Vice President Pence’s “never dine alone with a woman” rule isn’t honorable. It’s probably illegal.
Original article by Joanna L. Grossman - Vox
-------------------------------------
An employment lawyer weighs in.
:format(webp)/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54005563/GettyImages_658127604.0.jpg)
Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, at the AIPAC convention in Washington, DC, this week
Noam Galai / Getty
“I don’t work with women. If they’re attractive, I’m too tempted. And if they’re not attractive, what’s the point?”
A male partner at a law firm casually made this pronouncement one day at lunch, hardly looking up from his plate. Everyone laughed and went back to eating — in the rough-and-tumble world of DC law, it wasn’t even the most obnoxious thing said that day. But this is no laughing matter for the women whose career opportunities are impeded by men who cavalierly dismiss half of the labor force and insist that they’ve behaved honorably by doing so.
This issue was thrust into the news this week when the Washington Post ran a piece on Karen Pence , the wife of our current vice president, and reminded readers of something Mike Pence said in 2002: He does not eat alone with a woman or attend an event where alcohol is being served unless his wife is present. The Twittersphere lit up like a Christmas tree with jokes and rants about Pence’s wife-rule. It’s not clear whether Pence still adheres to this practice, but there are men who do.
As the Atlantic observes , such arrangements are especially common within marriages between religious conservatives of various stripes. (It need not be only men who follow such strictures, but the emphasis is often on male temptation.) On Capitol Hill, where long days and late nights away from the family are part of the job, some Congressmen will not travel alone in a car with a female staffer, the National Journal has reported. Some politicians set gender-neutral rules that have a side effect of keeping them from being alone with women — such as excluding any staff from the office before 7 am or after 7 pm — but others clearly apply special rules to women.
To be sure, a politician’s declining to dine alone with a woman does not fall in the same category as a law partner refusing to work with women (or at least musing about refusing to work with women). Nonetheless, the practice described by Pence in that 2002 interview is clearly illegal when practiced by a boss in an employment setting, and deeply damaging to women’s employment opportunities.
Title VII, which governs workplace discrimination, does not allow employers to treat people differently on the basis of certain protected characteristics, one of which is sex. This means that an employer cannot set the terms and conditions of employment differently for one gender than for the other. This includes any aspect of the relationship between employer and employees — extending to benefits like equal access to the employer.
By law, working dinners with the boss could be considered an opportunity to which both sexes must have equal access
Employers are not permitted to classify employees on the basis of gender without proof that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for a particular job. A Pence-type rule could never satisfy this test. A male boss cannot casually cordon off certain jobs, tasks, or opportunities for men only. (I am assuming here that Pence does occasionally dine with men — table for two — without his wife present.) Employers are also not permitted to base employment decisions on gender-based stereotypes — including the stereotype that women are temptresses, or incapable of having purely professional relationships with male bosses or co-workers.
Pence’s defenders said that he was merely acting prudently, and expressed amazement at the all the fuss. Yet we know that women pay a heavy price for behavior that either resembles his or falls on the same continuum. We know this from anecdotal reports and surveys of women who report exclusion from travel, events, or one-on-one meetings with male bosses; from cases in which men have fired female subordinates to assuage jealous wives; and from decades of employment-discrimination litigation in which we get a picture of the everyday ways in which workplaces remain unequal for women.
Why might men refuse to work with women, either generally or one in particular? Some fear that temptation will cause them to overstep a marital boundary by having a consensual affair — or a legal boundary by engaging in unwelcome harassment. Others fear just the appearance of a sexual or romantic liaison — which could provoke wifely jealousy, concerns about sexual favoritism, or reputational harm to the male boss who might wrongfully be labeled a creep.
Some fear false accusations of sexual harassment, against which they can’t defend themselves because there aren’t any witnesses. Assuming these fears are legitimate (although some may be more about anxiety about women in leadership roles than marital fidelity), surely there are ways to alleviate them that do not curtail potentially productive business interactions?
