Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Just Tony wrote:

PourSpelur wrote:
Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.

So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.

Or, alternatively in a way that doesn't end up adding another extra dozen levels to the glass ceiling with women, I propose the Austin Powers Rule.


"Don't try to shag someone who doesn't want to shag you."

OR you could say "leaves no room for doubt" about someone's behavior in that respect. I'm sure nobody in the history of politics has ever been falsely accused of something like that, especially if that person has some unpopular viewpoints.

It is probably less about lack of willpower and more about maintaining a positive image.




EDIT: Also, I would adore it if you would tell me how the hell avoidance of casual contact adds layers to the "glass ceiling"...

Because it's not just 'casual contact' - it would include business contact too.

"Ok, I'm looking for a new architect for my building. I'll be needing to work closely with this person over several years.

Gasp... That's a woman... I can't hire her, she might have COOTIES! I'll hire the guy instead."

Replace architect with marketing manager, project manager, software developer (where you're the manager).

 Compel wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

PourSpelur wrote:
Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.

So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.

Or, alternatively in a way that doesn't end up adding another extra dozen levels to the glass ceiling with women, I propose the Austin Powers Rule.


"Don't try to shag someone who doesn't want to shag you."

It's just an awkward position where people don't want awkward situations to arise nor to be falsely accused.

From my understanding (not know anything about Pence specifically) it's not like saying "no gurls allowed", it's just a case of avoiding being alone where those situations might arise, so it doesn't have to contribute to a glass ceiling except maybe in very specific circumstances.

EDIT: But then what do I know, unfortunately I work in a field bereft of women. There aren't many women in engineering, and of the ones that are almost none work in my field.

I work in IT, I'm in a 1 on 1 meeting with a woman regularly. Whether it's my manager, or a coworker I'm helping to train, or it's someone I'm working with on a presentation, or it's a customer.

Sometimes I'm even lucky enough to get a meeting room with a computer inside it. Which has a door.

*Gasp* But the Pence rule!

So much for discussing my career in private.
Or talking with a customer on their project.
Or putting a presentation together without disturbing the open plan office.

And so on.

The entire concept is ridiculous.

 Just Tony wrote:

PourSpelur wrote:
Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.

So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.

No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?

No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.

The implications behind that that aren't any better, just more offensive towards women than Pence's implied lack of self-control in my take.

Also ruin a career these days? Haha you mean like Trump and Roy Moore? It used to ruin careers, now it just depends on who you're siding with.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

PourSpelur wrote:
Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.

So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.

No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?

You're deliberately trying to misunderstand the purpose of this practice so you can say its rediculous.

The purpose of it is not only to ensure nothing improper happens, weather by the lack of restraint by either the man or the woman, but more importantly that nothing happens which could appear to be improper. Its about being faithful to your mate both in-appearance and in-fact. Its about respecting your wife so much that you never want to even have the cursory appearance of possibly being unfaithful.

It is strictly unnecessary, but going the extra mile is something to be admired and not spat upon.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.

Right?

Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.

 djones520 wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.

Right?

Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.

Indeed. If every man acted like Pence, the world would be a better place.

 djones520 wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.

Right?

Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.

I think you guys aren't seeing that this isn't really a positive practice and I think you should reflect on it for a moment because maybe you can see there is another side to this.

I'm going to assume that when Pence does this to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he has the best intentions.

However, the side effect is that in practice, women are excluded from a lot of functions. It's going to hurt advancement of a woman when her boss or a coworker is artificially excluded from any sort of meetings or work opportunities where they would be subject to the Pence Rule, and so must be excluded. This isn't strictly a problem for women, since of course if women did the same thing it would hurt male subordinates trying to advance just as much, but in 2017 on average it's going to hurt women more.

I do a lot of work related activities one-on-one with various people, including levels of senior management. There is a specific program at my job where fairly high levels will perform one-on-one sessions irregularly, as their schedule allows, to mid-level superiors who have promise. Ryan is currently being mentored by Ganesh in this manner, sometimes in a free meeting room, and sometimes at a lunch, but under the Pence Rule, it would be impossible (or at least more onerous) for his coworker, Allison, to have those same opportunities.

