Kids against gun violence

[Serk]

Exactly how is the appearance of a man and woman in a meeting wrong ?

The same way you'd never be caught alone, in a locked room, with a cash till. You'd WANT another, third person present, to remove even the appearance of inproprietary.

[MAD6Gun]

Contrary to what some think, I don't hate the guy at all. I do find him to set aside his morals frequently for political gain. I've been in many rooms with women without my wife there. Was not tempted to do something wrong. Hell, I've been in more than a few Strip Clubs and was able to control myself.

As Gavin said, it's not about controlling oneself.  It's more about avoiding the appearance of wrong and protecting oneself against the accusation.  As one who attends Strip Clubs you may be one whose moral standards would interfere with your understanding.   

Since it’s been over 30 years since I’ve been in one, I think my understanding is just fine. Exactly how is the appearance of a man and woman in a meeting wrong ? And how is it one with such high moral standards is ok being partners with an admitted philanderer ?

 Feel that burn meathead. That is Willow messing with ya. Why is it a big deal that Pence doesn't meet with women alone?  Big deal. Is it hard for you to understand that there are still some people that still have high moral standards in this day and age? As far as Pence being Trump's running mate. Your are right Trumps moral compass is off no doubt. But we didn't elect him for his moral standards. If you have a problem with that maybe you should ask Al Gore how he felt being running mate to a morally bankrupted, womanizing,rapist,corrupted POS of a president.......

[The emperor has no clothes]

No burning sensation here 

[Willow]

As Gavin said, it's not about controlling oneself.  It's more about avoiding the appearance of wrong and protecting oneself against the accusation.  As one who attends Strip Clubs you may be one whose moral standards would interfere with your understanding.  

Since it’s been over 30 years since I’ve been in one, I think my understanding is just fine. Exactly how is the appearance of a man and woman in a meeting wrong ? And how is it one with such high moral standards is ok being partners with an admitted philanderer ?

It looks like the question marks demonstrate the accuracy of my assessment.    Well, excepting the last one.  It's your understanding that one who has not cheated should never be in business (or politics) with one who has? That being the case I assume you hold the belief that the VRCC and I should not hold our relationship.

For what it's worth I was going to vote against Hillary anyway but when President Trump chose Mike Pence as his vice presidential candidate I was even more enthused.

You may want of work on your understanding of hate.  It is more applicable often to a desire for ill than to an intense emotion.  

[3fan4life]

Mike Pence's policy of not being in a room alone with a woman other than his wife is a very smart one.

It may seem prudish to many but in this day of "He said, She said" it's a very inexpensive insurance policy.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where even a mere accusation is career ending, " Guilty until proven innocent and even then you're still screwed".


As far as his association with Trump.

There is the possibility that Pence's input and direction will help President Trump to improve upon his moral character.

[The emperor has no clothes]

As far as his association with Trump.

There is the possibility that Pence's input and direction will help President Trump to improve upon his moral character.

  and pigs will start flying

[3fan4life]

As far as his association with Trump.

There is the possibility that Pence's input and direction will help President Trump to improve upon his moral character.

  and pigs will start flying

You never know..........

[The emperor has no clothes]

As far as his association with Trump.

There is the possibility that Pence's input and direction will help President Trump to improve upon his moral character.

  and pigs will start flying

You never know..........

[The emperor has no clothes]

As Gavin said, it's not about controlling oneself.  It's more about avoiding the appearance of wrong and protecting oneself against the accusation.  As one who attends Strip Clubs you may be one whose moral standards would interfere with your understanding.  

Since it’s been over 30 years since I’ve been in one, I think my understanding is just fine. Exactly how is the appearance of a man and woman in a meeting wrong ? And how is it one with such high moral standards is ok being partners with an admitted philanderer ?

It looks like the question marks demonstrate the accuracy of my assessment.    Well, excepting the last one.  It's your understanding that one who has not cheated should never be in business (or politics) with one who has? That being the case I assume you hold the belief that the VRCC and I should not hold our relationship.