The Iowa Supreme Court’s dubious ruling against the “hot hygienist”
An Iowa dentist made headlines a few years ago when he fired his longtime hygienist because his wife was jealous. The dentist directed sexually inappropriate comments at the (married) hygienist, complained that her scrubs were too tight and revealing, and asked questions about her sex life. The hygienist didn’t reciprocate with sexual innuendo, did not engage in a romantic or sexual relationship with the dentist, and put on a lab coat whenever he complained her clothing was “distracting.”
Nonetheless, the dentist fired the hygienist. The dentist’s wife viewed her as a “big threat” to their marriage, and the family pastor agreed that firing the “hot” hygienist was the best course of action. When the hygienist’s husband called the dentist to ask why his wife had been fired, the dentist reassured him that she was the best assistant he had ever had and had done nothing wrong or inappropriate. But he was getting too attached and “feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her.” In a shocking 7-0 opinion, in 2013, the Iowa Supreme Court held in Nelson v. Knight that the hygienist’s firing did not constitute sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Think for a moment about the absurdity of this ruling, given the existence of a statute that prohibits employers from making employment decisions because of an employee’s sex. Is there any doubt that Melissa Nelson could have kept her job if she was a man? The hygienist got fired for being an attractive woman, plain and simple. The court did not see it that way, characterizing her firing instead as something that grew out of a particular interpersonal relationship and situation, falling back on the right of an employer to fire an employee for any nondiscriminatory reason.
But even that deeply misguided court would understand that a policy or practice of excluding or avoiding female employees in general is unlawful. In its opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court distinguished between an “isolated employment decision based on personal relations … driven by individual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person” and a “decision based on gender itself.” And if an employer “repeatedly took adverse employment actions against persons of a particular gender, that would make it easier to infer that gender … was a motivating factor.”
Vice President Pence’s “policy” applies to all women — not just one in particular. That is why it runs afoul of Title VII.
Men who isolate themselves from women are in the thrall of stereotypes
Men needn’t isolate themselves from women in the workplace out of fears of false allegations of harassment. The vengeful, spurned woman who ruins an honorable man’s life (think Demi Moore in Disclosure ) is a backlash caricature with an outsize impact on the popular imagination. False claims of harassment are exceedingly rare and impossible to prove; even meritorious claims of harassment are hard to prove. Men shouldn’t worry about being led unto temptation because, well, it is entirely within their control whether to harass a subordinate or initiate an affair.
We have a president who brags about grabbing women by the pussy — and a vice president who won’t even have dinner with them. These are two sides of the same coin, both reflecting the fundamentally unequal sphere working women inhabit because of male behavior.
As for the prototypical jealous wife? Perhaps some counseling is in order — and some self-reflection about why either partner in the marriage would perceive the relationship to be so vulnerable as to be undermined by the mere proximity of other women outside the wife’s presence. In any case, women in the workplace have protected civil rights that outweigh such concerns.
Women have been shut out of equal employment opportunity for all of history. It’s long past time the doors to power and opportunity were opened, whether after hours, on a trip, or, gasp, at a working dinner with a male boss. After all, as the song “The Room Where It Happens” from the musical Hamilton puts it, sometimes “decisions are happening over dinner.”
Joanna L. Grossman is the Ellen K. Solender Endowed Chair in Women and Law at SMU Dedman School of Law. Her most recent book is Nine to Five: How Gender, Sex, and Sexuality Continue to Define the American Workplace . She is a regular columnist for Justia’s Verdict .
Tags
Who is online
95 visitors
We have a president who brags about grabbing women by the pussy — and a vice president who won’t even have dinner with them. These are two sides of the same coin, both reflecting the fundamentally unequal sphere working women inhabit because of male behavior.
Trump and Pence, the odd couple.
Basically, for both of them... women are not people. Women are sex objects, to be grasped or shunned, depending...
Bingo. The ironic thing here is neither men imo are anything to look twice at. One wants to grab pussies and the other appears to BE a pussy. A match made in make believe heaven.
You're not attracted to a platinum head with a plastic smile?
Was he discussing social situations? Is he wrong to decline to go our to dinner with a female that isn't his wife? Or to an event where alcohol is served? So, he cleaves to his wife. Somehow, I don't think this is a bad thing. But it would take a lawyer or a half-wit (but then again, I repeat myself) to read too much into this....as is obvious from the article.
