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?
Did you not read the words "most of?" What pastors do you know who spend the majority of their time doing "intimate pastoral care?" I was church treasurer for a few years and didn't see the pastor doing one minute of that sort of care in the church office. Of course there will always be exceptions but most subjects can be talked about quietly with the office door open, or with a third party present. There have been far too many occasions when "intimate pastoral care," became something it shouldn't. Even my doctor usually has a nurse present for certain types of exams.
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.
You have flipped the roles. In Mike's thinking, he's trying to protect himself from raping. In your scenario here, it's the victim that you are suggesting take precautions. Are precautions taken by potential victims analogous to precautions taken by potential rapists? I'm not sure they are.
I don't know why newspapers don't just run a daily sidebar on their front pages: Today's Mass Shootings. Like a weather report.
DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING: 1
Mass shootings are typically designated as 4 or more people. American newspapers would be at 1 almost perpetually.
I think a bit more expansion is needed: US inhabitants dead from gun violence this week: X. US inhabitants injured in gun violence this week: X. Victims under 18: X.
I wasn't talking about Pence anymore but talking to the people on this thread who think open door offices are a bad idea because "men should be able to control themselves."
In any case you don't know what Pence is thinking and I doubt very much that he feels he needs to keep the door open to "protect himself from raping." I think he's protecting himself from false accusations or gossip.
... 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 wasn't talking about Pence anymore but talking to the people on this thread who think open door offices are a bad idea because "men should be able to control themselves."
Nobody on this thread has said open door offices are a bad idea.
... 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 wasn't talking about Pence anymore but talking to the people on this thread who think open door offices are a bad idea because "men should be able to control themselves."
In any case you don't know what Pence is thinking and I doubt very much that he feels he needs to keep the door open to "protect himself from raping." I think he's protecting himself from false accusations or gossip.
I don't. Given his stated beliefs and policies, it is likely more misogynist and plays well with his base. The accusations and gossip angle is just a side benefit.
I wasn't talking about Pence anymore but talking to the people on this thread who think open door offices are a bad idea because "men should be able to control themselves."
Nobody on this thread has said open door offices are a bad idea.
Open door for everyone, male of female would be equal and fair. Unfortunately, not everyone works in situations where this is always workable.
Bringing men to the realisation that they have responsibility for themselves and that there is no excuse for harassment is part of the solution.
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 reject the assumption that people are inherently more abusive in non-professional jobs.
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 reject the assumption that people are inherently more abusive in non-professional jobs.
I didn't mean that at all, but that low wage workers in factories and mines etc, have a history of enduring all sorts of abuse from the bosses because their poverty makes them more vulnerable and powerless.
I was church treasurer for a few years and didn't see the pastor doing one minute of that sort of care in the church office.
Of course you didn't. And if you'd given it a single moment's consideration, you'd know exactly why.
And if you gave it a moment's consideration, you'd know that I was making that assumption because I never saw his office door closed and it was just across from mine.
BTW, did the potus find the right cities, on which to unload his Thoughts, and Prayers? And is Pence the Pious still on his knees, sending his Ts & Ps?
BBC News reckoned that the potus found El Paso, where the crowds of protestors outnumbered the local potus-fanciers.
Mind you, being so close to the Land Of The Bad Hombres, and probably stuffed to overflowing with Horrid Brown People, no surprise there, perhaps.
I'm not being cryptic at all. You're putting a man's over-developed sense of propriety over women's employment rights.
I'm saying that's a bad thing.
You inexplicably seem to think that confidential pastoral conversations should be held in open-door rooms. I would be horrified to know that went on. When I worked as a church administrator, all such conversations were held between those who needed to know, in private, behind closed doors. I certainly was never put in the embarrassing situation of blundering into such conversations - an open door means staff can enter and interupt.
So: Pence will never employ a woman in a position of responsibility that might entail her having a private, confidential meeting with her boss, and you're okay with that.
I'm not okay with that. I don't believe that. I think it's perfectly possible to keep to a policy of "never be alone with a woman," and still employ women in positions of responsibility.
Your daily gun violence briefing: Mass Shootings* since Dayton:
8/4 Chicago, IL 7 injured
8/4 Memphis, TN 1 killed, 3 injured
8/4 Chicago, IL 1 killed, 7 injured
8/5 Brooklyn, NY 4 injured
8/5 Suitland, MD 1 killed, 3 injured
8/6 Detroit, MI 4 injured
8/7 St. Louis, MO 2 killed, 2 injured
*4 or more people killed or wounded
This is frightening stuff - are 'mass shootings' really this frequent in America?