For what it's worth I was going to vote against Hillary anyway but when President Trump chose Mike Pence as his vice presidential candidate I was even more enthused.

You may want of work on your understanding of hate.  It is more applicable often to a desire for ill than to an intense emotion.  

Your importance to our country as an officer of the VRCC is just a notch below Trump’s or Pence’s. (No disrespect intended) . No desires for ills either. 

[..]

Mike Pence's policy of not being in a room alone with a woman other than his wife is a very smart one.

It may seem prudish to many but in this day of "He said, She said" it's a very inexpensive insurance policy.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where even a mere accusation is career ending, " Guilty until proven innocent and even then you're still screwed".

Wha? Wha? You mean! No, surely not.

Really? Noooooo.

It can't be that easy to understand! Can it?

It does seem that a simple wording of language has to be used to get an understanding of a simple premise. Thank you for choosing to go where others couldn't be bothered.

Let's hope your words are clearly understood by those who need them.

[The emperor has no clothes]

For those that actually care to understand it a little better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/03/30/the-religious-reasons-mike-pence-wont-eat-alone-with-women-dont-add-up/?utm_term=.47524e5899ae

[..]

For those that actually care to understand it a little better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/03/30/the-religious-reasons-mike-pence-wont-eat-alone-with-women-dont-add-up/?utm_term=.47524e5899ae

Good grief.

The author has not spoken with Pence.
The author has not questioned Pence.

Etc etc etc.

We are supposed to sit back in amazement and wonder at a load of suppositions???

Too many need to get a real life and connect with the real word that is right in front of them instead of fantasies.

[Willow]

For those that actually care to understand it a little better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/03/30/the-religious-reasons-mike-pence-wont-eat-alone-with-women-dont-add-up/?utm_term=.47524e5899ae

Those who actually care to understand better will get no closer down that road.  The article is heavily slanted and very biased.  Further, the author understands the purpose of the rule no better than do you. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

For those that actually care to understand it a little better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/03/30/the-religious-reasons-mike-pence-wont-eat-alone-with-women-dont-add-up/?utm_term=.47524e5899ae

Those who actually care to understand better will get no closer down that road.  The article is heavily slanted and very biased.  Further, the author understands the purpose of the rule no better than do you. 

The author of the article is explaining its flaws from a woman’s perspective. I don’t think she was trying to address its purpose.

[3fan4life]

So, you quote an article from the Washington Post written by a female reporter and we are supposed to overlook the obvious bias and accept it as the Gospel Truth?

And even her slant seems to be that it's only wrong because he isn't acting in the capacity of a minister.

The obvious solution to any of her objections is to simply insist that a third party always be present when meeting with someone of the opposite gender.

I'm fairly certain that Mike Pence is intelligent enough to have figured that one out for himself.

[Willow]

For those that actually care to understand it a little better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/03/30/the-religious-reasons-mike-pence-wont-eat-alone-with-women-dont-add-up/?utm_term=.47524e5899ae

Those who actually care to understand better will get no closer down that road.  The article is heavily slanted and very biased.  Further, the author understands the purpose of the rule no better than do you.  

The author of the article is explaining its flaws from ONE woman’s perspective. I don’t think she was trying to address its purpose.

I fixed it for you.  I was kind enough not to insert the qualifier unqualified.

[headpeon]

You guys are right, we do see things differently.

Has not the stock market went up considerably the last few years with quite a few added jobs and 401K's gaining value, that is if you have one.

I just threw that # out there about gas but you know for a fact, we go into another stupid mid-east war that oil will go up and we all be paying quite a bit more for gas. To think otherwise is foolish.

Yes I think this president is a charlatan and a buffoon but I guess that's ok as long as he's a republican. And, robot Pence, I'm from Indiana and we were so glad to get rid of him. If there was ever a hypocrite.