And Trump did say that. Once that we know of, so "We have a president who brags about grabbing women by the pussy". I don't give him a pass on this, but I haven't heard him bragging, only a recording of the one time (we know of) that he did. But it was okay to you that Bill Clinton stuffed cigars inside of one of his subordinates while in the Oval Office (I don't give him a pass on this either, BTW).
The article was ridiculous. Pence is violating the law if he turns down a dinner invitation or declines a party?! Lol.
...cases in which men have fired female subordinates to assuage jealous wives;
In fairness, this sometimes works the other way around as well. Insecure, jealous husbands can also wreak havoc on their wives' careers by interfering with their workspaces and policing their colleagues. I've seen it happen - but not nearly as often as I've witnessed what the article describes.
In fairness...
To whom??
I assumed this was from the Onion. Non progressives often claim that progressives want to control every facet of our lives, and this is yet another proof . They are beyond satire with their control fetish.
Think about what the fascist author is arguing, that the government has the right to punish an individual for daring to exercise choice about who he wants to socialize with. I think even the hardcore communists would have a hard time taking totalitarianism this far.
Can you imagine sitting down with George Washington or Thomas Jefferson and showing them the fruits of their labor and sacrifice? Thanks for risking your lives to create a government that will control who you dine with! I bet they would have surrendered immediately to the British rather than see this bastardization of their ideals come to pass.
What he does on his own time, doesn't bother me at all. What he does, or doesn't do as the vice president does. Can you see the difference?
He's talking about going to dinner and the quote is from 2002.
Even Vice Presidents get to eat dinner.
When is a Vice-president "on his own time"?
When he wants to be.
Surely, every function he attends is not one that is "official". That's what I was thinking...
A Veep is always on duty.
You would not accept his saying, "I'm not racist when I'm on duty... only when I'm off duty." So we shouldn't accept "I'm only sexist when I'm off duty.
And in the case of a government official, refusing to be alone with a woman is unacceptable.
You would not accept his saying, "I'm not racist when I'm on duty... only when I'm off duty." So we shouldn't accept "I'm only sexist when I'm off duty.
It's not sexist at all.
Different behavior toward men and toward women is... sexism.
Different behavior toward men and toward women is... sexism.
Different behavior toward men and women based on sex is inherent in the species. Occupational sexism does not apply to one's free time. I can associate with any one I want on my free time and so can he.
Let's be more precise: Different behavior toward men and women in a professional context is sexism.
A Veep is in a professional context 24/7. S/he should be a model for us all. Excluding half the population under any circumstances whatsoever is unacceptable.
A Veep is in a professional context 24/7. S/he should be a model for us all. Excluding half the population under any circumstances whatsoever is unacceptable.
He's not in a workplace setting 24/7 and he can choose to have lunch with whomever he chooses. And I want a Veep who knows when to tell people to mind their own business and this is one of those times.
He's not in a workplace setting 24/7 and he can choose to have lunch with whomever he chooses. And I want a Veep who knows when to tell people to mind their own business and this is one of those times.
"I'm going to behave in a sexist manner. Please do not watch. "
"I'm going to behave in a sexist manner. Please do not watch. "
Or "who I choose to have lunch with on my time is my business; watch something else."
Freedom of association is a right guaranteed to everybody under the first amendment. Pence can associate with whomever he chooses on his own time and his own time is whenever he is not engaged in official business.
Pence can associate with whomever he chooses on his own time and his own time is whenever he is not engaged in official business.
I disagree. He is now the Vice President of the United States. He is working 7 days a week for the next 4 years. What he says and does sets a precedence. When he is no longer taking money from the tax payers is when he can go back to being a sexist. Until then he needs to learn how to behave around women without his wife there.
I disagree. He is now the Vice President of the United States. He is working 7 days a week for the next 4 years. What he says and does sets a precedence. When he is no longer taking money from the tax payers is when he can go back to being a sexist. Until then he needs to learn how to behave around women without his wife there.