We here on Piffle Island tend, I suppose, to only hear about the 'big' massacres, seemingly every other month or so.
That's only the mass shootings.
Yesterday, Wednesday 8/7/19:
21 deaths from gun violence (including a 15-y.o. boy)
37 injuries from gun violence
Incidents in 26 states (actually, there were many more incidents than this, but a fair number produced no deaths or injuries).
I'm not okay with that. I don't believe that. I think it's perfectly possible to keep to a policy of "never be alone with a woman," and still employ women in positions of responsibility.
And I'm calling bullshit on that. You can try and justify your reasoning, but I reckon you're going to struggle.
I'm not okay with that. I don't believe that. I think it's perfectly possible to keep to a policy of "never be alone with a woman," and still employ women in positions of responsibility.
Men in leadership positions could go back to the medieval custom of employing deaf men to stand in the room: they could not hear but could watch for shenanigans. It's just that back then it was shenanigans on the part of the visitor, not the boss.
Your daily gun violence briefing: Mass Shootings* since Dayton:
8/4 Chicago, IL 7 injured
8/4 Memphis, TN 1 killed, 3 injured
8/4 Chicago, IL 1 killed, 7 injured
8/5 Brooklyn, NY 4 injured
8/5 Suitland, MD 1 killed, 3 injured
8/6 Detroit, MI 4 injured
8/7 St. Louis, MO 2 killed, 2 injured
*4 or more people killed or wounded
This is frightening stuff - are 'mass shootings' really this frequent in America?
We here on Piffle Island tend, I suppose, to only hear about the 'big' massacres, seemingly every other month or so.
That's only the mass shootings.
Yesterday, Wednesday 8/7/19:
21 deaths from gun violence (including a 15-y.o. boy)
37 injuries from gun violence
Incidents in 26 states (actually, there were many more incidents than this, but a fair number produced no deaths or injuries).
All info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.Org
The official CDC figure for 2017 (last year of complete data I think) is 40,000 gun deaths in the USA. That's 110 per day.
Around two thirds are suicide apparently. Which is fundamentally tragic. As I've said before most suicide is impulsive- remove the means and slash the suicide rate.
With 110 deaths per day, it's easy to see how very few firearm deaths make headlines. WIth so many incidents with 4 or more deaths, it's easy to see why only the big numbers make headlines.
So common as to numb the shock. So tragic and devastating for the families of the victims.
Deaf-mute eunuchs, for those really important meetings...
You must have been surprised when most doctors quit doing pap tests on women while the two were alone. They didn't start denying medical care to women, they didn't hire eunuchs, they simply started having a nurse present.
I would think the Vice President would usually have a confidential secretary present during most meetings, whether with men or women.
This conversation is based on a false statement to begin with. What Pence actually said was
that he had a policy of not dining alone with women.
The MeToo movement started a policy of "believe all women" when they say a man tried to sexually assault them. In such a climate I think it only makes sense for men to protect themselves a little. It's not their own urges they're afraid of, it's someone on the other side setting them up for instant ruin.
Deaf-mute eunuchs, for those really important meetings...
You must have been surprised when most doctors quit doing pap tests on women while the two were alone. They didn't start denying medical care to women, they didn't hire eunuchs, they simply started having a nurse present.
Not at all surprised, because I'm not a fucking idiot and I recognise a false equivalence when I see one.
I would think the Vice President would usually have a confidential secretary present during most meetings, whether with men or women.
And would that confidential secretary be a man? Or could that post be held by a woman? Is it in fact okay to be alone with two women? Enquiring minds would like to know.
This conversation is based on a false statement to begin with. What Pence actually said was that he had a policy of not dining alone with women.
Yes, we know that, and we're just taking the piss out of him, the theocratic pencil-necked vice-king of the USA.
The MeToo movement started a policy of "believe all women" when they say a man tried to sexually assault them. In such a climate I think it only makes sense for men to protect themselves a little. It's not their own urges they're afraid of, it's someone on the other side setting them up for instant ruin.
I worked in an environment where there were two other male members of staff, and thirty women, and I found the best way not to be accused of harrassment was to not do any harrassing. Worked like a charm, and I didn't even have to blame women who had been harrassed by men for wanting a work place free of harrassment.
