Based on the Billy Graham rule, 2 gubernatorial candidates, both Republicans say that they won't be alone with a woman not having a male escort.
Sounds a little dated to me. These men say that the reasons are that appearances might make others think of improprieties. Perhaps, they would be "tempted" beyond their ability to bear?
Well, I say that if you cannot control yourself or have the confidence of same that you should not be running for governor.
How many female journalists are restricted in their ability to cover the story because of the candidates' cryptic hangups and fears?
What do you think?
Here is a little background
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states … t-his-wife
Interesting. Is this coming from a purely ideological standpoint or are they implying the importance of "appearances" is to avoid legal liabilities?
Funny, the missus was making that very suggestion to me regarding the risk of liability.
I think that is taking things to the extreme. These people are not monks in monasteries, but are public servants at the highest level in state government and have to be fully accessible as part of their job. I think that it is just a "holier than thou ploy" to play to their base
What would one these guys do if Leslie Stahl wanted an interview for 60 minutes?
It does seem a bit extreme. Although, the interview scenario brings up a concept I can get behind. Instead of just requiring police to wear body cams at all times, let's add politicians to the list! I imagine we'd be living in a very different world.
It's ridiculous. In my 30 years of management, should I never have met or talked with a female employee without someone else present?
Should I not talk to any other woman without someone else present?
This alleged rule goes way beyond politics.
I am kinda leaning that way myself, Promisem.
For both you and GA, would such a stance discourage the hiring of female aids and assistants in jobs that support the Governor and staff?
It can serve as a prerequisite for a form of bias against women.
I probably wouldn't hire women at all in that case.
Going through the trouble of tracking down someone and taking them away from more important work just to stand there while I talk to a woman wouldn't be worth the hassle. Nor could I spare the time.
You know, I see this as more fear of the mob than religious. More fear of 'I believe every woman'.
In today's climate, were I a guy in power or seeking it, you can bet I'd have the same rule.
There are consequences to mob attempts to rule.
While, I may disagree, I can understand that perspective.
Out of curiosity, how about a female candidate applying the Billy Graham rule?
Hi Cred, PrettyPanther and I had a similar exchange where I offered the rationale that Live to Learn does here. She thought men that felt this way were 'delicate.'
I think it would be fine for women to adopt this stance, but, where would be the driving motivator?
When was the last time you heard about a man accusing a powerful leader, (politician, CEO, etc.), of sexual assault or harassment?
Hello GA, just popping in to explain why I said men are delicate. Women have endured actual sexual harassment and assault in the workplace for years, often remaining silent because incidents were hard to prove, and speaking up often resulted in more harassment and no resolution Yet, despite this, we continued to meet with our male coworkers.
Now, men are using the possibility of a false accusation as justification to not treat women equally in the workplace. Those men are awfully delicate.
There is nothing delicate about wanting to avoid a social media mob attacking you because of a false allegation. There is nothing delicate about taking the knowledge that your entire career could be ruined by a lie, and adjusting accordingly.
Women have endured much but the current climate of retribution instead of fair play gives every man the right to take reasonable steps to protect himself and his reputation from the insanity of the mobs.
So, as a logical extension of this policy, if a man works in a small office of just two or three people, then he would not hire women because it would be difficult if not impossible to guarantee he would never be alone with one,
Conversely, and by logical extension, a woman could legitimately choose to never be alone with a male coworker for fear of actual sexual harassment or assault. A woman working in a small office could use that as an excuse not to hire men.
Either of those scenarios are ridiculous in my view and I doubt they would hold up in court. They both involve treating an employee or coworker differently based solely on gender. They both involve discriminating against an individual based on an assumption about that individual's gender.
It isn't difficult to work together and never be alone. I've done it all my career. Except once. There was a drunk colonel who pulled me into his office and closed the door for, I don't know what, rambled on about I couldn't tell what for about half an hour. The guys in the office were livid. They were scared something was going to happen while I was in there and surrounded me to make certain I was ok when I came out. That could have been avoided by leaving the door open.