Sexual impropriety in the workplace is the problem, but this kind of scorched earth solution isn't a great fix.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

PourSpelur wrote:
Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.

So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.

No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?

You're deliberately trying to misunderstand the purpose of this practice so you can say its rediculous.

The purpose of it is not only to ensure nothing improper happens, weather by the lack of restraint by either the man or the woman, but more importantly that nothing happens which could appear to be improper. Its about being faithful to your mate both in-appearance and in-fact. Its about respecting your wife so much that you never want to even have the cursory appearance of possibly being unfaithful.

It is strictly unnecessary, but going the extra mile is something to be admired and not spat upon.

I'm not, its ridiculous either way.

The purpose of it that nothing improper happens means he's protecting himself from it. Either because he doesn't fully trust himself or the women he could be alone with.

If he wants to avoid appearing improper he should avoid meeting people alone alltogether. Both men and women. Men could still accuse him. Who knows everything about Pence's life and deep down urges right? Or is it that easy to brush off any men stepping forward in this case?

Its not about respecting your wife, if your wife can that easily get the suspicion that you're being unfaithful its either a relationship with a severe lack of trust or one in which the wife has some deeper knowledge about his character. Respect for your wife and relationship would mean the confidence to meet women in private and not do anything, and the expectation that she believes you. Its not going the extra mile for anything, its ensuring a working relationship favouring men, who he can work with in private apperently.

The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.

Whining that its somehow detrimental to women is just looking for a reason to hate on the person for doing the right thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.

Whining that its somehow detrimental to women is just looking for a reason to hate on the person for doing the right thing.

If you could read what I posted that would be really neato.

Once a month I meet with my supervisor. This is in a conference room, and these meetings are called... one on ones. So, just the two of us in a room. He's the only supervisor at night, and I work nights. If I were a woman, either we couldn't have one-on-ones, or they would be artificially made so onerous that they'd be avoided.

Maybe we should concentrate on the men who feel they need to masturbate in front of their coworkers in a way that doesn't say being around women one-on-one is inherently dangerous.

I'm not hating on Pence, I think the practice itself is just ridiculous and I would assume here that he wpuldn't need it. Also the 'right' thing to do is debatable.

On the subject of private. I assume he has staff that give him personal briefing or work with him one on one without other people present on ocassion. By the terms of his rule none of those people could be women.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

PourSpelur wrote:
Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.

So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.

No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?

You're deliberately trying to misunderstand the purpose of this practice so you can say its rediculous.

The purpose of it is not only to ensure nothing improper happens, weather by the lack of restraint by either the man or the woman, but more importantly that nothing happens which could appear to be improper. Its about being faithful to your mate both in-appearance and in-fact. Its about respecting your wife so much that you never want to even have the cursory appearance of possibly being unfaithful.

It is strictly unnecessary, but going the extra mile is something to be admired and not spat upon.

I'm not, its ridiculous either way.

The purpose of it that nothing improper happens means he's protecting himself from it. Either because he doesn't fully trust himself or the women he could be alone with.

If he wants to avoid appearing improper he should avoid meeting people alone alltogether. Both men and women. Men could still accuse him. Who knows everything about Pence's life and deep down urges right? Or is it that easy to brush off any men stepping forward in this case?

Its not about respecting your wife, if your wife can that easily get the suspicion that you're being unfaithful its either a relationship with a severe lack of trust or one in which the wife has some deeper knowledge about his character. Respect for your wife and relationship would mean the confidence to meet women in private and not do anything, and the expectation that she believes you. Its not going the extra mile for anything, its ensuring a working relationship favouring men, who he can work with in private apperently.

Yup, just looking for reasons to hate. Respect means both being able to be trusted, and not putting yourself in situations where there would be potential for violations of that trust. Its going the extra mile for your relationship by keeping everything in the open. Its not some secret conspiracy to keep women from experiencing opportunities, its about being and appearing faithful to his wife, who by the way is also a women. If he didn't respect women he wouldn't be going out his way to show faithfulness to his wife.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.

Right?

Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.

I think you guys aren't seeing that this isn't really a positive practice and I think you should reflect on it for a moment because maybe you can see there is another side to this.

I'm going to assume that when Pence does this to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he has the best intentions.

