability to be as successful as a man's. Without question. Pence cannot, apparently, have a 1:1 meeting with a female employee. You don't see possible issues there?

 

Oh okay.  I hate this false equivalency.  The Republicans have been far, far more obstructionist than the Dems.  And to be fair, I'm glad the DNC and Hillary were dealt a loss in spite of their stacking the deck.  But as a matter of course, while there is dirty play on both sides, in both type and degree the GOP overwhelmingly wins the day.  (But her emails!)

 

I wouldn't say this sort of thing is just about obstructionism.  Or, as it seems you are using the example (maybe I'm wrong), trumped up smear campaigns.

 

This is more about leveraging control in government to circumvent the normal processes in order to gain a political advantage.  At least that's what is more concerning to me.

Edited April 6, 20179 yr by TheLeviathan

 

Not allowing your female employees to be in the room with you, like your male employees, is not one person's action with no impact on others.

 

Not allowing your female employees to have a drink or dinner with you, like your male employees, is not one person's action with no impact on others.

 

the list goes on and on. This impedes a woman's ability to be as successful as a man's. Without question. Pence cannot, apparently, have a 1:1 meeting with a female employee. You don't see possible issues there?

 

Out of curiosity, what version or quote or whatever of what Mike Pence said are you using here?  I've looked in a few places and some of this seems to reach farther than what his remarks seem to be saying to me.

Not allowing your female employees to be in the room with you, like your male employees, is not one person's action with no impact on others.

 

Not allowing your female employees to have a drink or dinner with you, like your male employees, is not one person's action with no impact on others.

 

the list goes on and on. This impedes a woman's ability to be as successful as a man's. Without question. Pence cannot, apparently, have a 1:1 meeting with a female employee. You don't see possible issues there?

Absolutely an issue, very unfair to women, as I explicitly said.

 

But I'm not going to agree that's on the same level as "she's asking for it" or the burka.

 

Out of curiosity, what version or quote or whatever of what Mike Pence said are you using here?  I've looked in a few places and some of this seems to reach farther than what his remarks seem to be saying to me.

 

I could have sworn he said he can't be in a room with another woman, and no one else in the room....did he not? Maybe this was implied, and not said?

 

did he not say he couldn't go to dinner with just one woman (I assume he can with men)?

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/pences-gender-segregated-dinners/521286/

 

this article barely scratches the surface of the issues this creates...

 

 

Edited April 6, 20179 yr by Mike Sixel

His rules also include:

 

The Pence .......also “included requiring that any aide who had to work late to assist him be male."

My understanding was he only refused 1:1 dinners. Still astoundingly stupid, but not to the degree of some of your examples IMO.

But you are correct, i can't find a rule that he can't be 1:1, that must have been something I read on FB or something....

 

so, no dinners with a woman (but a man is cool)

no late night support from women

 

Kind of would make it hard for a woman to have real power compared to men, I'd guess. But maybe Pence just doesn't work late on important things?

Out of curiosity, what version or quote or whatever of what Mike Pence said are you using here? I've looked in a few places and some of this seems to reach farther than what his remarks seem to be saying to me.

When I looked earlier I only found the one quote and it was from 2012.

 

But this is really all a matter of what lens is being used. Is this about morality (infidelity) or equality (mysogeny). Because if Pence said he didn't find it acceptable to be alone with his black coworkers, even the conservative publications would back away from him. Well not Brietbart, but at least most of them.

BTW, he's not unique on the late night thing, and there are others (on the Hill) that won't be in a room 1:1 with a woman staffer.

 

It's kind of sad, really, that:

 

a: the media / others would start bad rumors if we all worked freely with each other (and, certainly rumors and PR are part of this, the internet/news/tabloids are a sad place)

b: some people think that women are temptresses (that's talked about in some of the "pro" Pence rule articles) that men need protecting from

Edited April 6, 20179 yr by Mike Sixel

Usual iteration of "Billy Graham Rule" is never alone with one woman in a closed office, dinner, with alcohol present, in a car, while traveling. Pence may have added more.

BTW, he's not unique on the late night thing, and there are others (on the Hill) that won't be in a room 1:1 with a woman staffer.

 

It's kind of sad, really, that:

 

a: the media / others would start bad rumors if we all worked freely with each other (and, certainly rumors and PR are part of this, the internet/news/tabloids are a sad place)

b: some people think that women are temptresses (that's talked about in some of the "pro" Pence rule articles) that men need protecting from

Part A is big. Media (and society) loves a sex scandal, especially with politicians and religious leaders.

 

Leads to extreme responses that harm everyone. This hurts women, but hurts Pence too, and by extension everyone he represents.

 

You don't see a difference between an individuals actions and behaviors imposed on others?

Arranging one's activities so that you are never alone in a room with a woman, certainly seems like an imposition on women, generally.  It's not as if Pence jumps out a window, should a woman enter a room he is; almost certainly his staff manages that aspect for him.  

 

Even if we concede that Pence's behavior is somehow an island onto itself, there's nothing noble about that behavior.  The whole premise--removing temptation (a person) because of lack of self-restraint--is problematic.  It would only be weakness if that temptation were chocolate, but when that temptation is gendered person--well when treat a gendered-person as an object, we call that sexism.  

 

(It's okay to admit that some parts of Christian marital traditions may indeed be rooted in sexism and not nobility).  

Edited April 7, 20179 yr by PseudoSABR

 

I wouldn't say this sort of thing is just about obstructionism.  Or, as it seems you are using the example (maybe I'm wrong), trumped up smear campaigns.

 

This is more about leveraging control in government to circumvent the normal processes in order to gain a political advantage.  At least that's what is more concerning to me.

I tried to grant a broad definition of dirty tricks; but I agree using procedure or rule making powers to gum up the process or to get your way in spite of the process it the problem.   And I think the GOP opened up the floodgates for this kind of politics under Obama, and the Democrats would be fools to not utilize the same means from hear on out. 

There's so much out there to bag on these guys, but this?

 

I do believe this is called self-restraint, or better yet, not putting yourself in a situation that could potentially go bad. Nothing wrong with some one recognizing their weaknesses and putting appropriate boundaries in place or simply putting controls in place so as to never be in a "he said/she said" situation.

 

For all the politicians being caught in bed with someone other than their spouse or accused of harassment, I think it's somewhat refreshing that Pence will do this. If anything, it's one less possible distraction.

In all due respect, give me a break. The 1950's called, they want their take back.

 

Seems obstructionism is the trend, and Republicans were last in a position to obstruct. If the tables were turned it would be the opposite.

It matters to me who started and perpetuated the trend.  Like I said above, the Democrats would be fools not to obstruct at this point, but its the GOP's actions that created obstructionist politics.  To suggest that Democrats would have done the same is just guess work and isn't borne out in fact.  It wasn't as if there was something in the water in 2008 that suddenly made all politicians seize upon obstructionism as their favorite tool, it coincides directly with tea-party, anti-gov't rhetoric that has blossomed under the GOP.   The GOP lurched the right and adapted new tactics that wasn't design to simply oppose an ideology but to shut down the government all together.