In his speech today, Trump offered prayers for Toledo, Ohio, not Dayton, Ohio, where the shooting was. Joe Biden has also mistakenly said that the shootings were in Houston and Michigan. Hoo boy.
Maybe they are just being proactive: there have been so many mass shootings that, if those places have not had one yet, they likely will have in the not too distant future. Depressing.
And now that Trump has actually spoken out against white nationalists, we can start the clock on how long it will take for him to walk that back with some sort of "good people on both sides" comment. I put the over/under at seven days.
And now that Trump has actually spoken out against white nationalists, we can start the clock on how long it will take for him to walk that back with some sort of "good people on both sides" comment. I put the over/under at seven days.
I'd put it at 48 hours at most, given how fast he flipped after Charlottesville.
The increasingly poor editing and proofreading in newspapers can largely be ascribed to management not paying editors enough, as well as not hiring trained and experienced staff because inexperienced are less expensive. ...
More of it is due to management laying off most of their copy editors. It's a shameful false economy. Copy editors can sometimes be annoying (please do not change something in a story about a field of which you know next to nothing), but more often they save us from destruction.
Money for investigative reporting is down, too. I don't see that sports coverage has suffered as much as the rest of us, but they do sell actual papers.
And now that Trump has actually spoken out against white nationalists, we can start the clock on how long it will take for him to walk that back with some sort of "good people on both sides" comment. I put the over/under at seven days.
I'd put it at 48 hours at most, given how fast he flipped after Charlottesville.
Heh! I did consider coming back and changing that to "seven hours" and claim it was a typo!
And now that Trump has actually spoken out against white nationalists, we can start the clock on how long it will take for him to walk that back with some sort of "good people on both sides" comment. I put the over/under at seven days.
I'd put it at 48 hours at most, given how fast he flipped after Charlottesville.
The increasingly poor editing and proofreading in newspapers can largely be ascribed to management not paying editors enough, as well as not hiring trained and experienced staff because inexperienced are less expensive. ...
More of it is due to management laying off most of their copy editors. It's a shameful false economy. Copy editors can sometimes be annoying (please do not change something in a story about a field of which you know next to nothing), but more often they save us from destruction.
Money for investigative reporting is down, too. I don't see that sports coverage has suffered as much as the rest of us, but they do sell actual papers.
That's very true, Rossweisse, and the consequences of doing without skilled and experienced copy editors or proofreaders are having an impact globally.
We aren't completely powerless against the NRA. We could quit electing the people who are willing to sell out to them. CNN was all excited yesterday over some Republican they had found who was talking about, maybe trying to pass a bill tightening background checks. Phooey.
Every time the public cry of "do something" starts to worry the politicians, out come the usual smoke screens of background checks, red flag laws, video game ratings, better help for the mentally ill, and psychiatrists required to break confidentiality. All things intended to make us think that we can somehow keep guns out of the hands of certain people and everything will be dandy.
Never mind that most mass killings would not have been stopped by any of these measures. Most recent shooters did not have mental illnesses, the guns were either bought legally or stolen. The NRA loves to keep us busy doing these things because they wont effect gun sales. Get us worrying about hate speech and video games and maybe we wont think about how this guy in Dayton took out 9 people in 32 seconds with his assault rifle while the 6 police in the area were drawing their pistols.
Mike Pence, who I understand is the vice-king of America, is quoted as saying "spend more time on your knees than on the internet". Presumably this "on your knees thing" means while sucking the barrel of someone's gun. They also said he's got a NRA rating of A+. Nice.
Pence: A serious misogynist who makes a big deal about his refusal to be alone with any woman - staffer, journalist, for all I know, his mother - but his wife. Apparently he's a rapist just waiting to be let out, to judge by his words. If I were his wife, I'd be concerned that he was so untrustworthy.
FWIW: from what I've heard, it isn't out of misogyny. It's just avoiding temptation. I've heard of other men doing the same thing to avoid temptations, slippery slopes, and reaching for comfort on a bad day. I don't think it's unreasonable, particularly if he's tempted, or slipped long ago, or knows someone who really messed up that way.