Nope, as Vice President, he determines when his workday begins and ends. He can do as he chooses on the time he declares to be his free and there's not a thing anybody can do about it until the next election.
I think it is extremely astute of him. Many years ago when the harassment of women in the workforce took wings, my husband who was VP in a particular company sent out the word....no using the word hon; do not ever touch a female on the shoulder, the arm or wherever; no work lunches one on one. And, when you are having to have a meeting with a female keep the door open.
What's the difference between not dining alone with a woman other that his wife, and not dining alone with an African American, or a Jew, or a Muslim, etc? If those aren't similar, and there's no sexism that is driving it, then it could only be that he's afraid he's going to cheat on his wife. What a douchebag.
In a few of my jobs I have had to dine frequently (on the expense account of course) with females and the idea of sex with them never entered my mind, no matter how attractive they were, for one simple reason. It would mean losing a job that I loved. Now don't get me wrong. It's not like the offer wasn't there. It's not like I'm great looking or some kind stud muffin, but there is something attractive that some women hotel General Managers feel toward someone they know I'd going to be out of their lives in a few days. A one time fling with someone who will be out of their lives forever soon. It happened a whole lot more then I thought it would. Who knew that there were that women looking for a casual, no strings attached good bye forever fling. I sure didn't.
What's the difference between not dining alone with a woman other that his wife, and not dining alone with an African American, or a Jew, or a Muslim, etc?
Damn you're confused!
Sigh ... you need that explained?
Sigh ... you need that explained?
Go ahead and try. That should be entertaining.
There are two reasons why a politician would refuse to dine alone with someone of a particular demographic. Islamophobia / homophobia / xenophobia / sexism / agism / etc., and lack of trust in themself to not take advantage of the person. Both are equally detestable for someone who chose government as an occupation. Or maybe he's just such a pussy that his wife wears the pants and won't allow it.
There are two reasons why a politician would refuse to dine alone with someone of a particular demographic. Islamophobia / homophobia / xenophobia / sexism / agism / etc., and lack of trust in themself to not take advantage of the person. Both are equally detestable for someone who chose government as an occupation.
Apples don't become oranges just because you throw them all on the table at the same time. He can decline to eat alone with a woman because it can lead to a sexual harassment allegation based on a comment he thought was innocuous or it could lead to his picture in the paper with some suggestion that he's having an affair or it could independently cause friction in his marriage. None of that is present in the other demographics.
Or maybe he's just such a pussy that his wife wears the pants and won't allow it.
Or maybe he's just smart enough to avoid unnecessary problems.
He shouldn't be in government if he can't handle being alone with a member of half of the population.
He shouldn't be in government if he can't handle being alone with a member of half of the population.
I'm sure he doesn't need you telling him what to do on his own time.
Well, you just it all.....allegations and he is left with a reputation, lawsuit, pain for his family, etc. And, more than likely losing his job. It ain't worth it.
If Bill Cinton had followed Pence's advice, Monica Lewinsky wouldn't have been under Bill's desk stuffing her face in the oral office and Bill wouldn't have been impeached.
After reading the comments from those members on the right, I just have to chuckle. Women are clearly the stronger sex. We aren't scared to have dinner or meetings alone with men and many of us are already versed in warding off unwanted advances from the man child. The truth of the matter is women have been conditioned to get accustomed to being viewed and used as sexual objects. It may start out innocently and be framed as a.......I don't know........a charity function maybe. Where the young girls are slyly coaxed into wearing bikinis or other revealing clothes by old men.
The wife better watch out for the waitress, she's the one who always calls you "sweetheart". "You need anything else, sweetheart?", except when you're with a woman. I'm only kidding. I know she calls every male customer sweetheart, but she doesn't have to call me Darling.... Darling.
Face it, animals including humans are sexual creatures and if may never cross their mind until it does.
Two things determine the results after that, whether one or both of the two participants do the right thing.
To some doing the right thing is being faithful and to others it is something entirely different.
Some people have higher sex drives than others and some people have more demanding egos they succumb to in order to feel they are sexually attractive. You could call it low self-esteem, in fact that is what I prefer to call it.