You really do hold some extraordinarily snake-belly low opinions, don't you?
This conversation is based on a false statement to begin with. What Pence actually said was that he had a policy of not dining alone with women.
Yes, we know that, and we're just taking the piss out of him, the theocratic pencil-necked vice-king of the USA.
FWIW: None of the statements on this thread against his policy sounds like the poster is taking the piss, IMHO. Especially posts that insist on bringing rape into the equation.
I know this is Hell; but even here, that's a pretty serious thing to say when (AFAIK) there've been no allegations, and rape isn't remotely funny.
If you're going to trash someone, at least do it about things they've actually done, or propose to do.
US Deaths by gun violence Thursday, 8/8/19
17
US Injuries by gun violence Thursday, 8/8/19:
48
Incidents in 25 states*
*Does not include shootings with no casualties
DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING**: 1
**4 or more deaths/injuries to victims
f you're going to trash someone, at least do it about things they've actually done, or propose to do.
The conversation has moved on to whether Pence could possibly employ - using federal monies - a woman in any kind of role that involved working closely and confidentially with him.
Certainly here in the UK it is completely illegal (barring a few, explicit exceptions ) to argue that I couldn't, say, have a woman PA because I'm scared someone might gossip about me. Employment opportunities, especially those involving public money, should be open to all, regardless of sex or gender.
So when it comes to things Pence has done, it's a reasonable supposition, given his public pronouncements, that this is going to be one of the things he's done.
Are you really suggesting that rape is something that Pence can be reasonably supposed to have done? I think I must be missing something, but I am trying in vain to find another way of interpreting your reply to GK.
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.
Here's the concern, expressed by GK, that brings rape into the equation: "At least, Pence's rule probably keeps him from being a #MeToo perpetrator."
Not all #MeToo complaints were about rape; some were about other forms of assault and/or harassment. But rape is certainly included in that list. In case you suppose that rape is relatively rare, here are some statistics from RAINN:
RAINN estimates that, out of 1,000 sexual assaults, roughly 230 get reported to police. Of those 230, 46 lead to arrest. This number is so low because police often simply don’t believe victims and do little or no investigation. Recent scandals over hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits in state after state across the US testify to this ingrained institutional skepticism toward sexual assault victims.
The disbelief doesn’t stop there. Only 9 of the 46 arrests will be referred for prosecution. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors are elected to office, and elections are won on track records. A prosecutor seeking job security is motivated to proceed only with cases that look like sure bets.
Of the 9 cases – out of the original 1,000 sexual assaults – that get prosecuted, 5 will result in a felony conviction with jail time. It’s hardly surprising that sexual assault victims report as infrequently as they do. Aside from the stigma attached, victims often say they didn’t report from fear that no one would believe them. (Being disbelieved when truthfully reporting, as I can personally testify, is pretty traumatizing.) Apparently, that’s not just a fear; it’s cold, hard reality.
Are you really suggesting that rape is something that Pence can be reasonably supposed to have done? I think I must be missing something, but I am trying in vain to find another way of interpreting your reply to GK.
No, deliberately not employing women because they scare him.
The “Pence rule” made headlines earlier this year when a Washington Post profile of Karen Pence cited a 2002 interview stating that Vice President Pence makes it a point to never dine alone with a woman who is not his wife, or attend events where alcohol might be served without her there.
ISTM that protects women, protects his and their reputations, and shows he's consciously trying to avoid any opportunity for temptation in that area. Someone mentioned, upthread, that there are all sorts of other temptations around him, like power, and why isn't he worried about them. Maybe they aren't currently major issues for him. He's taking care of one that is, whether it's about actions, fantasies, or reputation. Many Christians automatically view sexual sins (even totally consensual, etc. or just in a person's mind) as the worst. And there are Biblical instructions to avoid temptation. AFAICS, that's why he's got the rule.
And that does not mean, in any way, that his temptation is rape. But if it were, it would be great that he was taking conscious, mindful steps to avoid it.
That he doesn't view his position as vice president of the USA as any way a temptation to enact his Dominionist views to overthrow the Republic and recind the constitution... oh, wait.
Jesus. The motherfucker is a misogynist bastard who cares more about the bullshit optics of his conservative, misogynist base than respecting women or dodging "temptation".
ISTM that protects women, protects his and their reputations, and shows he's consciously trying to avoid any opportunity for temptation in that area. Someone mentioned, upthread, that there are all sorts of other temptations around him, like power, and why isn't he worried about them. Maybe they aren't currently major issues for him.