Also, the calling his wife "Mother" thing: I know you didn't mention it, but he's not the only one who does that. It comes from being a parent, and referring to the other parent by title in front of the kids. "Mother wants you to clean your room", etc. Sometimes, it's a matter of the habit overflowing a bit, and sometimes probably starts as a private joke between parents.
It’s not benign, because it makes female participation in the workplace problematic. It positions women as permanently sexualised temptresses, occasions of sin.
If a man can not control his sexual desire without the presence of a chaperone, he has a serious psychological problem requiring urgent intervention. If he is in a relationship where his partner exhibits the level of jealousy suggested by this measure, he is subject to coercive control and the couple need support regarding the domestic violence inherent in their relationship.
And of the course, the whole charade is completely futile if he turns out to be gay on the down low.
Well, I figured that if Hillary had taken office, her husband should be required to keep his office door open if meeting with a woman...
At least, Pence's rule probably keeps him from being a #MeToo perpetrator.
I don't think his rule necessarily inhibits women in the workplace, unless Pence is expected to conduct work away from the office--which, AIUI, is when his rule kicks in. I don't think it casts women as temptresses--just indicates that he feels that *he* has a problem in that area.
I'm not defending him as a politician, VP, or moral guidepost. I just think that the things I mentioned aren't automatically bad.
I don't think his rule necessarily inhibits women in the workplace, unless Pence is expected to conduct work away from the office--which, AIUI, is when his rule kicks in.
He's the VP - he doesn't do all his work in his office. And his rule is always in place, which means he will never have a high-level staffer who is female because he will not meet with a woman alone. He will never have a chief of staff or an important aide who is a woman, so he will only be advised by men. It's misogyny through and through.
I don't think it casts women as temptresses--just indicates that he feels that *he* has a problem in that area.
A problem that penalizes women who can't get important jobs in his office, jobs paid for by our federal tax dollars, and by extension penalizes all women because our views are never represented in his discussions about policy. So if it's really just his personal problem, which I doubt because I think it's actually pandering to his conservative Christian constituents, he's not fit to serve.
If the man of my dreams walked into the room now, I think I would have enough self control not to rip his clothes off and rape him. To my mind that's part of being an adult. Maybe things are different in Penceland.
If the man of my dreams walked into the room now, I think I would have enough self control not to rip his clothes off and rape him. To my mind that's part of being an adult. Maybe things are different in Penceland.
Similarly if Trump walked into the room and I had a gun in my hand, I wouldn't shoot him...
Remember people, women are more dangerous than guns...
When Pence made the open door rule, I imagine he was trying to emulate Billy Graham who had that rule all his life so that he would never end up a disgraced pastor like Jim Bakker. For Graham. anyway, it had nothing to do with women being temptresses or not trusting himself. It was to avoid "the appearance of sin" and lend no fuel to gossips.
It's a good practice for a pastor, problematic for a VP, as mentioned. Although lots of important topics can be discussed quietly with the door open. Women in general are safer with the open door policy, it would have spared all the victims of Harvey Winestein, Matt Lauer, et al.
It’s not benign, because it makes female participation in the workplace problematic. It positions women as permanently sexualised temptresses, occasions of sin.
If a man can not control his sexual desire without the presence of a chaperone, he has a serious psychological problem requiring urgent intervention. If he is in a relationship where his partner exhibits the level of jealousy suggested by this measure, he is subject to coercive control and the couple need support regarding the domestic violence inherent in their relationship.
And of the course, the whole charade is completely futile if he turns out to be gay on the down low.
You are entirely right. As a man, I offer the following to any man who believes they cannot control themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shIjkXpf-e4 (60 second public service video). If you don't want to watch a video or need additional advice to assist controlling your urges, you can read a list of tips to prevent rape here: https://canyourelate.org/2011/05/24/rape-prevention-tips/ I suggest watching and reading everything like this if you are like Mike Pence or Billy Graham and doubt your self control.
We can broaden this a bit if you want: when you have women as co-workers, friends, colleagues, neighbours etc, don't stare at their breasts or butt and don't imagine having sex with them, rather, work with them, interact like a civilized human being and control yourself.
You may change the above as needed to fit your situation and orientation.
The above list for any work situation may be summarized:
If you are someone who cannot control yourself, when you have a woman as a co-worker, don’t pretend that you are interested in her contribution to work or her ideas, tell her straight up that you expect to be raping her later. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the woman may take it as a sign that you do not plan to rape her.
