How to deal with people with Mike Pence rules?
June 17, 2022 11:39 PM Subscribe
I am friends with people who have, or are willing to tolerate, Mike Pence rules. I find them highly problematic and thus incredibly difficult for me to respect. Does anyone else have personal experience with this? What is the best thing to do about them?
Mike Pence rules, for those who have managed to block out those hell years from their mind, are some combination of rules wherein a man is not able to [eat/travel/be at an event where alcohol is served/ever meet alone/meet at night] with a woman who is not their significant other. I find these rules not only personally annoying but incredibly sexist, whether the impetus is a man or a woman.
I am not friends/colleagues with anyone who personally believes in this, but I have some male friends/working partners who grew up in more conservative environments who will from time to time date people who believe in this, which means that our friendships and projects will be suddenly circumscribed. For example, a meeting that runs long and suddenly turns into evening will send someone in these circumstances running for the hills even if it is sub optimal for the project. Or all of a sudden, a previously reliable friend of mine will initiate a weird series of cancellations, only for me to learn something like this is going on.
These men are all semi-progressives, and all do have some awareness this is a problem, but only enough that they are ashamed of it and never want to be upfront that this is going on, so I find myself having to discover this by inference and then ask if they're dating someone new. But I find it really upsetting and maddening, partially because it's cyclic - if they were people who did this all the time I feel like I could easily cut them out of my personal and professional circles, but because it is only for several months every couple years, it seems extreme to take that level of action.
What have you/would you do in this situation?
Mike Pence rules, for those who have managed to block out those hell years from their mind, are some combination of rules wherein a man is not able to [eat/travel/be at an event where alcohol is served/ever meet alone/meet at night] with a woman who is not their significant other. I find these rules not only personally annoying but incredibly sexist, whether the impetus is a man or a woman.
I am not friends/colleagues with anyone who personally believes in this, but I have some male friends/working partners who grew up in more conservative environments who will from time to time date people who believe in this, which means that our friendships and projects will be suddenly circumscribed. For example, a meeting that runs long and suddenly turns into evening will send someone in these circumstances running for the hills even if it is sub optimal for the project. Or all of a sudden, a previously reliable friend of mine will initiate a weird series of cancellations, only for me to learn something like this is going on.
These men are all semi-progressives, and all do have some awareness this is a problem, but only enough that they are ashamed of it and never want to be upfront that this is going on, so I find myself having to discover this by inference and then ask if they're dating someone new. But I find it really upsetting and maddening, partially because it's cyclic - if they were people who did this all the time I feel like I could easily cut them out of my personal and professional circles, but because it is only for several months every couple years, it seems extreme to take that level of action.
What have you/would you do in this situation?
Grin and bear it. I’ve had to deal with this before with female colleagues who live by Pence rules. My conclusion has been that people are different and have truly different beliefs. I try to be patient and account for this in planning — I simply assume the “rules” are always in effect.
People believe in all manner of things I don’t, and whether I respect those beliefs (politics, religion, whatever) or not, I functionally must account for them. Every once in a while I grow tired of it and call people on this kind of bullshit—but that rarely leads to a positive outcome in the long term.
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:46 AM on June 18, 2022 [13 favorites]
People believe in all manner of things I don’t, and whether I respect those beliefs (politics, religion, whatever) or not, I functionally must account for them. Every once in a while I grow tired of it and call people on this kind of bullshit—but that rarely leads to a positive outcome in the long term.
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:46 AM on June 18, 2022 [13 favorites]
I would probably just stop making one-on-one plans with these guys. Assume the "rules" are or may be in effect. You don't have to cut them out of your personal and professional circles, but probably they will end up getting bumped out a circle or two - these guys can't be dependable friends/work partners for you because they will push you out if they start dating someone who says they have to. Maybe at some point in the future if they either settle down with people who don't have these rules or they decide that they absolutely will not date people who set these rules, you can become closer with these guys again.
For what it's worth though I find that this pattern often happens even without "Mike Pence rules" - lots of times when someone starts dating someone new, they pull back from other relationships and focus more on the partner (and sometimes even the partner's friends and family). This is *especially* a thing with straight guys in "traditional" dating relationships with women but it can happen with people of any gender/any relationship, and it's not always because someone has set explicit rules - sometimes it operates via a network of assumptions and expectations.