People in high positions have to be careful to not put themselves in compromising situations, thereby jeopardizing their reputation and it doesn't have to be for religious reasons, only common sense.
You can't change human nature, but you can civilize it.
There is no normal sexual dynamic between men but there will always be one between men and women because it's natural. That natural dynamic is suppressed in a work environment so we can all work. However, women want it both ways. Women want to do everything a man does without feeling that they have to be thought of as different and others exploit the difference to get what they want by batting their eyes and shaking their tits . . . where one false move by the man can make him the target of a sexual harassment charge.
But that's during work. Lunch is a work break and alcohol is usually for parties. Pence can eat lunch and party with whomever he chooses for any reason he wants when he's on his own time. That way, he avoids awkward situations, (false) sexual harassment charges, or accusations from his wife. He's just being smart in today's world.
And in case women think all other women are gender neutral on the job, there are plenty of men who know they aren't. I had one young woman come into my office, shut the door, and say she just needed some advice. Ok, I said. She sat down and proceeded to tell me how men older than herself found her highly desirable and sexually satisfying. She liked them too because they appreciated her by giving her nice things and taking her nice places. Her problem was that, unfortunately, she didn't have such a man at the moment. She was sitting across from my desk. She rolled the chair back a bit, crossed her leg so I could see up her dress, and leaned a bit forward to expose more of her breasts than were already exposed in her low cut blouse. Then she asked if I might know where she could find a man like that. I was married and she knew it. I responded that I didn't know anybody, looked at my watch, said I had to prepare for a meeting, and walked her to the door. That's the last time I let her into my office.
... and then you woke up in a cold sweat, when you peered up her skirt and saw a hairy sack.
... and then you woke up in a cold sweat, when you peered up her skirt and saw a hairy sack.
Only if it were your wife sitting across the desk with makeup caked on his razor stubble.
You'd be so lucky to have a shot with my wife. It wouldn't last longer than it takes you to strike up a conversation.
You'd be so lucky to have a shot with my wife. It wouldn't last longer than it takes you to strike up a conversation
It sure wouldn't. Once he hiked up his dress, I'd be outta there!
Well if you'd stop waving your stick around then maybe women wouldn't get the wrong impression. lol
To be serious, yes there are women in the work environment that are looking to advance professionally or gain favoritism by using their assets. I also recently read an article that talked about cheaters and why some target married people. Primarily it is because they don't want the burdens that come with the relationship. They just want the fun and excitement. When that's gone they move on.
What this article is talking about is Mike Pence making a decision and treating ALL women as though they are only trying to seduce men because he's unable to be responsible and make good decisions. Those evil women are trying to lead him astray. In doing that, he has already made a decision that they are not equal or shouldn't be treated equal as men.
Let's face it, with this group of misogynist in power our society has been thrust back into the Madmen days. If a man cheats it's because of the women. If a man cheats so what., he works hard and you should be grateful he still comes home at night. If a man cheats it's just because he needs to blow off steam.
Bob was right in his analysis that this line of thinking is just a euphemism of what the veil symbolizes.
What this article is talking about is Mike Pence making a decision and treating ALL women as though they are only trying to seduce men because he's unable to be responsible and make good decisions. Those evil women are trying to lead him astray. In doing that, he has already made a decision that they are not equal or shouldn't be treated equal as men.
What women have created is an environment where men would rather be safe than sorry.
Wow, that's not sexist at all!
Wow, that's not sexist at all!
He can do whatever he wants with whomever he wants on his own time. So can everybody else and that's the way it should be.
Once again a man blaming men's behavior on women. Simply incredible
Let's see what 1ofmany is afraid of:
Here's what 1ofmany is not afraid of:
Hmmmmmm..........Are you Donald Trump?
Once again a man blaming men's behavior on women.
No it's a man choosing with whom he associates rather than having a liberal do it for him.
Simply incredible
Let's see what 1ofmany is afraid of:
One only need fear what can't be handled. I can easily handle all three.
Here's what 1ofmany is not afraid of:
True.
Hmmmmmm..........Are you Donald Trump?
No, are you stomping around the house in your pussy hat?