(which is modified from Sarah Silverman, comedian)
FWIW: from what I've heard, it isn't out of misogyny. It's just avoiding temptation.
If avoiding temptation is one of his guiding principles, why is he in elective office? Isn't power a temptation? Isn't competing and contending for power (possibly with other Chrsitians) a temptation?
Why does he allow himself access to insider trading information about finance (which is everywhere on the Hill)? Isn't wealth a temptation?
Why does he report to work every day in surroundings that, by some definitions, are opulent? Isn't acquisitiveness a temptation?
So, sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. Singling out women as the one temptation you're going to public trouble to avoid is misogyny.
And of the course, the whole charade is completely futile if he turns out to be gay on the down low.
Bingo. If, deep into the 21st century, we have failed to take on board the fact that sex can happen between/among people of any particular gender or sex, we have left reality behind. The bottom line conclusion is: SEGREGATING PEOPLE BY SEX DOES NOT PREVENT/OBVIATE SEXUAL ACTIVITY, TEMPTATION, OR . THEREFORE, SEGREGATING PEOPLE BY SEX IS ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY POINTLESS.
Except, of course, for those occasions on which individuals of one gender wish to gather in order to entertain themselves by slagging off members of the other gender.
I don't think his rule necessarily inhibits women in the workplace, unless Pence is expected to conduct work away from the office--which, AIUI, is when his rule kicks in.
He's the VP - he doesn't do all his work in his office. And his rule is always in place, which means he will never have a high-level staffer who is female because he will not meet with a woman alone. He will never have a chief of staff or an important aide who is a woman, so he will only be advised by men. It's misogyny through and through.
I don't think it casts women as temptresses--just indicates that he feels that *he* has a problem in that area.
A problem that penalizes women who can't get important jobs in his office, jobs paid for by our federal tax dollars, and by extension penalizes all women because our views are never represented in his discussions about policy. So if it's really just his personal problem, which I doubt because I think it's actually pandering to his conservative Christian constituents, he's not fit to serve.
What Ruth said. If it's himself he's controlling, why is it women who ultimately bear the cost of his self-control?
Women in general are safer with the open door policy, it would have spared all the victims of Harvey Winestein, Matt Lauer, et al.
Lovely. We can all protect ourselves in perfect safety. All we need do is not go out to work, never aspire to positions with responsibility or authority, always wear long skirts, keep our hair covered, never drink, never go anywhere for any reason without an escort of some kind to serve as witness (useless, though, if the escort is female, because we hardly ever believe anything out of any female mouth, and impossible if male because then he's probably involved in Something Illicit because he's Alone. With You.), keep all the doors and windows locked and the shades down . . . Taliban, anyone?
Women in general are safer with the open door policy, it would have spared all the victims of Harvey Winestein, Matt Lauer, et al.
Lovely. We can all protect ourselves in perfect safety. All we need do is not go out to work, never aspire to positions with responsibility or authority, always wear long skirts, keep our hair covered, never drink, never go anywhere for any reason without an escort of some kind to serve as witness (useless, though, if the escort is female, because we hardly ever believe anything out of any female mouth, and impossible if male because then he's probably involved in Something Illicit because he's Alone. With You.), keep all the doors and windows locked and the shades down . . . Taliban, anyone?
Meanwhile nobody seems to give a flying fig what tRump does with his dick ...
No, it isn't. My parents' church had a pastor who had just such a policy, and it meant that church would never have a female assistant pastor or other prominent leader. It's bullshit.
Pence's basic policy, as it was publicized, was that he doesn't a) have dinner alone with another woman and b) attend events with alcohol without his wife. As a personal code I don't really see it as a problem, until it actually impedes women's careers or prevents important work from being done. But since it's Pence we're talking about, well, he's a dickhead.
...A problem that penalizes women who can't get important jobs in his office, jobs paid for by our federal tax dollars, and by extension penalizes all women because our views are never represented in his discussions about policy. So if it's really just his personal problem, which I doubt because I think it's actually pandering to his conservative Christian constituents, he's not fit to serve.
Thank you.
Yes, I don't think Pence is really afraid he'd be tempted to grope or rape a woman with whom he found himself alone. I think he's just a misogynist, and pandering to others of his ilk.