The "someone upthread" would be me. Because, as we've all heard a thousand times, sexual assault, in all its forms, is about power (at least for the assaulter; that's not necessarily all that's involved for the victim, but let that go for now). So if Pence is in fact (and I don't know that he is) attempting to exert control over his own "actions, fantasies, or reputation," then he has unhealthy issues with power and, as Ruth noted earlier, is not fit to serve.
And let's just have a little think about that last bit -- reputation -- shall we?
I note it's only women he won't dine alone with, and Mother must accompany him to any event where alcohol is served. (Is Demon Drink a temptation too? Let that go for now too.)
If it's his reputation he wants to guard -- say, against a false accusation -- it's perfectly possible for a male subordinate to accuse our friendly neighborhood Dominionist of harassment, of inappropriate touching, or what-have-you. Pence's assumed hetero status is no more protection against an accusation from another man than it is from a woman. But it's only women he avoids; apparently he's fine dining alone with one of the boys. So I do not buy for one minute the rubbish about protecting his reputation. This is Trump's Washington D.C. If you want to protect your reputation, buy yourself a little cabin in the woods of northern Maine, lay in a year's supply of wood, rice, beans, flour, dried salt cod, and coffee and go off-grid. Drop your phone off a bridge somewhere en route to your destination.
As to his actions and fantasies when alone with a woman, please. An adult male unable to manage his words, thoughts, and actions in the presence of an adult woman is, as Ruth noted earlier, not fit to serve. As Doc Tor noted above, the best way to "protect" women is not by avoiding women; it's by not harassing or assaulting them.
If it's his reputation he wants to guard -- say, against a false accusation -- it's perfectly possible for a male subordinate to accuse our friendly neighborhood Dominionist of harassment, of inappropriate touching, or what-have-you.
I don't think the MeToo movement has granted men the same "believe whatever they say" status that women have been granted.
Then many Christians would do well to pay better attention to their Gospels.
I think it's interesting that whenever a Christian worries about one sin he's reprimanded for not worrying about another one. Jesus made it clear that we are not to fornicate, lust, or commit adultery. He also said a lot of other things, but most of those aren't so concrete or easy to avoid. I wish I could shut a door and make anger stay out.
I know next to nothing about Pence, he stands behind Trump nodding agreement and makes apologies for him to the press and that alone is enough to make me dislike him, but in this case I expect he simply admires Billy Graham, as most evangelicals do, and thought he would take a tip from him in how to help protect his reputation regarding infidelity. Just that simple.
I've sometimes thought that PBS Newshour should display an honor roll of Americans killed by gunshot after the news like they used to do with people killed in Iraq.
Comments
Did you not read the words "most of?" What pastors do you know who spend the majority of their time doing "intimate pastoral care?" I was church treasurer for a few years and didn't see the pastor doing one minute of that sort of care in the church office. Of course there will always be exceptions but most subjects can be talked about quietly with the office door open, or with a third party present. There have been far too many occasions when "intimate pastoral care," became something it shouldn't. Even my doctor usually has a nurse present for certain types of exams.
You can't ever disagree without making it personal and nasty, can you?
You have flipped the roles. In Mike's thinking, he's trying to protect himself from raping. In your scenario here, it's the victim that you are suggesting take precautions. Are precautions taken by potential victims analogous to precautions taken by potential rapists? I'm not sure they are.
I think a bit more expansion is needed: US inhabitants dead from gun violence this week: X. US inhabitants injured in gun violence this week: X. Victims under 18: X.
As I said, a sort of weather report.
In any case you don't know what Pence is thinking and I doubt very much that he feels he needs to keep the door open to "protect himself from raping." I think he's protecting himself from false accusations or gossip.
Nobody on this thread has said open door offices are a bad idea.
Thanks, Ross. That is heartening.
Bringing men to the realisation that they have responsibility for themselves and that there is no excuse for harassment is part of the solution.
I reject the assumption that people are inherently more abusive in non-professional jobs.
I reserve my finest approbrium for those who are spectacularly and wilfully dense. You barely stir the waters.
I didn't mean that at all, but that low wage workers in factories and mines etc, have a history of enduring all sorts of abuse from the bosses because their poverty makes them more vulnerable and powerless.
