Pence’s Rule: Precaution or Prejudice?

Is it a good idea for a married man to eat alone with a female coworker? There has been a great deal of uproar about VP Mike Pence’s statement that he “never eats alone with a woman other than his wife.” The statement ignited a truly staggering amount of opposition, but when we look more closely, the picture begins to turn itself inside-out. There are certainly assumptions and prejudices at work here, but I’m not convinced they’re coming from Mike Pence.

The main thrust of its detractors is that 1) the rule suggests all females “are solely sexual beings who are not full persons” and their company is “always first and foremost about sex.” Or, alternatively, they are all seductresses who “might somehow be out to ruin his life.” Yahoo And 2) the rule is part of “narrowing access and diminishing opportunity for women” as “part of a system that works to prop up male power and keep women subordinate.”

On the first point, it seems a far jump to say that any precaution automatically means suspicion of everyone. When I lock my door, I’m not saying that my neighbors’ presence is “always first and foremost about” theft. Reasonable precautions are not acts of moral judgement; they are acts of practicality and, in this case, humility, a recognition of one’s own vulnerability. And as a female professional, I would note that while these precautions may call for a little work, I find them in no way unmanageable.

Of course, whether these precautions are reasonable depends on how workplace affairs start. These authors seem to have some image of a femme fatale waltzing in with red lipstick and a little black dress and “try[ing] to seduce him before the waiter serve[s] [their] salads”. Adultery, though, doesn’t generally involve sultry seductresses and helpless men; it occurs when friendship slowly becomes more than friendship.  A recent poll called this the “cup of coffee syndrome” – did you know that 3 in 5 males who’d had an affair were involved with a coworker? Furthermore, did you know that 1 in 5 married men in the United States have had an affair? Putting those stats together, a little less than 1 in 8 males has cheated with a coworker. Which I think makes Pence’s rule entirely reasonable.

The second point of Pence’s detractors brings up a larger problem with these articles. While these writers may be naïve when it come to the prevalence of adultery or the possibility of sexual sub-context, they are at the same time cynical when it comes ascribing motives and assumptions to someone they’ve presumably never met. They claim that Mike Pence has the right to do whatever he wishes in his marriage, but at the same time take his private life choices as insults. The contradiction leads me to think that these judgments were arrived at before the evidence was examined, not after.

What is it about this issue that makes some people so sensitive? Why is it practically any sexual practice socially acceptable – with the notable exceptions of celibacy and monogamy? Why do my limits on my own sexuality make others uncomfortable, even if they come – as Pence’s did – with no word of judgement? Why are we interpreting personal choices as political positions and practical precautions as moral judgements? As a real estate investor mentioned to me at a banquet a few days ago, “the only reason to take insult at an innocent remark is if you want to be insulted.” Or in my grandmother’s less circuitous phrasing, “the hit dog hollers.”

Pence is being accused of condemning others’ private choices and making assumptions about their “ulterior motives.” But it seems to be the other way around. I don’t think Pence is demonstrating moral censure or negative preconceptions – but that is precisely what these writers are doing.

Big Lunch Extras Wolverhampton” by Big Lunch Extras is licensed under CC by 2.0.jp