Politics Misogyny or propriety?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Because the me too movement? Doesn't want to be in any position to be accused of anything? Male collegue equals witness? Does he have other staff with them to be witnesses in the case of such accusations? Do reporters generally accompany politicans on campaign trips?

In a highly polarized era of me too, this actually makes sense to me. Men, especially men in positions of power are afraid to be around women. It is easy to say just act respectful. Don't do anything that is untoward. Still, men, especially those in positions of power are deathly afraid now of being falsely accused.

He probably should have just declined and not offered that reasoning. It could come off as misogynist. Maybe he is. Or maybe this proves the point. Were his words taken out of context? Is he now being falsely accused of being inappropriate, the very reason he said no to begin with unless she didn't come alone?
 
Yeah, no. He's a idiot, that's the problem.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Yeah, no. He's a idiot, that's the problem.

barfo
Click to expand...
What's idiotic about what he said? Or is there something else about him that causes you to brand him as such?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
What's idiotic about what he said? Or is there something else about him that causes you to brand him as such?
Click to expand...

Everything about it is idiotic. It's like applying to be a cop but saying you don't want to have any contact with criminals. Also, having the lack of sense to say it out loud, even if that's his position, shows him to be an idiot. Finally, not being able to figure out a solution to the problem on his own (invite someone else along) makes him an idiot.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Everything about it is idiotic. It's like applying to be a cop but saying you don't want to have any contact with criminals. Also, having the lack of sense to say it out loud, even if that's his position, shows him to be an idiot. Finally, not being able to figure out a solution to the problem on his own (invite someone else along) makes him an idiot.

barfo
Click to expand...
He has no problem having contact with reporters; simply doesn't want to be alone with females to whom he's not married. I do the same.
He specified his position quite clearly.
He did figure out a solution; the reporter simply didn't want to acquiesce. He didn't request the ride-along; why should he have to provide the accommodation?

I'm having difficulty seeing congruity between your statements and the words he actually used.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
He has no problem having contact with reporters; simply doesn't want to be alone with females to whom he's not married. I do the same.
He specified his position quite clearly.
He did figure out a solution; the reporter simply didn't want to acquiesce. He didn't request the ride-along; why should he have to provide the accommodation?

I'm having difficulty seeing congruity between your statements and the words he actually used.
Click to expand...

He figured out a solution to HIS problem that involved someone else accommodating HIM.

barfo
 
I don't think he explained himself very well. My truck, my rules probably wasn't a great line to use. I can understand the whole promise I made to my wife deal, but again it didn't come off well. I think if he was going to discuss it on tv, he should have juat came out with it. The me too movement, I don't feel comfortable being alone with a woman with such a small scale staff and alot of time would be alone with her in my truck. Of course it's not the same with a dude. A guy isnt going to accuse me of anything. I get it. I don't agree with how he handled it, but I get it. Maybe he should have provided a third person to be with them. Sounds like he has a grass roots campaign with little money. Maybe he can't afford to have a third person there.

I don't know man. I would just say yeah and not say or doing anything inappropriate. But, his intentions are perhaps already being misconstrued. Again, does it prove his point?
 
barfo said:
Everything about it is idiotic. It's like applying to be a cop but saying you don't want to have any contact with criminals. Also, having the lack of sense to say it out loud, even if that's his position, shows him to be an idiot. Finally, not being able to figure out a solution to the problem on his own (invite someone else along) makes him an idiot.

barfo
Click to expand...

I get what your saying. He came off sounding like an idiot. I don't think he did well voicing his reasons. He should have just came out with it. Been more clear about his uncomfortability in the era of the me too movement. Sounded like he could'nt accomadate her. He is running a small campaign with little money and couldnt afford to pay a person to be with them. Alot of their time would be alone. I see her side. I see his side. It makes sense...you can say just say yeah and act professional and don't do anything inappropriate. She is a professional reporter. She won't accuse him of anything. But, she didn't go on the trip and there are already accusations that he is a misogynist and he is inappropriate in his actions even if that wasn't his intention. The very thing ge was afraid of. Kind of proves his point.
 
Chris Craig said:
I don't think he explained himself very well. My truck, my rules probably wasn't a great line to use. I can understand the whole promise I made to my wife deal, but again it didn't come off well. I think if he was going to discuss it on tv, he should have juat came out with it. The me too movement, I don't feel comfortable being alone with a woman with such a small scale staff and alot of time would be alone with her in my truck. Of course it's not the same with a dude. A guy isnt going to accuse me of anything. I get it. I don't agree with how he handled it, but I get it. Maybe he should have provided a third person to be with them. Sounds like he has a grass roots campaign with little money. Maybe he can't afford to have a third person there.