Well, I am from Indiana and I am proud of him. You seem to think you are the only one from Indiana that counts. I thought he was the best. I voted for Trump knowing he had Pence. And I know a ton from Indiana that felt the same

I wouldn't say that as I know I'm in minority is this red-neck state. Like I've said before, we all look thru a different set of glasses. You see a great man where I see nothing but a hypocrite that didn't do a whole lot for Indiana and even doing less now.

[MAD6Gun]

You guys are right, we do see things differently.

Has not the stock market went up considerably the last few years with quite a few added jobs and 401K's gaining value, that is if you have one.

I just threw that # out there about gas but you know for a fact, we go into another stupid mid-east war that oil will go up and we all be paying quite a bit more for gas. To think otherwise is foolish.

Yes I think this president is a charlatan and a buffoon but I guess that's ok as long as he's a republican. And, robot Pence, I'm from Indiana and we were so glad to get rid of him. If there was ever a hypocrite.

Well, I am from Indiana and I am proud of him. You seem to think you are the only one from Indiana that counts. I thought he was the best. I voted for Trump knowing he had Pence. And I know a ton from Indiana that felt the same

I wouldn't say that as I know I'm in minority is this red-neck state. Like I've said before, we all look thru a different set of glasses. You see a great man where I see nothing but a hypocrite that didn't do a whole lot for Indiana and even doing less now.

 Well if you don't like it here feel free to move west to Illinois. Your liberbable would be welcome there.

  You want to explain to me how Mike Pence is a hypocrite?

[The emperor has no clothes]

For those that actually care to understand it a little better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/03/30/the-religious-reasons-mike-pence-wont-eat-alone-with-women-dont-add-up/?utm_term=.47524e5899ae

Those who actually care to understand better will get no closer down that road.  The article is heavily slanted and very biased.  Further, the author understands the purpose of the rule no better than do you.  

The author of the article is explaining its flaws from ONE woman’s perspective. I don’t think she was trying to address its purpose.

I fixed it for you.  I was kind enough not to insert the qualifier unqualified.

Your kindness is beyond reproach. But I believe my vocabulary to be correct. I said “a” and not “the”. But, thanks for the effort. 

[Gryphon Rider]

I'm a little curious how the topic of this thread morphed from "kids against gun violence" to Pence's Rule, but I really don't want to bother reading four pages of replies to satiate my curiosity.  Please, don't anyone feel obligated to give me a synopsis of the discussion.

Anyhow, I noticed there was some back-and-forth between Willow and meathead, two intelligent guys, so I've read the last handful of replies and thought I'd give my two (or twelve) cents about the new topic that, to me, is more interesting.

For those that actually care to understand it a little better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/03/30/the-religious-reasons-mike-pence-wont-eat-alone-with-women-dont-add-up/?utm_term=.47524e5899ae

I don't think Laura Turner's article adds to understanding, but rather adds confusion to the discussion around Pence's (and others') personal policy (commonly known as the Billy Graham Rule) of not privately meeting one-on-one with individuals of the opposite sex, because it throws out several red herrings:

Red Herring #1. "The Billy Graham Rule risks reducing women to sexual temptations, objects, things to be avoided. It perpetuates an old boys’ club mentality, excluding women from important work and career conversations simply by virtue of their sex."

The Rule doesn't prevent Pence from meeting with women, but rather makes it clear that his intentions are honourable, and that there will not be an opportunity to misunderstand that the purpose of the meeting is anything other than honourable.  By going to the trouble of arranging the setting of a meeting so that the less powerful of the two (in this case, the woman) has no worry of ill intentions, she can relax and be free to exchange ideas, knowing that he is listening to her rather than planning how to seduce her.  There's no reason not to have an assistant at the table, or even at another table far enough away to prevent eavesdropping but to still allow observation of body language.  In other words, it's not difficult for Pence to do business with women without hobbling limitations.