If you could deal with the "rules" if the guys were just more up front about when the "rules" are in effect, try having an honest conversation about it and dialing back the judgement. If they're hiding this from you out of shame and fear of judgement, that kind of sucks for them and is also very inconvenient and frustrating for you.
posted by mskyle at 4:25 AM on June 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
For what it's worth though I find that this pattern often happens even without "Mike Pence rules" - lots of times when someone starts dating someone new, they pull back from other relationships and focus more on the partner (and sometimes even the partner's friends and family). This is *especially* a thing with straight guys in "traditional" dating relationships with women but it can happen with people of any gender/any relationship, and it's not always because someone has set explicit rules - sometimes it operates via a network of assumptions and expectations.
If you could deal with the "rules" if the guys were just more up front about when the "rules" are in effect, try having an honest conversation about it and dialing back the judgement. If they're hiding this from you out of shame and fear of judgement, that kind of sucks for them and is also very inconvenient and frustrating for you.
posted by mskyle at 4:25 AM on June 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
The obviously ethical thing to do is to is to make a policy of providing these accommodations for anyone who wants them BUT expand them to be fair. If you have someone who is unwilling to meet with a woman alone, all his meetings can be scheduled so that they involve at least four persons, two of each gender. It doesn't make sense for this person to fear one on one meetings with a woman without extending that to a fear of meeting one on one with men. Inappropriate behaviour - even if only locker room talk that does not belong in a work setting - can easily occur when two or more guys are alone. It is also true that guys can experience sexual harassment from other guys. It's epidemic and they almost never report it or even admit to themselves that it happened to them. If guys in your group are serious about avoiding temptation or the appearance of impropriety, then perhaps your group can consider supporting them in this.
This person will have to miss some meetings and events, maybe a lot of them if it is difficult to muster a quorum of two people of each gender for every brief meeting they want to attend, but changing your approach to fully accommodate them when possible will both be a decent thing to do, allowing them to faithfully follow their religion, or placate a jealous partner, as well as not requiring anyone else to put up with discrimination. You'll be covered in legal terms, women won't be subtly pushed out and you'll be being supportive to everyone involved.
Of course it is likely that some of the guys opting to safeguard themselves this way will find it hard to sustain. They will have to opt out of a lot of meetings and events, and that will impact their career and ability to participate and the view other people may have of them as reliable or as team players. But if they are serious about living up to to these purity rules rather than merely an appearance of them, and if they are willing to avoid discriminating against others, rather than attempting to push the external cost onto the women, they will figure it out and learn to live with it. Several different ways of supporting them can be considered - perhaps holding meetings where they are visible but not audible to onlookers, or hiring additional women to get a better gender balance, or allowing people to invite spouses along on work trips.
If they are not serious enough to go with this modification, then your group can drop all support for them. If they sneak a solo meeting in with a couple of the guys and then try to dodge out of meeting with a woman, you can then deal with that the same way as you would with any blatant or overt sexism. Make a note in their file and perhaps call a four person meeting to discuss their inconsistent and unprofessional behaviour.
If your group announces this as a policy, any guy who subsequently tries conceal that he is following gender purity rules can also fairly be treated as choosing to discriminate against some of his peers rather than doing it for ethical or religious reasons.
posted by Jane the Brown at 4:44 AM on June 18, 2022 [35 favorites]
This person will have to miss some meetings and events, maybe a lot of them if it is difficult to muster a quorum of two people of each gender for every brief meeting they want to attend, but changing your approach to fully accommodate them when possible will both be a decent thing to do, allowing them to faithfully follow their religion, or placate a jealous partner, as well as not requiring anyone else to put up with discrimination. You'll be covered in legal terms, women won't be subtly pushed out and you'll be being supportive to everyone involved.
Of course it is likely that some of the guys opting to safeguard themselves this way will find it hard to sustain. They will have to opt out of a lot of meetings and events, and that will impact their career and ability to participate and the view other people may have of them as reliable or as team players. But if they are serious about living up to to these purity rules rather than merely an appearance of them, and if they are willing to avoid discriminating against others, rather than attempting to push the external cost onto the women, they will figure it out and learn to live with it. Several different ways of supporting them can be considered - perhaps holding meetings where they are visible but not audible to onlookers, or hiring additional women to get a better gender balance, or allowing people to invite spouses along on work trips.