However, the side effect is that in practice, women are excluded from a lot of functions. It's going to hurt advancement of a woman when her boss or a coworker is artificially excluded from any sort of meetings or work opportunities where they would be subject to the Pence Rule, and so must be excluded. This isn't strictly a problem for women, since of course if women did the same thing it would hurt male subordinates trying to advance just as much, but in 2017 on average it's going to hurt women more.

I do a lot of work related activities one-on-one with various people, including levels of senior management. There is a specific program at my job where fairly high levels will perform one-on-one sessions irregularly, as their schedule allows, to mid-level superiors who have promise. Ryan is currently being mentored by Ganesh in this manner, sometimes in a free meeting room, and sometimes at a lunch, but under the Pence Rule, it would be impossible (or at least more onerous) for his coworker, Allison, to have those same opportunities.

Sexual impropriety in the workplace is the problem, but this kind of scorched earth solution isn't a great fix.

Writing my response I missed this appearing shortly before finishing mine. The article and your good points summarize why its kind of a ridiculous policy.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.

Whining that its somehow detrimental to women is just looking for a reason to hate on the person for doing the right thing.

If you could read what I posted that would be really neato.

Once a month I meet with my supervisor. This is in a conference room, and these meetings are called... one on ones. So, just the two of us in a room. He's the only supervisor at night, and I work nights. If I were a woman, either we couldn't have one-on-ones, or they would be artificially made so onerous that they'd be avoided.

Maybe we should concentrate on the men who feel they need to masturbate in front of their coworkers in a way that doesn't say being around women one-on-one is inherently dangerous.

Or maybe you could focus on those perverts instead of picking on men who are just trying to be decent human beings instead of getting worked up over minor inconveniences.

That article again falls into a trap of looking for fault where there is none, and then turning what is ultimately a good thing into a bad thing through twisted logic. Sure, some practicioners of this rule take it too far. But that's a minor problem and not something to get worked up over. Not when there are still Wiensteins prowling around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.

Right?

Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.

I think you guys aren't seeing that this isn't really a positive practice and I think you should reflect on it for a moment because maybe you can see there is another side to this.

I'm going to assume that when Pence does this to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he has the best intentions.

However, the side effect is that in practice, women are excluded from a lot of functions. It's going to hurt advancement of a woman when her boss or a coworker is artificially excluded from any sort of meetings or work opportunities where they would be subject to the Pence Rule, and so must be excluded. This isn't strictly a problem for women, since of course if women did the same thing it would hurt male subordinates trying to advance just as much, but in 2017 on average it's going to hurt women more.

I do a lot of work related activities one-on-one with various people, including levels of senior management. There is a specific program at my job where fairly high levels will perform one-on-one sessions irregularly, as their schedule allows, to mid-level superiors who have promise. Ryan is currently being mentored by Ganesh in this manner, sometimes in a free meeting room, and sometimes at a lunch, but under the Pence Rule, it would be impossible (or at least more onerous) for his coworker, Allison, to have those same opportunities.

Sexual impropriety in the workplace is the problem, but this kind of scorched earth solution isn't a great fix.

Writing my response I missed this appearing shortly before finishing mine. The article and your good points summarize why its kind of a ridiculous policy.

Maybe if its taken to extremes, but not as a general practice. You're being a hippocrit by getting worked up over this while also getting worked up over the Wiensteins of the world.

Purge the perverts, and only when they are gone do you have any room to get worked up over men not wanting to be alone with women other than their wives or other closer relatives.

And how helps the "Don't be alone with a woman" when this case of using power to manipulate/violate someone in a sexual way, happens with someone of your same sex?

Or when the "boss" is the woman and the "victim" a male. "Oh man, the one that is gonna interview me is a woman, better to bring my mum with me, if the interviewer tries to do anything bad, or worse, my men impulses make me do something bad!"

As others have said, is not about wanting to hate someone. Is just in any shape or form, a stupid measure.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

PourSpelur wrote:
Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.

So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.

No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?

You're deliberately trying to misunderstand the purpose of this practice so you can say its rediculous.