For 16 months,I worked as an assistant to a male financial planner. We were the only people in the office and were alone together every day, often for extended periods of time. The only way to avoid that would have been to hire a third person, which would have been an unnecessary expense, or only hire a male assistant. Would he have been justified in only hiring men in order to avoid being alone with a woman?
My brother is an attorney with a female assistant in a two-person office as well. I have worked in offices my entire life and been alone with a male coworker countless times. Your experience is not typical.
Oh ok. Yours is typical mine is not. Ok. If that's going to be your fallback position each time no point in continuing attempt at discussion.
I have mad six different jobs during myalmost 40-year career, not counting temporary jobs. In only one of those jobs can I say that I never was alone with a male coworker, and that was working at a newspaper newsroom with over 20 employees.
Just yesterday, I met with a male volunteer for almost 90 minutes alone. I thought nothing of it and I doubt he did, either.
i suppose your experience of only one time in your entire career being alone with a male coworker could be typical, since I haven't actually looked to see if there is any data on the subject, but I highly doubt it. My husband retired from the military and he said he had plenty of times when he had to shut the door while discussing confidential subjects with a female subordinate or superior
I guess, unless we find some corroborating evidence for either position, we'll have to agree to disagree on the frequency that men and women are in the same room alone in the workplace.
I don't care if it is one or one hundred times. My main complaint is that men have lost all hope of having some reasonable expectations when dealing with women in the workplace, or for that matter, in life.
If I step closer to you, if you don't back up it should not be unreasonable to assume that close proximity does not threaten you. If I flatter you and you smile it should not be unreasonable to assume you like me. If I reach out and touch you and your response is completely devoid of a negative reaction it is not unreasonable to assume that is welcome. If all of that is true, it is not unreasonable to assume a step in a more intimate direction is warranted.
Should workplace romance happen? Probably not but they do. All of the time, so it is not unreasonable for a co worker to be attracted. If they are attracted they should be afforded the courtesy of an honest response not a broadside complaint after what can reasonably be construed as participation.
"....men have lost all hope of having some reasonable expectations when dealing with women in the workplace, or for that matter, in life. "
Wow. That's dramatic. You don't think much of your own gender, do you? There goes my psychology radar again.
I have no response to that and the weirdness that follows.
It is probably due to the forum's "update" kerfluffle, but I just discovered this response. Sorry if it seemed that I ignored it.
I understand your explanation. And I agree with your "women's" explanation. But, and of course, this is purely a male perspective; I would see their, (the men), behavior as prudent rather than delicate.
I can agree that it is an extreme reaction, and perhaps even disproportionate, but "delicate" still isn't a descriptor I would have considered.
Good question. I don't think women have as much to fear from the mob. I would probably find that less than modern but I wouldn't make fun of it. Or attempt to disparage it.
Everyone, especially married people, should have the standard of not being alone with someone they are not married to. It is an obvious protection for all on so many levels that it is not only religious people who live by the rule. Though they are mocked by others, they value the relationships and work they do so much that they are willing to take the bullying about it.
In retrospect there are countless people who wish they had established that rule for their life long before an impropriety occurred or a false accusation was made. Wishing things were different does not change the truth about the need for this rule as a protection in life. Dismissing the rule and running the risks that can ruin lives and deeply hurt the innocent is a mistake many would give a great deal to be able to go back and make a different decision on.
by Tessa Schlesinger 3 years ago
Like many other women, I can add my name to the 'me too' movement. I faced sexual harassment for a good 40 years.Harvey Weinstein is far from being the only jerk that thinks his fame and fortune is reason enough to rape and harass women sexually.QUOTE: “We believe the evidence will show that the...
by Cuttler 9 years ago
Are republicans being unreasonable about the budget approval?
by ngureco 11 years ago
Should Women Be Pastors? Should Women Preach?
by eye say 11 years ago
Would men allow women to rule the world?Men have been ruling the world for centuries now, if the opportunity arose for the world leaders to all be women how would the men react?
by ngureco 12 years ago
Men Don’t Understand Women. What Does A Woman Really Want?
by Freegoldman 8 years ago
Is there any particular reason for it,,,,,,
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|