A couple of years ago I had a task that required me to gather the opinions of various people within my church, and there was one young lady that I particularly wanted to hear from, because it was clear she was very concerned about the issue at hand.  I told her that I wanted to meet with her for dinner to discuss the issue, but that I wanted her to bring someone with her to the meeting.  She brought her sister-in-law, and we had a very productive conversation.  The end result was not that she felt excluded, but rather that what she had to say was actually heard.

Red Herring #2. "The Billy Graham Rule also denies the reality of LGBT people. As a friend pointed out to me: Should a bisexual person refuse to ever be alone with anyone, full stop? Should a male pastor refuse to meet one-on-one with a gay man? As with so many policies in the evangelical church, the Billy Graham Rule assumes heteronormativity, furthering the idea that people who are LGBT are people “out there,” not an essential part of the church."

All good rules are intended to deal with the vast majority of situations that the rule would be applied to.  This intention does not, by it's practise, assume that there are not situations where the rule needs to be bent, suspended, or even exceeded.  The issue of LGBT people and their being an essential part of the church really is a red herring regarding this topic, but to refocus on the Rule, let's assume that Pence needs to have a discussion with a gay man.  The purpose of Pence's rule is to protect his marriage and his reputation.  If his wife were concerned that he might also be attracted to men, then perhaps his rule should forbid private meetings with gay men, or with any man far less powerful than him.  But neither he nor his wife believe that homosexuality is a temptation for him, then the Rule shouldn't apply; his marriage isn't in jeopardy, and even in today's society the reputation of an obviously straight man isn't threatened by occasional meetings with men known to be gay.

A man younger than myself recently started attending my church who, to the casual observer, gave off a gay vibe.  Neither my wife, nor I, had any qualms about my meeting him at a coffee shop to start to get to know him.

I highly doubt that a person who is bisexual would be inclined to adopt the Billy Graham Rule as a personal practice, although I can't claim to have a deep, or for that matter empathetic, understanding of their ethical system.

Red Herring #3. "But can you imagine a professional woman refusing to meet one-on-one with her male colleagues? “Sorry, Jack, but we can’t talk alone in this conference room. You might rape me!” In 80 percent of sexual assaults, the victim knows the assailant, and 8 percent of rapes happen at work, yet I’ve never heard of a woman in the workplace — let alone the church — refusing to meet with a man."

Turner, here, is building a ridiculous straw man to bravely skewer.  First of all, it's really not hard for people to have a private meeting in an office environment, where any modern office has meeting rooms with windows.  If a professional woman is concerned that a private meeting threatens her personal safety, she should arrange that meeting to take place in a safer environment.  I don't think it would be outrageous for a woman to say, "My husband and I have agreed that neither of us will have private business meetings with individuals of the opposite sex."

My boss recently told how he had snickered at Pence's Rule, but then had a one-on-one lunch meeting with a female representative of another company, that he didn't know very well, who was telling him about the troubles in her marriage, obviously fishing for him to make a move on her.  After that meeting, he understood the wisdom of the Rule.

As for never hearing of a woman refusing to meet with a man, I'm sure that many not-obviously-attractive men can attest that it has happened on occasion, especially when the woman perceives she is more powerful than him.

[The emperor has no clothes]

All good points GR  But, it seems you are looking at it thru Pence’s rationale for having his rule. The author seems to expand it to why it’s not an equitable rule “in general” for women. I personally have no problem with Pence deciding who he is going to meet with. But, if he meets regularly with the head of HUD to discuss policies and so forth but meets infrequently with the head of another dept that has a woman in charge there will be somethings that slip by. In my opinion the real problem would occur in the workforce when CEO’s and bosses will meet and fraternize with the males but not the females. This would definitely put them at a disadvantage.
  As to how these threads take on a life of their own. Well, I’m not sure I could explain, but usually they are more interesting than the original topic.