The purpose of it is not only to ensure nothing improper happens, weather by the lack of restraint by either the man or the woman, but more importantly that nothing happens which could appear to be improper. Its about being faithful to your mate both in-appearance and in-fact. Its about respecting your wife so much that you never want to even have the cursory appearance of possibly being unfaithful.

It is strictly unnecessary, but going the extra mile is something to be admired and not spat upon.

I'm not, its ridiculous either way.

The purpose of it that nothing improper happens means he's protecting himself from it. Either because he doesn't fully trust himself or the women he could be alone with.

If he wants to avoid appearing improper he should avoid meeting people alone alltogether. Both men and women. Men could still accuse him. Who knows everything about Pence's life and deep down urges right? Or is it that easy to brush off any men stepping forward in this case?

Its not about respecting your wife, if your wife can that easily get the suspicion that you're being unfaithful its either a relationship with a severe lack of trust or one in which the wife has some deeper knowledge about his character. Respect for your wife and relationship would mean the confidence to meet women in private and not do anything, and the expectation that she believes you. Its not going the extra mile for anything, its ensuring a working relationship favouring men, who he can work with in private apperently.

Yup, just looking for reasons to hate. Respect means both being able to be trusted, and not putting yourself in situations where there would be potential for violations of that trust. Its going the extra mile for your relationship by keeping everything in the open. Its not some secret conspiracy to keep women from experiencing opportunities, its about being and appearing faithful to his wife, who by the way is also a women. If he didn't respect women he wouldn't be going out his way to show faithfulness to his wife.

You keep saying reasons to hate, but I have absolutly no beef with Pence, just with the ridiculous rule. You know how ridiculous "situations where there would be potential for violations" sounds in the larger context of shutting out women one on one entirely? Every situation in which you and a woman are unaccompanied by a third person risks cheating and sexual assault? Really? How would you leave your house? What if you get stuck in an elevator alone with a woman?

Its going the extra mile in a relationship that doesn't work based on trust. In a relationship based on trust you should be able to have work or business related one on one meetings without your partner thinking you might be cheating.

I never said it was some sort of conspiracy to keep women from experiencing opportunities. But practically it does, if he needs a secretary he could never hire a woman, as he might end up alone with her kn his office. It creates the subconcious bias of only hiring women if you can make absolutly sure you're never alone with her during the entire working relationship. If he respected womem more he wouldn't have this rule, as he would either trust himself not to assault them or himself enough to say "no" for his wife.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You're being a hippocrit by getting worked up over this while also getting worked up over the Wiensteins of the world.

Purge the perverts, and only when they are gone do you have any room to get worked up over men not wanting to be alone with women other than their wives or other closer relatives.

1.) It's possible for a problem to have a bad solution. I don't want a spider in my house, but a flamethrower isn't a reasonable response, even if it technically fixes the problem.

2.) "We can't fix a problem we artificially create until we first solve a problem that has always existed and probably always will" is a pretty pants on head answer no matter how you slice it, to be honest.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Maybe if its taken to extremes, but not as a general practice. You're being a hippocrit by getting worked up over this while also getting worked up over the Wiensteins of the world.

Purge the perverts, and only when they are gone do you have any room to get worked up over men not wanting to be alone with women other than their wives or other closer relatives.

No worries, my brain can handle doing more than one thing at a time and focus on multiple problems. I can voice myself against the Weinsteins in this world while still pointing out the ridiculousness of rules like that. Nothing hypocritical about it

 Galas wrote:
And how helps the "Don't be alone with a woman" when this case is behind using power to manipulate/violate someone in a sexual way of your same sex?

Or when the "boss" is the woman and the "victim" a male. "Oh man, the one that is gonna interview me is a woman, better to bring my mum with me, if the interviewer tries to do anything bad, or worse, my men impulses make me do something bad!"

As others have said, is not about wanting to hate someone. Is just in any shape or form, a stupid measure.

I would say meeting secretly and clandestinely with anybody should be avoided, regardless of their sex.

If you need to have a one on one meeting, do it in a public place with other people around, but not necessarily listening.

Just because you think its stupid doesn't mean you have the right to hate on that person. Especially when it's in place for good reasons and its not actually harming anybody. And no, you can work around it if you are a women and need to have a meeting with your boss, it just needs someone else there. Say maybe someone from human resources. A minor inconvenience at worst, the benefits of which far outweigh it.

