Pence Won’t Have Dinner With A Woman Who Isn’t His Wife (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 20, 2024, 05:08:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Pence Won’t Have Dinner With A Woman Who Isn’t His Wife (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Do you agree with Mike Pence? Do you think it perpetuates gender inequality?
#1
1. Agree
 
#2
1. Disagree
 
#3
2. Yes
 
#4
2. No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 77

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Pence Won’t Have Dinner With A Woman Who Isn’t His Wife  (Read 6930 times)
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


« on: March 30, 2017, 06:24:52 PM »

My wife and I practice a variation of this. I had no idea it was remotely controversial until today's kerfluffle.

I took it to mean that he really really wants to prove to his wife that he's a trusting, monogamous man.

That implies that Pence feels the need to prove to his wife that he isn't an adulterer by deliberately limiting his contact to other women to the absolutely necessary minimum. Sounds more like the opposite of "trust" to me. (And yes, it also implies that he primarily regards women as "people you can have sex with".)

That's not the reason why Evangelicals promote the practice though. People (both on Atlas and off) have setup this ridiculous strawman that it's because men can't be trusted or something.

The logic behind it is to:

a) Avoid the appearance of evil

and

b) Stop adultery before it starts

Most people aren't going to start sleeping with their staffer the second they're alone. But throw in some late nights working together and a bit of booze, and yeah maybe something might happen. By avoiding these situations you make adultery much less likely, since one's willpower is tested a lot less with the rules, than after you've developed feelings and been drinking.

People apply the same logic to diets all the time, but no one calls you a glutton if you decide not to buy junk food at the grocery store to avoid testing your willpower at home.

I strongly disagree with Pence, obviously—I’m an unmarried straight man with mostly female friends and a virgin at twenty-four—and I think this is a terrible rule for a public figure to have, but I also think it’s silly to descend into histrionics about it being intrinsically sexist for couples to have boundaries like this.

The 'don't judge' crowd seems to be quite judgy about this.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2017, 05:45:16 AM »

A married man should not be having dinner with another woman, unless that other woman is his sister, daughter, mother, or grand mother, you get the picture.
...

It's obvious Winfield never had any female friends in his entire life.

And it's obvious most of this forum haven't been married Tongue

This whole line of thought is a bit confusing. Forget about Evangelical rules of thumb for a second. Who are all these married people going out for one on one dinners with the opposite sex? I'm married and I barely have time for group events, much less one on ones with my female friends.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2017, 06:28:12 AM »

The comments are hilarious! Do people not have close female friends here or would the relationship have to turn into something sexual everytime? I can't believe someone would stop having dinner with a female friend just because they are committed! It is only a lunch/dinner, a normal event where you eat food & talk - It's not like you eat naked or eat each other!  Women are not sexual creatures .

It is difficult to have close female friends by that ideology. I am not commenting on Pence, he has his own set of weirdo rules but some of the justifications here are weird - "I can't control myself & fall for a girl every hour" or "You will develop a sexual attraction with a girl if you have lunch/dinner". If you become sexually attracted to someone after having a lunch/dinner even when you are committed, that is just flat out cringeworthy !

Damn you wrecked that strawman. Perhaps you could the actual position next time?
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2017, 06:01:25 PM »

Who are all these married people going out for one on one dinners with the opposite sex?

If you're in a profession that requires a fair amount of travel to meet with colleagues in other cities, it happens all the time.


Oh I get that side of things. I'm talking about people mentioning one on one dinners, coffee etc with platonic female friends. DavidB mentioned going out for drinks with a woman who was engaged and expected it to happen after she was married, and it seemed a bit foreign to me.

Between work, my marriage and general household stuff, I barely have time to see my friends in a group setting, much less meeting a female friend alone for cocktails.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2017, 06:40:34 PM »

Interesting discussion on the political/cultural divide here, by the way. Unfortunately lots of strawmen in David French's article. Not every person who thinks it's okay for men to hang out with female friends is someone who thinks gender is just a social construction, is on the left, or is an atheist.

I gave the article a quick skim, and I agree it was a bit much. There is a big difference between rolling your eyes at Mike Pence and claiming his practice is part of rape culture, and we Evangelicals often fail to distinguish between reasonable disagreement like the former and hysterics like the latter.

However, I want to make a brief defense of such sensitivity. There was a segment of the left talking about how Pence's practice was sexist, discriminatory, and inhibited female careers. Vox even published a piece saying it was probably illegal.

The implication, if such arguments were taken to their fullest extent, is that Evangelicals cannot hold certain positions without betraying their convictions. Annoyingly, such exclusionary claims are being made in the name of tolerance and equality.

This is not to say we're about to be persecuted or make this a "poor ol' us" conversation, but given some of the rhetoric used I sympathize with some of the conservative overreaction.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 13 queries.