[Gryphon Rider]

All good points GR   But, it seems you are looking at it thru Pence’s rationale for having his rule. The author seems to expand it to why it’s not an equitable rule “in general” for women. I personally have no problem with Pence deciding who he is going to meet with. But, if he meets regularly with the head of HUD to discuss policies and so forth but meets infrequently with the head of another dept that has a woman in charge there will be somethings that slip by. In my opinion the real problem would occur in the workforce when CEO’s and bosses will meet and fraternize with the males but not the females. This would definitely put them at a disadvantage.
  As to how these threads take on a life of their own. Well, I’m not sure I could explain, but usually they are more interesting than the original topic.

I think that when women are unfairly excluded from business meetings, it's rarely, if ever, because men are concerned about breaking the Billy Graham Rule.  I think it's more often that men sometimes, in their "business meetings" behave in ways they'd be embarrassed to have businesswomen observe.

[Gavin_Sons]

You guys are right, we do see things differently.

Has not the stock market went up considerably the last few years with quite a few added jobs and 401K's gaining value, that is if you have one.

I just threw that # out there about gas but you know for a fact, we go into another stupid mid-east war that oil will go up and we all be paying quite a bit more for gas. To think otherwise is foolish.

Yes I think this president is a charlatan and a buffoon but I guess that's ok as long as he's a republican. And, robot Pence, I'm from Indiana and we were so glad to get rid of him. If there was ever a hypocrite.

Well, I am from Indiana and I am proud of him. You seem to think you are the only one from Indiana that counts. I thought he was the best. I voted for Trump knowing he had Pence. And I know a ton from Indiana that felt the same

I wouldn't say that as I know I'm in minority is this red-neck state. Like I've said before, we all look thru a different set of glasses. You see a great man where I see nothing but a hypocrite that didn't do a whole lot for Indiana and even doing less now.

 Well if you don't like it here feel free to move west to Illinois. Your liberbable would be welcome there.

  You want to explain to me how Mike Pence is a hypocrite?

I wouldalso like to know. But not expecting an answer becaise I have asked him several things before just to be ignored. I would like to know what part of the stste he is from also. Guessing Gary area.

[The emperor has no clothes]

All good points GR   But, it seems you are looking at it thru Pence’s rationale for having his rule. The author seems to expand it to why it’s not an equitable rule “in general” for women. I personally have no problem with Pence deciding who he is going to meet with. But, if he meets regularly with the head of HUD to discuss policies and so forth but meets infrequently with the head of another dept that has a woman in charge there will be somethings that slip by. In my opinion the real problem would occur in the workforce when CEO’s and bosses will meet and fraternize with the males but not the females. This would definitely put them at a disadvantage.
  As to how these threads take on a life of their own. Well, I’m not sure I could explain, but usually they are more interesting than the original topic.

I think that when women are unfairly excluded from business meetings, it's rarely, if ever, because men are concerned about breaking the Billy Graham Rule.  I think it's more often that men sometimes, in their "business meetings" behave in ways they'd be embarrassed to have businesswomen observe.

Probably true. There seems to be many reasons women are excluded, some are just outright discrimination. I think we as a society should be working more towards inclusion vs. more exclusion.

[Motodad71]

All good points GR   But, it seems you are looking at it thru Pence’s rationale for having his rule. The author seems to expand it to why it’s not an equitable rule “in general” for women. I personally have no problem with Pence deciding who he is going to meet with. But, if he meets regularly with the head of HUD to discuss policies and so forth but meets infrequently with the head of another dept that has a woman in charge there will be somethings that slip by. In my opinion the real problem would occur in the workforce when CEO’s and bosses will meet and fraternize with the males but not the females. This would definitely put them at a disadvantage.
  As to how these threads take on a life of their own. Well, I’m not sure I could explain, but usually they are more interesting than the original topic.

I think that when women are unfairly excluded from business meetings, it's rarely, if ever, because men are concerned about breaking the Billy Graham Rule.  I think it's more often that men sometimes, in their "business meetings" behave in ways they'd be embarrassed to have businesswomen observe.