And if you gave it a moment's consideration, you'd know that I was making that assumption because I never saw his office door closed and it was just across from mine.
BBC News reckoned that the potus found El Paso, where the crowds of protestors outnumbered the local potus-fanciers.
Mind you, being so close to the Land Of The Bad Hombres, and probably stuffed to overflowing with Horrid Brown People, no surprise there, perhaps.
8/4 Chicago, IL 7 injured
8/4 Memphis, TN 1 killed, 3 injured
8/4 Chicago, IL 1 killed, 7 injured
8/5 Brooklyn, NY 4 injured
8/5 Suitland, MD 1 killed, 3 injured
8/6 Detroit, MI 4 injured
8/7 St. Louis, MO 2 killed, 2 injured
*4 or more people killed or wounded
I wonder if the potus knows where any of those cities are?
I'm not being cryptic at all. You're putting a man's over-developed sense of propriety over women's employment rights.
I'm saying that's a bad thing.
You inexplicably seem to think that confidential pastoral conversations should be held in open-door rooms. I would be horrified to know that went on. When I worked as a church administrator, all such conversations were held between those who needed to know, in private, behind closed doors. I certainly was never put in the embarrassing situation of blundering into such conversations - an open door means staff can enter and interupt.
So: Pence will never employ a woman in a position of responsibility that might entail her having a private, confidential meeting with her boss, and you're okay with that.
This is frightening stuff - are 'mass shootings' really this frequent in America?
We here on Piffle Island tend, I suppose, to only hear about the 'big' massacres, seemingly every other month or so.
That's only the mass shootings.
Yesterday, Wednesday 8/7/19:
21 deaths from gun violence (including a 15-y.o. boy)
37 injuries from gun violence
Incidents in 26 states (actually, there were many more incidents than this, but a fair number produced no deaths or injuries).
All info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.Org
And I'm calling bullshit on that. You can try and justify your reasoning, but I reckon you're going to struggle.
Men in leadership positions could go back to the medieval custom of employing deaf men to stand in the room: they could not hear but could watch for shenanigans. It's just that back then it was shenanigans on the part of the visitor, not the boss.
The official CDC figure for 2017 (last year of complete data I think) is 40,000 gun deaths in the USA. That's 110 per day.
Around two thirds are suicide apparently. Which is fundamentally tragic. As I've said before most suicide is impulsive- remove the means and slash the suicide rate.
With 110 deaths per day, it's easy to see how very few firearm deaths make headlines. WIth so many incidents with 4 or more deaths, it's easy to see why only the big numbers make headlines.
So common as to numb the shock. So tragic and devastating for the families of the victims.
AFZ
I would think the Vice President would usually have a confidential secretary present during most meetings, whether with men or women.
This conversation is based on a false statement to begin with. What Pence actually said was
that he had a policy of not dining alone with women.
The MeToo movement started a policy of "believe all women" when they say a man tried to sexually assault them. In such a climate I think it only makes sense for men to protect themselves a little. It's not their own urges they're afraid of, it's someone on the other side setting them up for instant ruin.
And would that confidential secretary be a man? Or could that post be held by a woman? Is it in fact okay to be alone with two women? Enquiring minds would like to know.
Yes, we know that, and we're just taking the piss out of him, the theocratic pencil-necked vice-king of the USA.
I worked in an environment where there were two other male members of staff, and thirty women, and I found the best way not to be accused of harrassment was to not do any harrassing. Worked like a charm, and I didn't even have to blame women who had been harrassed by men for wanting a work place free of harrassment.
You really do hold some extraordinarily snake-belly low opinions, don't you?
"Man asked Walmart salesperson to help him find something 'that would kill 200 people'" (Yahoo).
FWIW: None of the statements on this thread against his policy sounds like the poster is taking the piss, IMHO. Especially posts that insist on bringing rape into the equation.
I know this is Hell; but even here, that's a pretty serious thing to say when (AFAIK) there've been no allegations, and rape isn't remotely funny.
If you're going to trash someone, at least do it about things they've actually done, or propose to do.
US Deaths by gun violence Thursday, 8/8/19
17
US Injuries by gun violence Thursday, 8/8/19:
48
Incidents in 25 states*
*Does not include shootings with no casualties
DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING**: 1
**4 or more deaths/injuries to victims
Information courtesy of GunViolenceArchive.org
The conversation has moved on to whether Pence could possibly employ - using federal monies - a woman in any kind of role that involved working closely and confidentially with him.
