The Washington Post recently revealed that U.S. vice-president Mike Pence requires that any aide who works late with him has to be male, never dines alone with a woman other than his wife, and does not attend events where alcohol is served unless his wife is also present. Such measures safeguard himself against accusations of impropriety and, in his words, "[builds] a zone around your marriage."
But liberals are up in arms about his safeguards, calling him misogynistic, sexist, and unable to see women as anything other than sexual temptresses (otherwise why the fear of dining alone with another woman?).
This was a personal issue for me because here's the thing: my dad taught me the same thing, and practices it as well, and so reading the accusations hurled on Pence was, to me, the same as attacking my dad. And I can assure you that my dad is anything but misogynistic/ sexist/ only able to see women as sexual beings. It was such an unfair accusation that I had to write about this.
So let's clear some things up:
1) In setting such boundaries, men show respect for their wives and marriages by ensuring that they avoid AS MANY opportunities for temptation as possible. We should applaud efforts of men who are trying to avoid temptation, not pull them down. Marriage is hard enough, and safeguards are there to ensure marriages survive. Will going to one dinner alone with someone of the opposite sex lead to adultery? Not always, but I bet there have been instances when it has. I mean, how do any relationships (including between two single people) start? Usually over a cup of coffee/ meal.
2) These men show respect for their wives and marriages by avoiding the appearance of all impropriety, thus giving their spouses a greater sense of security, and opponents less opportunities to accuse them of inappropriate behavior. The (sad) reality is that we live in a VERY judgmental society, quick to post about anything and everything without the full picture, and it's not hard to imagine making snap judgments about married men dining alone with another woman. Yes, we should not judge, but until we live in a perfect world, that's just not going to happen, and so we do the best that we can, and try to avoid the appearance of all "evil."
3) Also, isn't it refreshing to witness a strong, high-level political marriage that has clearly-delineated boundaries? So unlike Trump's sham marriage.
4) They aren't oppose to working with women, giving women education/ healthcare/ etc. or dining with women...as long as there is one other person (male or female) there. So stop accusing them of misogyny. If you want to accuse Pence of misogyny, find something else, like his opposition to funding of Planned Parenthood or something, but don't go after him over this issue.
5) Pence (or my dad...or other such men) are not imposing his safeguards on the rest of the nation. This is what I don't get about the uproar against him. These safeguards are personal choices that he and his wife decided on, and we should respect that. If other people have looser marriage boundaries, who's stopping them? They are free to dine with people of the opposite sex alone. It's not like Pence's safeguards are affecting other people's marriages, or the way he works with women.
6) It's another (sad) reality that we live in a world that is highly sexualized. Porn is rampant and readily available, our entertainment and advertisements are explicitly sexual, and virtue is cheapened and devalued. Sexual temptation is everywhere. It's just a fact, and there are people who choose to deal with it in more conservative ways. I as a single Mormon woman find it hard enough to live a high moral code, and I can't imagine how much harder it is for men trying to do the same thing.
7) Sarcastic remarks like "What if Pence had to dine alone with Angela Merkel or Theresa May? Will he be able to do his job?!" are unhelpful exaggerations. These safeguards are not saying that they can't have professional, one-on-one work meetings with women, where temptation can still occur. Not dining or working late alone with a woman is simple, returning to point 1, avoiding as many opportunities for temptation as possible.
8) If such a situation occurs in which my married boss/ co-worker/ friend informs he that he can't dine with me alone or that we can't work late together, as a woman, I have 2 choices: I can respond with outrage and accuse these men of misogyny, or 2) I can opt to take a more sensible and respectful approach, and have someone accompany us or find an alternative. Do I really need to blow this up and make it about sexism? Why can't we just respect their boundaries, even if we disagree with them, and find a peaceful resolution?
As a single woman, I have dined alone with married male friends. There is a deep level of trust and love in their marriages, which is why their wives have no problem with them eating with me. Great!
But all marriages are different and based on different sets of boundaries/ rules/ agreements/ compromises. And if the boundaries set by Pence helps his marriage, then he and his wife should be accorded the same respect and lack of judgment that we give to married couples who do not have the same inhibitions letting their spouse dine with someone of the opposite sex alone. Personally, I think such boundaries are sensible. Perhaps it's because I'm insecure and don't think I will trust my future husband enough. However, I will accord him the same respect and also ensure that I live the same safeguards as he does. As long as we are both living these safeguards, and working to strengthen our marriage, I don't think it's sexist at all.