On guns, the thought that a motorcycle backfiring sends people running seems all kinds of fucked-up to me. I cannot imagine the state of mind one must be in to fear that such loud noises are a potential threat.
Also, "Mr Trump rejected criticism that his rhetoric has helped fuel division". What a world he must live in.
The motorcycle thing doesn't shock me that much. A lot of people have heard gunshots and thought it was something else, sometimes with fatal results- it doesn't sound like in the movies, and a motorcycle backfiring could easily approximate it.
Umm...why are Shipmates framing Pence's temptation, issue, whatever, in terms of *rape*?
Lots of people are simply tempted to flirt with, fantasize about, or start affairs with other people. Some try to avoid that temptation.
I would have thought that mature discernment of both oneself and humanity in general would establish that we are generally horny creatures by nature (randy if you prefer than term). That on some level we relate interpersonally to all other humans with somewhat of a sexual or dominance display (are you like my mother, sister, girlfriend, child, aunt Mildred etc; do I need to compete with you like with mom, dad, my boss, the people I play sports badly against, my son), and that people should work to understand their impact on others, their own motives, and their own foibles and weaknesses. Then take adult responsibility to control the ones which are inappropriate. This is particularly important for people in power positions. It is not very nice to consider one group fuckable and another as worthy of being fucked over, you know like sheep and goats. Though in the case of vice-republican Pence, he's got a boss who likes to do both. Perhaps far too many people stumble through life without self-knowledge about their impact on others.
Perhaps the above is a little too psychoanalytic and psychodynamic for this current world dominated by dose-response information-processing cognitive-behaviourism. Note - replace the varieties of people in parentheses in the prior paragraph with whomever you are motivated to eff and eff over.
Pence's basic policy, as it was publicized, was that he doesn't a) have dinner alone with another woman and b) attend events with alcohol without his wife. As a personal code I don't really see it as a problem, until it actually impedes women's careers or prevents important work from being done. But since it's Pence we're talking about, well, he's a dickhead.
But he's basically saying, without these standards imposed (even if self imposed), I know I would be a rapist.
It's not unlike people who say that without the fear of Hell they'd be out killing and stealing and raping. What kind of monster really is that way?
Pence's basic policy, as it was publicized, was that he doesn't a) have dinner alone with another woman and b) attend events with alcohol without his wife. As a personal code I don't really see it as a problem, until it actually impedes women's careers or prevents important work from being done. But since it's Pence we're talking about, well, he's a dickhead.
But he's basically saying, without these standards imposed (even if self imposed), I know I would be a rapist.
That is not what he's basically saying. There are many other bad things apart from rape that this rule is supposed to guard against, e.g. flirting, naughty thoughts, consensual affairs, false accusations, and, of course, the mere appearance of impropriety. I hate to come to the defense of Mike Pence (or even give the appearance of such impropriety) and there's no doubt in my mind that there is all kinds of misogyny in and around him, but I can't agree with this reduction.
I hate to come to the defense of Mike Pence (or even give the appearance of such impropriety) and there's no doubt in my mind that there is all kinds of misogyny in and around him, but I can't agree with this reduction.
"The appearance of impropriety," however -- when limited to a male associating with a female -- assumes that interactions between persons of the opposite sex must naturally include behavior which is (A) specifically illicit and (B) specifically heterosexual.
That the exact same issues do NOT attend on two men meeting together or two women meeting together, where either situation could also be occasions for illicit and/or homosexual behavior is what gives this game away.
It only applies to heterosexual pairings. This is all about maintaining masculine privilege and disadvantaging women.
Women in general are safer with the open door policy, it would have spared all the victims of Harvey Winestein, Matt Lauer, et al.
Lovely. We can all protect ourselves in perfect safety. All we need do is not go out to work, never aspire to positions with responsibility or authority, always wear long skirts, keep our hair covered, never drink, never go anywhere for any reason without an escort of some kind to serve as witness (useless, though, if the escort is female, because we hardly ever believe anything out of any female mouth, and impossible if male because then he's probably involved in Something Illicit because he's Alone. With You.), keep all the doors and windows locked and the shades down . . . Taliban, anyone?