Certainly here in the UK it is completely illegal (barring a few, explicit exceptions ) to argue that I couldn't, say, have a woman PA because I'm scared someone might gossip about me. Employment opportunities, especially those involving public money, should be open to all, regardless of sex or gender.
So when it comes to things Pence has done, it's a reasonable supposition, given his public pronouncements, that this is going to be one of the things he's done.
Here's the concern, expressed by GK, that brings rape into the equation: "At least, Pence's rule probably keeps him from being a #MeToo perpetrator."
Not all #MeToo complaints were about rape; some were about other forms of assault and/or harassment. But rape is certainly included in that list. In case you suppose that rape is relatively rare, here are some statistics from RAINN:
RAINN estimates that, out of 1,000 sexual assaults, roughly 230 get reported to police. Of those 230, 46 lead to arrest. This number is so low because police often simply don’t believe victims and do little or no investigation. Recent scandals over hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits in state after state across the US testify to this ingrained institutional skepticism toward sexual assault victims.
The disbelief doesn’t stop there. Only 9 of the 46 arrests will be referred for prosecution. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors are elected to office, and elections are won on track records. A prosecutor seeking job security is motivated to proceed only with cases that look like sure bets.
Of the 9 cases – out of the original 1,000 sexual assaults – that get prosecuted, 5 will result in a felony conviction with jail time. It’s hardly surprising that sexual assault victims report as infrequently as they do. Aside from the stigma attached, victims often say they didn’t report from fear that no one would believe them. (Being disbelieved when truthfully reporting, as I can personally testify, is pretty traumatizing.) Apparently, that’s not just a fear; it’s cold, hard reality.
No, deliberately not employing women because they scare him.
Ummm...I'm not sure whether you're disagreeing with me, or agreeing, or what. (Sorry if I'm dense--multi-day bad migraine.)
FYI: I'm familiar with RAINN, and I periodically link to it on relevant threads. I take sexual assault, of any type, seriously.
Vox, in an article that's actually the opposite of what I think, says:
ISTM that protects women, protects his and their reputations, and shows he's consciously trying to avoid any opportunity for temptation in that area. Someone mentioned, upthread, that there are all sorts of other temptations around him, like power, and why isn't he worried about them. Maybe they aren't currently major issues for him. He's taking care of one that is, whether it's about actions, fantasies, or reputation. Many Christians automatically view sexual sins (even totally consensual, etc. or just in a person's mind) as the worst. And there are Biblical instructions to avoid temptation. AFAICS, that's why he's got the rule.
And that does not mean, in any way, that his temptation is rape. But if it were, it would be great that he was taking conscious, mindful steps to avoid it.
The "someone upthread" would be me. Because, as we've all heard a thousand times, sexual assault, in all its forms, is about power (at least for the assaulter; that's not necessarily all that's involved for the victim, but let that go for now). So if Pence is in fact (and I don't know that he is) attempting to exert control over his own "actions, fantasies, or reputation," then he has unhealthy issues with power and, as Ruth noted earlier, is not fit to serve.
And let's just have a little think about that last bit -- reputation -- shall we?
I note it's only women he won't dine alone with, and Mother must accompany him to any event where alcohol is served. (Is Demon Drink a temptation too? Let that go for now too.)
If it's his reputation he wants to guard -- say, against a false accusation -- it's perfectly possible for a male subordinate to accuse our friendly neighborhood Dominionist of harassment, of inappropriate touching, or what-have-you. Pence's assumed hetero status is no more protection against an accusation from another man than it is from a woman. But it's only women he avoids; apparently he's fine dining alone with one of the boys. So I do not buy for one minute the rubbish about protecting his reputation. This is Trump's Washington D.C. If you want to protect your reputation, buy yourself a little cabin in the woods of northern Maine, lay in a year's supply of wood, rice, beans, flour, dried salt cod, and coffee and go off-grid. Drop your phone off a bridge somewhere en route to your destination.
As to his actions and fantasies when alone with a woman, please. An adult male unable to manage his words, thoughts, and actions in the presence of an adult woman is, as Ruth noted earlier, not fit to serve. As Doc Tor noted above, the best way to "protect" women is not by avoiding women; it's by not harassing or assaulting them.
Then many Christians would do well to pay better attention to their Gospels.
86,400 seconds in a year. If you wanted to flash up each name for 2 seconds, you'd need a day just for the 2018 victims.