I don't know man. I would just say yeah and not say or doing anything inappropriate. But, his intentions are perhaps already being misconstrued. Again, does it prove his point?
Click to expand...

I agree, Chris. The guy may or may not be an "idiot" and he's certainly going to have to polish his debate and presentation skills if he wants a successful political career. That said, in an era when claims of inappropriate conduct from decades in the past can derail a public service career, refusing to put yourself in a position where that could happen is pretty darned smart in my book.
 
barfo said:
He figured out a solution to HIS problem that involved someone else accommodating HIM.

barfo
Click to expand...
The thing is, he doesn't actually have a problem at all. There is no detriment to him for her not to accompany him. SHE is the only one who has a problem, and SHE is unwilling to accept the solution.
 
Chris Craig said:
I don't think he explained himself very well. My truck, my rules probably wasn't a great line to use. I can understand the whole promise I made to my wife deal, but again it didn't come off well. I think if he was going to discuss it on tv, he should have juat came out with it. The me too movement,
Click to expand...
My wife and I have the same rule, and it existed long before #MeToo. To equate one with the other is a logical fallacy.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
My wife and I have the same rule, and it existed long before #MeToo. To equate one with the other is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

I agree with this too. The guy has an absolute right to live by his promise to his wife. Much of the world may view it as hopelessly out of date, but it's something that I hold myself to as well. Seems like the obvious solution would have been for him to simply state this to the reporter and tell her that she's welcome to follow him along in her own vehicle.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
My wife and I have the same rule, and it existed long before #MeToo. To equate one with the other is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

I wasn't equating them. His/their rule is understandable, and it should be enough, but listening to him I could tell the me too movement was also a factor in his reasoning, but he seemed unwilling to be clear there. Maybe he was afraid of further criticism. Both his rule and me too were part of his reasoning, not that they are inclusive of each other.
 
Maybe 'idiot' was too harsh. I should have just said that this episode demonstrates he's quite bad at politics.

barfo
 
PtldPlatypus said:
The thing is, he doesn't actually have a problem at all. There is no detriment to him for her not to accompany him.
Click to expand...

I guess if this is the sort of publicity he wanted, then there's no detriment.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I guess if this is the sort of publicity he wanted, then there's no detriment.

barfo
Click to expand...
True--there's always the risk of bad press in not giving a reporter exactly what they want. It's unfortunate that he's not skilled enough in debate to undercut her.
 
barfo said:
Maybe 'idiot' was too harsh. I should have just said that this episode demonstrates he's quite bad at politics.

barfo
Click to expand...
Which, to me, is a major difference. I'm certainly no idiot, but I would probably be terrible at politics, for many reasons.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Which, to me, is a major difference. I'm certainly no idiot, but I would probably be terrible at politics, for many reasons.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd be worse than terrible at politics. But we are both smart enough to know that about ourselves. Unlike, apparently, him.

barfo
 
PtldPlatypus said:
True--there's always the risk of bad press in not giving a reporter exactly what they want. It's unfortunate that he's not skilled enough in debate to undercut her.
Click to expand...

He didn't have to give her exactly what she wanted to get good press. He could have proposed an alternative that would give her equivalent or better access. He bungled the job. But, I'm viewing it from Oregon. For all I know, this played really well in Mississippi, and his poll numbers will go through the roof, assuming that they have polls, or roofs, in Mississippi.

barfo
 
Wait what? people have agreements with their wives to never be alone with a woman? Why? This is astonishing to me
 
e_blazer said:
I agree with this too. The guy has an absolute right to live by his promise to his wife. Much of the world may view it as hopelessly out of date, but it's something that I hold myself to as well. Seems like the obvious solution would have been for him to simply state this to the reporter and tell her that she's welcome to follow him along in her own vehicle.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

BTW, this certainly isn't the first time this topic has been addressed/discussed/debated:

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

The Billy Graham rule is a practice among some male evangelical Protestant leaders, in which they avoid spending time alone with women to whom they are not married. It is named after Billy Graham, a proponent of the practice, although recently has also been called the Mike Pence rule.[1] It is adopted as a display of integrity, a means of avoiding sexual temptation, to avoid any appearance of doing something considered morally objectionable, and to avoid being falsely accused of sexual harassment, but has been criticized as being sexist........

