Mike Pence Rule

Kimsang

Pence Rule: "Men should[sic] avoid spending time alone with women to whom they are not married"

Many countries seem happy to be adopting the 'Mike Pence(Billy Graham) Rule', at least culturally, while at the same time making the practice illegal while in business.
How exactly will this work?

This article from Forbes makes the case that the Pence rule is indeed sexist, but we could be moving from Pence rule to 'Biden Effect'

Research shows that persuasive messages are more effective when accompanied by a meal. Other studies described in that article found that negotiation outcomes were improved by socializing. Denying one group the opportunity for one-on-one socializing outside the office could clearly disadvantage the affected group.

what I call "The Biden Effect." Recently, former Vice President Joe Biden was accused of making some women uncomfortable by unexpectedly getting too close to them and touching them...His behavior, which included shoulder touching and hugging, was seen by most as an indication of Biden's warm personality and an innocent way to connect with people.

After being called out for this behavior, Biden promised to be more respectful of people's personal space.

If the business world adopts (or mandates) the same approach as Biden seems likely to pursue, not all consequences will be positive.

It clearly is as a sexist practice in business and I can understand making this illegal in business.
But at the same time we are allowing this to become a cultural norm. How can we equate these two things?

Silentcorner

What is a man to do...a guy got fired from a €150,000 a year job in Galway for using the phrase "I won't be gettting into a d##k measuring contest with (name of other manager)" whilst talking to a female subordinate over skype.

Metoo has created a monster and government has no business interfering in private enterprise, when it does...things can go very wrong!

listermint

Silentcorner wrote: »

What is a man to do...a guy got fired from a €150,000 a year job in Galway for using the phrase "I won't be gettting into a d##k measuring contest with (name of other manager)" whilst talking to a female subordinate over skype.

Metoo has created a monster and government has no business interfering in private enterprise, when it does...things can go very wrong!

I don't think that happened.

Do you have any inside details of that incident or any proceeding incidents or are you just taking the internet at fact value


A typical with example of this would be the indos headline yesterday about a government contract away at an outrageous value but turns out it's over 4 years.

The facts usually are key in anything.

5uspect

Pence is a Christofacist who wants to be president of Gilead.

Silentcorner

listermint wrote: »

I don't think that happened.

Do you have any inside details of that incident or any proceeding incidents or are you just taking the internet at fact value


A typical with example of this would be the indos headline yesterday about a government contract away at an outrageous value but turns out it's over 4 years.

The facts usually are key in anything.

Sorry I should have left a link...I wouldn't have believed it myself!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-hears-director-at-video-game-giant-ea-was-fired-following-dick-remark-890363.html

Kimsang

I was shocked to learn how often "Pence Rule" has been uttered on South Korean television.
South Korea has a strange relationship with gender equality since;

"When Park Geun-Hye became South Korea's first female president in 2012, many viewed her election as a victory for gender equality in South Korea. Four years later, her scandal and impeachment nullified any progress made by her election and left many convinced that women are not fit to lead their country"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality_in_South_Korea

I wonder will Canada experience a similar backlash, when Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin scandal concludes.

iptba

It seems to me yet again there is more interest in protecting women than protecting men e.g. we need to protect women from inappropriate touching, remarks, etc.; we need to protect women from being disadvantaged; with less concern about letting men try to protect themselves.

kneemos

Pence calls his wife mother. An even bigger whack job than his boss.

Reviews and Books Galore

iptba wrote: »

It seems to me yet again there is more interest in protecting women than protecting men e.g. we need to protect women from inappropriate touching, remarks, etc.; we need to protect women from being disadvantaged; with less concern about letting men try to protect themselves.

And protectionism often goes hand in hand with infantalism. Sure look at doctors, teachers, prison gaurds, midwives, and other people inna protectionism role. They have a habit of disregarding their charges wants and feelings :P

Kimsang

kneemos wrote: »

Pence calls his wife mother. An even bigger whack job than his boss.

He's never been falsely accused of impropriety though. Seems to me this is exactly the kind of man that feminists want.

HalloweenJack

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48954303

This rule is actually quite insulting to both sexes.

It suggests that women are uncontrollable and unscrupulous beings who will seduce married men the second they get they get the chance and that married men, when their wife isn't looking, will happily go along with it.

silverharp

HalloweenJack wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48954303

This rule is actually quite insulting to both sexes.

It suggests that women are uncontrollable and unscrupulous beings who will seduce married men the second they get they get the chance and that married men, when their wife isn't looking, will happily go along with it.

its not really , it means you might come across a situation once in your working life that could cause disproportionate effect so why not have a strategy that is no skin off your own nose.

ELM327

HalloweenJack wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48954303

This rule is actually quite insulting to both sexes.

It suggests that women are uncontrollable and unscrupulous beings who will seduce married men the second they get they get the chance and that married men, when their wife isn't looking, will happily go along with it.

Both of those statements can be true as well as false.

HalloweenJack

silverharp wrote: »

its not really , it means you might come across a situation once in your working life that could cause disproportionate effect so why not have a strategy that is no skin off your own nose.

Wouldn't CCTV do the same job?

Silentcorner

Is there really anyone surprised there is an hysterical reaction to what was an hysterical movement...what started out as something that could well be described as legitimate quickly descended into farce...I left one example in an earlier post.

That being said, spending 15 hours with one journalist is a fate worse than death...I'd have been coming up with all manner of excuses myself!!!

silverharp

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Wouldn't CCTV do the same job?

HalloweenJack

silverharp wrote: »

Why does there need to be someone else in the room? If the reason is so that accusations about improper behaviour be made, surely a CCTV recording of the encounter would dispel all doubts?

Kimsang

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Why does there need to be someone else in the room? If the reason is so that accusations about improper behaviour be made, surely a CCTV recording of the encounter would dispel all doubts?

La Manada case in Spain was quite controversial despite having video footage. I'm sure there have been others.

...Ghost...

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Why does there need to be someone else in the room? If the reason is so that accusations about improper behaviour be made, surely a CCTV recording of the encounter would dispel all doubts?

The woman could make the accusation long after the cctv footage was erased. Grudges can last a long time. I would prefer having someone present.

HalloweenJack

...Ghost... wrote: »

The woman could make the accusation long after the cctv footage was erased. Grudges can last a long time. I would prefer having someone present.

Take your own video camera with you and record your interactions. Fwiw, I imagine video footage is more reliable than testimony from people who may have be influenced in what they say.

As for someone linking La Manada, I don't see what that has to do with the rule here. Evidence that didn't convict? Because their conviction has just been updated to rape.

Kimsang

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Take your own video camera with you and record your interactions. Fwiw, I imagine video footage is more reliable than testimony from people who may have be influenced in what they say.

As for someone linking La Manada, I don't see what that has to do with the rule here. Evidence that didn't convict? Because their conviction has just been updated to rape.

I mean to say even with video evidence, things aren't always clearly black and white.

Also, apparently in Canada the use of video evidence to prove consent is banned from court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Clyd70qkuU

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-51/third-reading

HalloweenJack

Kimsang wrote: »

I mean to say even with video evidence, things aren't always clearly black and white.

Also, apparently in Canada the use of video evidence to prove consent is banned from court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Clyd70qkuU

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-51/third-reading

That's assumiv there is some sexual contact in one form or another.

If you have it recorded and nothing happens then its not being used as proof of consent, its being used as proof that nothing happened.