Probably true. There seems to be many reasons women are excluded, some are just outright discrimination. I think we as a society should be working more towards inclusion vs. more exclusion.

The amount of exclusion isn’t as high as you’re being manipulated to believe.

[The emperor has no clothes]

All good points GR   But, it seems you are looking at it thru Pence’s rationale for having his rule. The author seems to expand it to why it’s not an equitable rule “in general” for women. I personally have no problem with Pence deciding who he is going to meet with. But, if he meets regularly with the head of HUD to discuss policies and so forth but meets infrequently with the head of another dept that has a woman in charge there will be somethings that slip by. In my opinion the real problem would occur in the workforce when CEO’s and bosses will meet and fraternize with the males but not the females. This would definitely put them at a disadvantage.
  As to how these threads take on a life of their own. Well, I’m not sure I could explain, but usually they are more interesting than the original topic.

I think that when women are unfairly excluded from business meetings, it's rarely, if ever, because men are concerned about breaking the Billy Graham Rule.  I think it's more often that men sometimes, in their "business meetings" behave in ways they'd be embarrassed to have businesswomen observe.

Probably true. There seems to be many reasons women are excluded, some are just outright discrimination. I think we as a society should be working more towards inclusion vs. more exclusion.

The amount of exclusion isn’t as high as you’re being manipulated to believe.

You know of my manipulation ? Any stats to back up your statement ? How high do you believe I think it is ? You assume much for someone living in a "free state". Maybe you are not quite as free as you wish to be.

[f6john]

Redneck state?? I took that as a derogatory statement. Did I misinterpret? Rednecks are the keepers of sanity in a world of educated idiots.

[headpeon]

You guys are right, we do see things differently.

Has not the stock market went up considerably the last few years with quite a few added jobs and 401K's gaining value, that is if you have one.

I just threw that # out there about gas but you know for a fact, we go into another stupid mid-east war that oil will go up and we all be paying quite a bit more for gas. To think otherwise is foolish.

Yes I think this president is a charlatan and a buffoon but I guess that's ok as long as he's a republican. And, robot Pence, I'm from Indiana and we were so glad to get rid of him. If there was ever a hypocrite.

Well, I am from Indiana and I am proud of him. You seem to think you are the only one from Indiana that counts. I thought he was the best. I voted for Trump knowing he had Pence. And I know a ton from Indiana that felt the same

I wouldn't say that as I know I'm in minority is this red-neck state. Like I've said before, we all look thru a different set of glasses. You see a great man where I see nothing but a hypocrite that didn't do a whole lot for Indiana and even doing less now.

 Well if you don't like it here feel free to move west to Illinois. Your liberbable would be welcome there.

  You want to explain to me how Mike Pence is a hypocrite?

I wouldalso like to know. But not expecting an answer becaise I have asked him several things before just to be ignored. I would like to know what part of the stste he is from also. Guessing Gary area.

Actually, I'm from southern IN and the two suggestions, one I might be from Gary and the other giving me permission to move to IL are funny. I like how you are labeled a liberal just because you have a differing opinion.

I'm pretty much in the middle and have both sides views but just don't see much good in either the prez or vice and the reason why I call him a hypocrite (might be a little harsh) is the way he comes off as being super religious but acts like Trumps lackey just so he can get into position so he can run for prez.  

What's ironic is I live in the bastion of conservatism and relatively poor people and they back this administration blindly even tho Trump and his cronies would yank their medicaid and SSI if they could.

I could back a rep. prez just not this one, he is not good for America and I think we will all find that out sooner or later.

[Gavin_Sons]

Still nothing to back up your claims. I kinda like living in my free "redneck" state.

[Robert]

What a bunch of nonsense.

The article is garbage and the rule is the rule, not a deterrent to a woman or gay or anyone else that would want to meet with the VP unless their intentions are of a sexual nature. To have someone in meetings keeps things straight also. No one can go back later and say you meant this or that when it was not construed that way. Isn't one reason we have court stenographers is to keep things straight.