"Billy Graham rule"

In 1948, Graham held a series of evangelistic meetings in Modesto, California. Together with Cliff Barrows, Grady Wilson and George Beverly Shea, he resolved to "avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion".[2] The accountability agreement, which has become known as the "Modesto Manifesto",[3] covered not only their interactions with women, but also commitments to integrity with respect to finances, their interactions with local churches, and publicity.[4] From that time onward, Graham made a point of not traveling, meeting, or eating alone with a woman other than his wife Ruth.[5] Graham biographer Grant Wacker observed that "Over the years Graham received intense media scrutiny, but hardly anyone accused him of violating any of those four principles."[6] By Graham's own admission, though, he was not an absolutist in the application of the rule that now bears his name: his autobiography relates a lunch meeting with Hillary Clinton that he initially refused on the grounds that he does not eat alone with women other than his wife, but she persuaded him that they could have a private conversation in a public dining room.[7][8]

"Mike Pence rule"

In March 2017, The Washington Post noted that U.S. Vice President Mike Pence had adopted a version of this rule, in that he will not have dinner alone with any woman other than his wife Karen.[9][10][11] Emma Green, writing for The Atlantic, noted that the controversy was an example of how "notions of gender divide American culture": while "socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence's practice as misogynistic or bizarre", for "a lot of conservative religious people" the "set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise".[12] Employment lawyer Joanna Grossman wrote that the Pence rule, when applied to workplace dinners, could be illegal labor discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[13]
 
ABM said:
Agreed.

BTW, this certainly isn't the first time this topic has been addressed/discussed/debated:

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

The Billy Graham rule is a practice among some male evangelical Protestant leaders, in which they avoid spending time alone with women to whom they are not married. It is named after Billy Graham, a proponent of the practice, although recently has also been called the Mike Pence rule.[1] It is adopted as a display of integrity, a means of avoiding sexual temptation, to avoid any appearance of doing something considered morally objectionable, and to avoid being falsely accused of sexual harassment, but has been criticized as being sexist........

"Billy Graham rule"

In 1948, Graham held a series of evangelistic meetings in Modesto, California. Together with Cliff Barrows, Grady Wilson and George Beverly Shea, he resolved to "avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion".[2] The accountability agreement, which has become known as the "Modesto Manifesto",[3] covered not only their interactions with women, but also commitments to integrity with respect to finances, their interactions with local churches, and publicity.[4] From that time onward, Graham made a point of not traveling, meeting, or eating alone with a woman other than his wife Ruth.[5] Graham biographer Grant Wacker observed that "Over the years Graham received intense media scrutiny, but hardly anyone accused him of violating any of those four principles."[6] By Graham's own admission, though, he was not an absolutist in the application of the rule that now bears his name: his autobiography relates a lunch meeting with Hillary Clinton that he initially refused on the grounds that he does not eat alone with women other than his wife, but she persuaded him that they could have a private conversation in a public dining room.[7][8]

"Mike Pence rule"

In March 2017, The Washington Post noted that U.S. Vice President Mike Pence had adopted a version of this rule, in that he will not have dinner alone with any woman other than his wife Karen.[9][10][11] Emma Green, writing for The Atlantic, noted that the controversy was an example of how "notions of gender divide American culture": while "socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence's practice as misogynistic or bizarre", for "a lot of conservative religious people" the "set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise".[12] Employment lawyer Joanna Grossman wrote that the Pence rule, when applied to workplace dinners, could be illegal labor discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[13]
Click to expand...

Amazing. Glad I can avoid this rule. Cuz, you know, my wife trusts I won’t mess with a woman because she’s standing next to me
 
It does seem to be cutting yourself off from part of life for no obvious benefit, but I guess if you believe being alone with women is a risk not worth taking, then ok.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
South Carolina, leading the fight on terrorism!
Replies
1
Views
380
Entity
Entity
Rastapopoulos
"Brand America"
Replies
10
Views
612
MarAzul
MarAzul
SlyPokerDog
Politics Trump asking if he can pardon himself
3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
8K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
BALLAHOLLIC
Are all morals objective?
Replies
3
Views
351
KMart?
KMart?
truebluefan
CIA Torture Report: White House Mum on Whether Methods Saved Lives
Replies
0
Views
289
truebluefan
truebluefan

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top