Hahahahahaha - No, I don't expose my nether parts in public! In truth, I thought it was rather ridiculous to march with a pussy hat. The purpose of the march was overshadowed by the gimmick. It would have had much more impact if they had walked in silence. Sometimes saying nothing say's it all.
1ofmany - you are too archaic in your thinking and whether you wish to believe it or not you are sexist but I don't think you do it intentionally.
1ofmany - you are too archaic in your thinking and whether you wish to believe it or not you are sexist but I don't think you do it intentionally.
My "archaic" thinking works just fine because it allows me to see quite clearly that new is not always better. And I'm not sexist at all but rather I recognize the difference between men and women. There is a harmony in our differences that you would unintentionally eviscerate and, thereby, disturb the natural balance. In the end, nature will win.
Let's see what 1ofmany is afraid of:
Here's what 1ofmany is not afraid of:
Hmmmmmm..........Are you Donald Trump?
PJ, that is one of the funniest posts i have seen here in a long time
Well done.
Can you send me a picture of it through the site mail?
What's in the Jar......his balls?
... and rosary beads. Though it is difficult to tell them apart.
... and rosary beads. Though it is difficult to tell them apart.
I guess you would know.
What's in the Jar......his balls?
No, Hillary's.
I'll give another example. I once replaced a guy in a job who had a reputation of hiring pretty interns and then taking them out for drinks . . . or whatever. The rumors flew. My boss, a woman, told her secretary to tell me that I had better not hire a pretty intern because she didn't want any workplace issues. Unfortunately for my boss, the best candidate for the position was not only pretty but also the top student in her class. I hired her anyway despite all the faces my boss made at me. So, in my case, it was a woman who insisted that I discriminate against another woman solely because that woman's looks might lead to a workplace harassment suit or just unwelcome gossip.
Ladies and gentlemen, i worked a long time as a lone woman in a man's field. Here is how I handled it-- i always invited the wife or girlfriend to join us. By being open and above board, it soothed the man, who had no fear of me jumping his bones, and his wife/girlfriend was a welcome addition, to me!
I later years, I could show them pictures of my husband and kids on my phone... It let everyone know that the man was safe from my "advances", and this was business.
We certainly weren't discussing any "state secrets."
I don't know Dowser. I found one of your old videos.
LOL, Six! Sometimes, the best way to handle unwanted advances is to run away, for sure!
IMO, this story has gotten about ten times as much attention as it merited. Pence does not meet with women outside of the office unless his wife is there because that is the way BOTH of them want it. He and his wife believe in an old fashioned interpretation of morals as they find in their religious teachings.
I don't think Pence feels he would rape the woman, I think he believes it is not godly to place yourself in the way of temptation. His wife believes her husband serves their god by giving his masculine attentions to her and her alone.
They are overtly religious. You might say overly. But we have known that for some time now, when profiles of him started to appear after he was selected by Trump.
Don't be alone with a woman... Don't be alone with women... Don't organize reunions with people of both sexes...
Exclude women from public life...
The easiest way for a man to protect himself from false sexual harassment charges in the workplace is to avoid being alone with a woman or minimize it, unless you're confident that she poses no risk. If that makes women feel different it's because they are different since a man would not be claiming sexual harassment. Frankly, I don't give a shit what women think about it since my livelihood is more important to me than their feelings. Just saying.
There's a better way to avoid charges of sexual harassment: don't harass sexually.
Exclude women from public life...
That advice might have helped Bill [I did not have sex with that woman] Clinton when he was POTUS .
Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill Hillary Bill
Your comment is every bit as useless as this entire topic . There is no nation on the planet earth where male pols behave any better inre women . Certainly French pols are even worse than those in the US ...
France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad France bad
Are you having problems with reading comprehension ? As I said there is no nation on the planet earth where male pols behave any better inre women . France is just one example . Your meaningless liberal tripe attempting to make the current admin look bad has NO BASIS IN REALITY . No matter where you look whether in different geographies nor back in Dem history in the US you cannot support your "moral" theory . But have fun twisting words to attack the current admin . Frankly U got nothin !