You may not like it or feel the need to personally do this, but let other people do this without you just hating on them for being different. Especially when there are bigger fish to fry.

Secretly and clandestinely was never in the original rule though, its just about one on one.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Galas wrote:
And how helps the "Don't be alone with a woman" when this case is behind using power to manipulate/violate someone in a sexual way of your same sex?

Or when the "boss" is the woman and the "victim" a male. "Oh man, the one that is gonna interview me is a woman, better to bring my mum with me, if the interviewer tries to do anything bad, or worse, my men impulses make me do something bad!"

As others have said, is not about wanting to hate someone. Is just in any shape or form, a stupid measure.

I would say meeting secretly and clandestinely with anybody should be avoided, regardless of their sex.

If you need to have a one on one meeting, do it in a public place with other people around, but not necessarily listening.

Just because you think its stupid doesn't mean you have the right to hate on that person. Especially when it's in place for good reasons and its not actually harming anybody. And no, you can work around it if you are a women and need to have a meeting with your boss, it just needs someone else there. Say maybe someone from human resources. A minor inconvenience at worst, the benefits of which far outweigh it.

You may not like it or feel the need to personally do this, but let other people do this without you just hating on them for being different. Especially when there are bigger fish to fry.

Well. Now we can't discuss something without being it considered "hating" someone? Can't I express my opinion in that solution without being automatically understood as attacking the people that decides to do that?

I have no problems with anybody that want to do that. As you said, it doesn't hurt anybody. More power to them. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion in that specific "solution" to this problem.
I believe that solution isn't a real solution in the long run. Not in the short one to be honest.

And I wasn't talking about meeting secretly, just in 1 to 1 situations. At least in my work place those are very common. All of them in the offices building, but in "private" rooms, without glass walls, etc...

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you need to have a one on one meeting, do it in a public place with other people around, but not necessarily listening.

Do you really, truly not see how inane this is?

 Grey Templar wrote:
And no, you can work around it if you are a women and need to have a meeting with your boss, it just needs someone else there. Say maybe someone from human resources. A minor inconvenience at worst, the benefits of which far outweigh it.

My company works three shifts. With this "solution" no woman with a male supervisor could have a one-on-one on 66% of the shifts we work because HR only is present on first.

What happens when my rotation is myself as a TL, with my co-workers April and Woody, and Woody has to go to the bathroom or pick up food? This is in no way a hypothetical situation. This is my current rotation on quiet nights. Should April not be able to work on 2nd or third shift? She goes to school in the day, and those shifts pay a shift differential.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.

Whining that its somehow detrimental to women is just looking for a reason to hate on the person for doing the right thing.

Because nobody has ever been sexually assaulted whilst other people were in the general area. Nobody has ever been raped in a public place with other people present but still unaware. /sarcasm

Pence's rule is garbage, because hundreds of thousands of happily-married people manage to be alone with members of both sexes without sexually assaulting them or being accused of such, whilst his rule actually does little to actually protect people from sexual assault unless he is literally incapable of restraining himself without a third party present. And are his whereabouts accounted for 24 hours a day? How do we know he isn't going off to a cheap motel and throwing a pile of cash down for a prostitute? Presumably the possibility of him doing so doesn't impact his marriage so why would him being alone with a woman coworker be so damaging?

As said earlier, a relationship where you have to cut off all potential one-on-one contact with a member of the other sex, partner excluded, is insane and not at all an indicator of a healthy relationship.

How good/bad of a rule it is aside, the Pence rule would become an excuse. "Well it was a one-on-one meeting, I couldn't control myself!" "Men can't be expected to control themselves, that's why we have the Pence rule!" Or even "Wow he went into a one-on-one and violated the Pence rule, he must be trying to assault her."

The simple solution is to not harass women. Being afraid of false accusations isn't a legitimate fear when -actual- accusations so often have little impact. Not to mention the whole idea is based off of men being somehow unable to control themselves, which is rape culture at it's finest.

I mean hey, it works exactly like abstinence, and abstinence has worked absolutely fine, right?

(the answer is no, no it doesn't)