Wow so many strawmen at once must have taken some effort. I said none of that. Only that open doors are safer for women than closed ones.
This assumption that women can't get ahead in the corporate world unless than can be alone with men in offices and hotel rooms demands that they put themselves in physical danger to appease your ideas of how the world should be.
Wouldn't it be better to tell men that we will no longer have meetings with them in hotel rooms or closed offices? Let them go to a spot of bother rather than force women to put themselves in danger so you can rant later about how it was his fault and it shouldn't be this way. Women are not guinea pigs for your social ideals.
Ask the woman who was raped in Matt Lauer's office how she feels about it. Just because we all agree it was Lauer's fault and he should have controlled himself doesn't make her any less raped.
My brother works for IBM and many years ago they banned such things as meetings in hotel suites for their traveling teams. Everybody just goes down to the dining room, it's not that hard. They have lots of women managers whose careers are succeeding well without having to be alone with men.
I work alongside male doctors, so I can never go into their office in order to have a confidential discussion about a patient ? I could never have a male supervisor for individual supervision ?
That is a) seriously detrimental to my work, b) ridiculous, c) beyond insulting to my male colleagues - who have in fact never been anything that appropriate and respectful in terms of their conduct.
It only applies to heterosexual pairings. This is all about maintaining masculine privilege and disadvantaging women.
I don't see how the first sentence necessarily follows from the first. And the rule is one that Pence applies to himself, and he presumably considers himself hetero. For men attracted to other men they could presumably modify the rule to fit their needs.
I would note that this line of reasoning would also condemn the age old practice of Christian monasticism where monastic establishments are strictly divided by sex. Even those rare cases of dual monasteries keep the two segregated. I don't know where you're coming from, so maybe you already think monasticism is silly. In any case the point was to minimize temptations, which also extended to other kinds of exclusions (of food, entertainment, literature, etc) varying according to the rule of each monastery. Of course these privations are not foolproof and modern ideas of orientation were not quite what was in mind. In the Sayings of the Desert Fathers there are a number of sayings that indicate that pederasty was a rampant problem in some monasteries, so that Abba Isaac of Thebaid says, "Do not bring boys here. Boys were the reason why four monasteries in Scetis were deserted", and John the Dwarf says "He who gorges himself and talks with a boy has already in his thought committed fornication with him".
Does this mean that every monk in Egypt was prone to indulge in a bit of "Greek love"? I don't think so, but it was enough of a temptation that precautions were considered worth imposing.
Do you think it would have traction? It would be a powerful reminder.
I wonder if a cumulative count of Trump's lies might also make a useful addition to a front page or landing page of a website. Of course, the available space may soon run out.
I work alongside male doctors, so I can never go into their office in order to have a confidential discussion about a patient ? I could never have a male supervisor for individual supervision ?
That is a) seriously detrimental to my work, b) ridiculous, c) beyond insulting to my male colleagues - who have in fact never been anything that appropriate and respectful in terms of their conduct.
Different rules for jobs that handle confidential information about third parties? A busy hospital is going to have different risks than a huge noisy factory with a closed office where the boss has a history of calling in the women workers for "negotiations" about whether or not they keep their jobs. I don't know why we're all so eager to take away something that might make life safer for some women. Not everyone is on the same glittering career path. Maybe the sexual harassment problems in coal mining are a little different than in your hospital.
I wonder if the same thinking applies to theft. If someone comes to my house and takes all my valuables it is all his fault and not my fault in anyway, and he should be responsible for controlling his urge to steal. However, I'm still going to lock my house when I go away on vacation. If I left my house open just so I could tell everyone later that I shouldn't have to worry about someone else's urge to steal -- I think I would be the ridiculous one.
No, it isn't. My parents' church had a pastor who had just such a policy, and it meant that church would never have a female assistant pastor or other prominent leader. It's bullshit.
So the only way a pastor can talk to his assistant is inside a room with the door closed? That's the bullshit part. My bosses usually talked to me while walking down the hall or in my open cubicle. If he couldn't get up and walk, couldn't he have asked the church secretary to step in? What the hell is so confidential about most of his work anyway? Afraid the flower arranger might walk by the open door and over hear the hymns that will be sung at the funeral?