 It eliminates any nonsense right up front since many know the rules and will not try to use any coercion  to get their way. Men will also use women to get their way if the man knows there is a bent in the person they are trying get something from and use women to get it. So it actually stops women being used for this purpose. Many sales women are very good at their job some better than their male counter parts, I wonder why?

In the upper echelon of the government and some commercial entities we have a major pedophile ring going on, why is that if everything is on the up and up? Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions and the fact that Epstein's island is a maze of tunnels and I wonder what went on there if everything was on the up and up in government? Even Scalia's death at a resort frequented by the rich and famous has a sordid history to it.

Unless you have been in a meeting with someone who has tried to use certain tactics on you then you have no idea what you are talking about. By implementing this rule it takes out an element from the discussions and you can concentrate on business.

I dont think Pence is looking for the presidency either he is being faithful to his God and his boss so why since the man has rules is this such a problem?

  We can have Bill Clinton in office and no woman safe and no one says a word. In fact unless any woman did as he wanted you didn't get anything from him so which is better? The rules stated up front or backside Bills rules. We have a man of moral backbone regardless if you agree and everyone gets bent out of shape, Really?

Just a thought maybe Pence is a woman's man or maybe his wife is insecure and this is protection and safeguard for himself and assurance to his wife to make sure he personally abides by the rules and his wife can be assured she is the only one. 

Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton/Monica, some pastors, Lisa Page/Peter Strzok, many congressmen and the list goes on of the ones that could have used this rule if they themselves had the moral backbone to implement it. 

I personally knowing what is circling Washington and wanting to keep my morals and values straight would do whatever I could to make sure that I could not be accused of any stupid wrong doing like this.

Gryphon stated it much more eloquently than me but the mental floss is just out of control and it really is just people who have never been in positions supposing what it would be like to be there. Since you have never dealt with it you dont know and dont have the common sense to see the benefits and work around that can easily be done without any loss for anyone woman or man. That is intelligent men/women able to handle their business in an intelligent honorable way.

[The emperor has no clothes]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

[Robert]

If the need is to find order in the world then what does it say about the others not caring about the lack of order in the world. 

Its the clueless that think everything is a conspiracy theory. Just like those that worry when appropriate behavior is turned into a plot to subjugate women, that is a conspiracy theory in itself.      

[..]

If the need is to find order in the world then what does it say about the others not caring about the lack of order in the world. 

Its the clueless that think everything is a conspiracy theory. Just like those that worry when appropriate behavior is turned into a plot to subjugate women, that is a conspiracy theory in itself.      

The irony will be lost which is no surprise.

[The emperor has no clothes]

“Regardless of the outcome of these future studies, the real question for us now is how to deal with the Uncle Joe in our life. You may offer counterevidence in an attempt convince him to give up his conspiracy theories, but you’re unlikely to succeed. This is because you’re arguing facts, while Uncle Joe is defending his sense of security and his positive feelings about himself. And for all of us, self-image trumps facts every time.“   

[Motodad71]

All good points GR   But, it seems you are looking at it thru Pence’s rationale for having his rule. The author seems to expand it to why it’s not an equitable rule “in general” for women. I personally have no problem with Pence deciding who he is going to meet with. But, if he meets regularly with the head of HUD to discuss policies and so forth but meets infrequently with the head of another dept that has a woman in charge there will be somethings that slip by. In my opinion the real problem would occur in the workforce when CEO’s and bosses will meet and fraternize with the males but not the females. This would definitely put them at a disadvantage.
  As to how these threads take on a life of their own. Well, I’m not sure I could explain, but usually they are more interesting than the original topic.

I think that when women are unfairly excluded from business meetings, it's rarely, if ever, because men are concerned about breaking the Billy Graham Rule.  I think it's more often that men sometimes, in their "business meetings" behave in ways they'd be embarrassed to have businesswomen observe.