So the only way a pastor can talk to his assistant is inside a room with the door closed? That's the bullshit part. My bosses usually talked to me while walking down the hall or in my open cubicle. If he couldn't get up and walk, couldn't he have asked the church secretary to step in? What the hell is so confidential about most of his work anyway? Afraid the flower arranger might walk by the open door and over hear the hymns that will be sung at the funeral?
Probably something to do with discussing intimate pastoral care situations? The thing that pastors need to do that is absolutely critical to their job? I mean, really? Who would have thought that? Apart from everyone but you.
Comments
And now that Trump has actually spoken out against white nationalists, we can start the clock on how long it will take for him to walk that back with some sort of "good people on both sides" comment. I put the over/under at seven days.
I'd put it at 48 hours at most, given how fast he flipped after Charlottesville.
Money for investigative reporting is down, too. I don't see that sports coverage has suffered as much as the rest of us, but they do sell actual papers.
You're on. I give him 36.
https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49244602
That's very true, Rossweisse, and the consequences of doing without skilled and experienced copy editors or proofreaders are having an impact globally.
Why is commercial lobbying allowed at all - in any democracy?
ETA I suppose the money in this case comes from gun manufacturers via NRA, so only pressure groups not funded by commerce would be acceptable.
(Yes, it's more complicated)
Every time the public cry of "do something" starts to worry the politicians, out come the usual smoke screens of background checks, red flag laws, video game ratings, better help for the mentally ill, and psychiatrists required to break confidentiality. All things intended to make us think that we can somehow keep guns out of the hands of certain people and everything will be dandy.
Never mind that most mass killings would not have been stopped by any of these measures. Most recent shooters did not have mental illnesses, the guns were either bought legally or stolen. The NRA loves to keep us busy doing these things because they wont effect gun sales. Get us worrying about hate speech and video games and maybe we wont think about how this guy in Dayton took out 9 people in 32 seconds with his assault rifle while the 6 police in the area were drawing their pistols.
FWIW: from what I've heard, it isn't out of misogyny. It's just avoiding temptation. I've heard of other men doing the same thing to avoid temptations, slippery slopes, and reaching for comfort on a bad day. I don't think it's unreasonable, particularly if he's tempted, or slipped long ago, or knows someone who really messed up that way.
Also, the calling his wife "Mother" thing: I know you didn't mention it, but he's not the only one who does that. It comes from being a parent, and referring to the other parent by title in front of the kids. "Mother wants you to clean your room", etc. Sometimes, it's a matter of the habit overflowing a bit, and sometimes probably starts as a private joke between parents.
If a man can not control his sexual desire without the presence of a chaperone, he has a serious psychological problem requiring urgent intervention. If he is in a relationship where his partner exhibits the level of jealousy suggested by this measure, he is subject to coercive control and the couple need support regarding the domestic violence inherent in their relationship.
And of the course, the whole charade is completely futile if he turns out to be gay on the down low.
At least, Pence's rule probably keeps him from being a #MeToo perpetrator.
I don't think his rule necessarily inhibits women in the workplace, unless Pence is expected to conduct work away from the office--which, AIUI, is when his rule kicks in. I don't think it casts women as temptresses--just indicates that he feels that *he* has a problem in that area.
I'm not defending him as a politician, VP, or moral guidepost. I just think that the things I mentioned aren't automatically bad.
He's the VP - he doesn't do all his work in his office. And his rule is always in place, which means he will never have a high-level staffer who is female because he will not meet with a woman alone. He will never have a chief of staff or an important aide who is a woman, so he will only be advised by men. It's misogyny through and through.
A problem that penalizes women who can't get important jobs in his office, jobs paid for by our federal tax dollars, and by extension penalizes all women because our views are never represented in his discussions about policy. So if it's really just his personal problem, which I doubt because I think it's actually pandering to his conservative Christian constituents, he's not fit to serve.
Similarly if Trump walked into the room and I had a gun in my hand, I wouldn't shoot him...
Remember people, women are more dangerous than guns...
AFZ
It's a good practice for a pastor, problematic for a VP, as mentioned. Although lots of important topics can be discussed quietly with the door open. Women in general are safer with the open door policy, it would have spared all the victims of Harvey Winestein, Matt Lauer, et al.
We can broaden this a bit if you want: when you have women as co-workers, friends, colleagues, neighbours etc, don't stare at their breasts or butt and don't imagine having sex with them, rather, work with them, interact like a civilized human being and control yourself.
You may change the above as needed to fit your situation and orientation.
If you are someone who cannot control yourself, when you have a woman as a co-worker, don’t pretend that you are interested in her contribution to work or her ideas, tell her straight up that you expect to be raping her later. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the woman may take it as a sign that you do not plan to rape her.
(which is modified from Sarah Silverman, comedian)
If avoiding temptation is one of his guiding principles, why is he in elective office? Isn't power a temptation? Isn't competing and contending for power (possibly with other Chrsitians) a temptation?
Why does he allow himself access to insider trading information about finance (which is everywhere on the Hill)? Isn't wealth a temptation?
Why does he report to work every day in surroundings that, by some definitions, are opulent? Isn't acquisitiveness a temptation?
So, sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. Singling out women as the one temptation you're going to public trouble to avoid is misogyny.
Bingo. If, deep into the 21st century, we have failed to take on board the fact that sex can happen between/among people of any particular gender or sex, we have left reality behind. The bottom line conclusion is: SEGREGATING PEOPLE BY SEX DOES NOT PREVENT/OBVIATE SEXUAL ACTIVITY, TEMPTATION, OR . THEREFORE, SEGREGATING PEOPLE BY SEX IS ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY POINTLESS.
Except, of course, for those occasions on which individuals of one gender wish to gather in order to entertain themselves by slagging off members of the other gender.
What Ruth said. If it's himself he's controlling, why is it women who ultimately bear the cost of his self-control?
Lovely. We can all protect ourselves in perfect safety. All we need do is not go out to work, never aspire to positions with responsibility or authority, always wear long skirts, keep our hair covered, never drink, never go anywhere for any reason without an escort of some kind to serve as witness (useless, though, if the escort is female, because we hardly ever believe anything out of any female mouth, and impossible if male because then he's probably involved in Something Illicit because he's Alone. With You.), keep all the doors and windows locked and the shades down . . . Taliban, anyone?
Meanwhile nobody seems to give a flying fig what tRump does with his dick ...
Sorry - that image is definitely NSFW.
No, it isn't. My parents' church had a pastor who had just such a policy, and it meant that church would never have a female assistant pastor or other prominent leader. It's bullshit.
Lots of people are simply tempted to flirt with, fantasize about, or start affairs with other people. Some try to avoid that temptation.
Yes, I don't think Pence is really afraid he'd be tempted to grope or rape a woman with whom he found himself alone. I think he's just a misogynist, and pandering to others of his ilk.
Also, "Mr Trump rejected criticism that his rhetoric has helped fuel division". What a world he must live in.
I would have thought that mature discernment of both oneself and humanity in general would establish that we are generally horny creatures by nature (randy if you prefer than term). That on some level we relate interpersonally to all other humans with somewhat of a sexual or dominance display (are you like my mother, sister, girlfriend, child, aunt Mildred etc; do I need to compete with you like with mom, dad, my boss, the people I play sports badly against, my son), and that people should work to understand their impact on others, their own motives, and their own foibles and weaknesses. Then take adult responsibility to control the ones which are inappropriate. This is particularly important for people in power positions. It is not very nice to consider one group fuckable and another as worthy of being fucked over, you know like sheep and goats. Though in the case of vice-republican Pence, he's got a boss who likes to do both. Perhaps far too many people stumble through life without self-knowledge about their impact on others.
Perhaps the above is a little too psychoanalytic and psychodynamic for this current world dominated by dose-response information-processing cognitive-behaviourism. Note - replace the varieties of people in parentheses in the prior paragraph with whomever you are motivated to eff and eff over.
But he's basically saying, without these standards imposed (even if self imposed), I know I would be a rapist.
It's not unlike people who say that without the fear of Hell they'd be out killing and stealing and raping. What kind of monster really is that way?
That is not what he's basically saying. There are many other bad things apart from rape that this rule is supposed to guard against, e.g. flirting, naughty thoughts, consensual affairs, false accusations, and, of course, the mere appearance of impropriety. I hate to come to the defense of Mike Pence (or even give the appearance of such impropriety) and there's no doubt in my mind that there is all kinds of misogyny in and around him, but I can't agree with this reduction.