Probably true. There seems to be many reasons women are excluded, some are just outright discrimination. I think we as a society should be working more towards inclusion vs. more exclusion.

The amount of exclusion isn’t as high as you’re being manipulated to believe.

You know of my manipulation ? Any stats to back up your statement ? How high do you believe I think it is ? You assume much for someone living in a "free state". Maybe you are not quite as free as you wish to be.

Stats are always skewed depending on the motive, I try to use common sense as much as possible, and not to believe hype and misinformation. Maybe it does depend on the state, but you live in one of those free states as well. So where are YOU getting your information, do you personally know many women who are being regularly excluded over men? My wife is a nurse of 24 years and has been very successful, works in an industry overwhelmingly dominated by women, yet she takes zero issue when male nurses potentially make more money. My sister is a teacher, once again dominated by women in that particular occupation, she says the worst thing about being a teacher are the unions. Any woman who is "being honest" knows full well that some occupations dominated by men are that way for several reasons. And now we have these "feminists" who give any woman who doesn't believe as they do, are chastised for being who they want to be and are happy and content being such. Females now allowed being "Infantry" and mixed in right with the men.....BAD BAD idea. My son was infantry, he's glad he got out before that all really started occurring. This isn't inclusion, it is called political correctness and it's messed up and not fair to "the guys". Rape accusations are way up "imagine that" and any and all perceived or flat out lied about sexual harassing, is ruining careers of good soldiers. Oh I could go on and on and on.....as I am sure you could. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Like I said. You assume much. 

[Motodad71]

Like I said. You assume much. 

And that too is an assumption. 

[Robert]

Gun Control Senator Sentenced for Trafficking Arms

Two years ago, California State Senator Leland Yee told CBS: “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear—there is no debate, no discussion.” As a legislator, Yee supported strict gun control laws and was even named to the Brady Campaign’s Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll. Last Wednesday, Yee received a five-year prison sentence for accepting bribes and trafficking in illegal arms. Is anyone still wondering how gun control legislation gets passed?

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/gun-control-senator-sentenced-trafficking-arms/?utm_source=emarsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Chronicle+040718-Gun+Control+Senator+Sentenced+for+Trafficking+Arms-2018-04-07+10%3A20%3A09&sc_src=email_3226621&sc_lid=167020122&sc_uid=9Blg9IDGYf&sc_llid=194104&sc_eh=9ca20f5624dba6d91


Parkland student who was shot FIVE times while saving the lives of his classmates blames the county sheriff and superintendent for not doing enough to stop the school shooter

A student gravely wounded while saving his classmates' lives by blocking a door during the Florida school massacre said Friday that the county sheriff and school superintendent failed the victims by not arresting the shooter before the attack and by allowing him to attend the school.

    An attorney for 15-year-old Anthony Borges read a statement from him during a news conference on Friday
    Borges blamed Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel and Superintendent Robert Runcie for the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
    Borges, too weak to talk, sat quietly in a wheelchair with his right leg propped up
    Deputies received at least a dozen calls about Nikolas Cruz, 19, over the years and he spent two years in a school for children with emotional problems
   
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5588325/Parkland-student-shot-FIVE-times-blames-sheriff-school-superintendent.html

[Willow]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

I read through the attachment.  I was rather turned off by the following statement by the "expert":

Conspiracy theories are also false beliefs, by definition.

Does this expert know and espouse that there is never a conspiracy?  Never? None?

I pretty well disregarded what he had to say after that.  The dissemination of his theories against all believers in any conspiracy theory smacks of a conspiracy to me.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

I read through the attachment.  I was rather turned off by the following statement by the "expert":

Conspiracy theories are also false beliefs, by definition.

Does this expert know and espouse that there is never a conspiracy?  Never? None?

I pretty well disregarded what he had to say after that.  The dissemination of his theories against all believers in any conspiracy theory smacks of a conspiracy to me.