"The appearance of impropriety," however -- when limited to a male associating with a female -- assumes that interactions between persons of the opposite sex must naturally include behavior which is (A) specifically illicit and (B) specifically heterosexual.
That the exact same issues do NOT attend on two men meeting together or two women meeting together, where either situation could also be occasions for illicit and/or homosexual behavior is what gives this game away.
It only applies to heterosexual pairings. This is all about maintaining masculine privilege and disadvantaging women.
Wow so many strawmen at once must have taken some effort. I said none of that. Only that open doors are safer for women than closed ones.
This assumption that women can't get ahead in the corporate world unless than can be alone with men in offices and hotel rooms demands that they put themselves in physical danger to appease your ideas of how the world should be.
Wouldn't it be better to tell men that we will no longer have meetings with them in hotel rooms or closed offices? Let them go to a spot of bother rather than force women to put themselves in danger so you can rant later about how it was his fault and it shouldn't be this way. Women are not guinea pigs for your social ideals.
Ask the woman who was raped in Matt Lauer's office how she feels about it. Just because we all agree it was Lauer's fault and he should have controlled himself doesn't make her any less raped.
My brother works for IBM and many years ago they banned such things as meetings in hotel suites for their traveling teams. Everybody just goes down to the dining room, it's not that hard. They have lots of women managers whose careers are succeeding well without having to be alone with men.
That is a) seriously detrimental to my work, b) ridiculous, c) beyond insulting to my male colleagues - who have in fact never been anything that appropriate and respectful in terms of their conduct.
I don't see how the first sentence necessarily follows from the first. And the rule is one that Pence applies to himself, and he presumably considers himself hetero. For men attracted to other men they could presumably modify the rule to fit their needs.
I would note that this line of reasoning would also condemn the age old practice of Christian monasticism where monastic establishments are strictly divided by sex. Even those rare cases of dual monasteries keep the two segregated. I don't know where you're coming from, so maybe you already think monasticism is silly. In any case the point was to minimize temptations, which also extended to other kinds of exclusions (of food, entertainment, literature, etc) varying according to the rule of each monastery. Of course these privations are not foolproof and modern ideas of orientation were not quite what was in mind. In the Sayings of the Desert Fathers there are a number of sayings that indicate that pederasty was a rampant problem in some monasteries, so that Abba Isaac of Thebaid says, "Do not bring boys here. Boys were the reason why four monasteries in Scetis were deserted", and John the Dwarf says "He who gorges himself and talks with a boy has already in his thought committed fornication with him".
Does this mean that every monk in Egypt was prone to indulge in a bit of "Greek love"? I don't think so, but it was enough of a temptation that precautions were considered worth imposing.
Why wasn't there an army of kids on these things ready for the shooter?
DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING: 1
I wonder if a cumulative count of Trump's lies might also make a useful addition to a front page or landing page of a website. Of course, the available space may soon run out.
Different rules for jobs that handle confidential information about third parties? A busy hospital is going to have different risks than a huge noisy factory with a closed office where the boss has a history of calling in the women workers for "negotiations" about whether or not they keep their jobs. I don't know why we're all so eager to take away something that might make life safer for some women. Not everyone is on the same glittering career path. Maybe the sexual harassment problems in coal mining are a little different than in your hospital.
I wonder if the same thinking applies to theft. If someone comes to my house and takes all my valuables it is all his fault and not my fault in anyway, and he should be responsible for controlling his urge to steal. However, I'm still going to lock my house when I go away on vacation. If I left my house open just so I could tell everyone later that I shouldn't have to worry about someone else's urge to steal -- I think I would be the ridiculous one.
So the only way a pastor can talk to his assistant is inside a room with the door closed? That's the bullshit part. My bosses usually talked to me while walking down the hall or in my open cubicle. If he couldn't get up and walk, couldn't he have asked the church secretary to step in? What the hell is so confidential about most of his work anyway? Afraid the flower arranger might walk by the open door and over hear the hymns that will be sung at the funeral?
Probably something to do with discussing intimate pastoral care situations? The thing that pastors need to do that is absolutely critical to their job? I mean, really? Who would have thought that? Apart from everyone but you.