If they are not serious enough to go with this modification, then your group can drop all support for them. If they sneak a solo meeting in with a couple of the guys and then try to dodge out of meeting with a woman, you can then deal with that the same way as you would with any blatant or overt sexism. Make a note in their file and perhaps call a four person meeting to discuss their inconsistent and unprofessional behaviour.
If your group announces this as a policy, any guy who subsequently tries conceal that he is following gender purity rules can also fairly be treated as choosing to discriminate against some of his peers rather than doing it for ethical or religious reasons.
posted by Jane the Brown at 4:44 AM on June 18, 2022 [35 favorites]
At work I'd probably raise a big stink. This is unequal treatment based on sex. If you can't be alone with a woman, then the reasonable accommodation is to not be alone with a man, either, so at least treatment of colleagues is equal (albeit stupid). Like, just gick that, you know?
Personally? If it's a hit or miss thing, I'd just assume the rule is always in effect. Frankly I'd probably not be friends with anyone who was willing to treat me like that. But if willing to go along, once it happened, I'd assume it's always at risk of happening - I'm not going to track their religious and relationship status and guess if it's changed back from insane to sane.
This may not be feasible. Maybe you live in rural South Carolina. Idk. But I just find this so abhorrent that I just wouldn't be able to be cool with it, and I'd put up with it only if I felt I had to.
posted by J. Wilson at 4:51 AM on June 18, 2022 [20 favorites]
Personally? If it's a hit or miss thing, I'd just assume the rule is always in effect. Frankly I'd probably not be friends with anyone who was willing to treat me like that. But if willing to go along, once it happened, I'd assume it's always at risk of happening - I'm not going to track their religious and relationship status and guess if it's changed back from insane to sane.
This may not be feasible. Maybe you live in rural South Carolina. Idk. But I just find this so abhorrent that I just wouldn't be able to be cool with it, and I'd put up with it only if I felt I had to.
posted by J. Wilson at 4:51 AM on June 18, 2022 [20 favorites]
At work, I would roll my eyes internally but just deal with it, because I have zero interest into getting into discussions with coworkers about their personal life shit. “It seems like the way we’re scheduling these meetings isn’t working for you, what would work better to keep the project moving?” I’d just focus on the work, do my best to push the responsibility onto them to find a better way to schedule, and if necessary, let my supervisor know their scheduling needs are delaying projects. That assumes we’re talking about peers and not management. If this kind of behavior is happening at a level where it denies access to management or otherwise blocks access to information or opportunities for only one gender, that becomes a DEI issue and I’d talk to my DEI team or ombudsperson about it.
With friends, I wouldn’t necessarily make a big show of Cutting Ties Forever but I’d be pretty irritated and not interested in spending time with them. So I suspect I’d just let that friendship drift away. Frankly, most everyone in my social circles is some flavor of queer, and anyone interested in setting up social rules based on there being two binary genders, each of which is attracted to the other and only the other, wouldn’t last long around here anyway.
posted by Stacey at 5:13 AM on June 18, 2022 [12 favorites]
With friends, I wouldn’t necessarily make a big show of Cutting Ties Forever but I’d be pretty irritated and not interested in spending time with them. So I suspect I’d just let that friendship drift away. Frankly, most everyone in my social circles is some flavor of queer, and anyone interested in setting up social rules based on there being two binary genders, each of which is attracted to the other and only the other, wouldn’t last long around here anyway.
posted by Stacey at 5:13 AM on June 18, 2022 [12 favorites]
In a work situation I would file a human rights complaint. These people are preventing women from getting work done and building their career networks.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:45 AM on June 18, 2022 [42 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:45 AM on June 18, 2022 [42 favorites]
I think you must accept that people are going to have limitations from time to time, even if you don’t agree with the reason.
You have a judgement about how stupid this behavior code is (and I think it is awful on many levels as well), but there are a multitude of ways people sometimes need to or choose to manage their participation in things. It doesn’t really make a difference why they are limiting their availability; it is just what they are doing.
Some examples that could create a similar outcome: an elderly parent or grandparent visiting from far away, a sick family member cannot be left alone for long periods of time, there could be a transportation issue where someone needs to use public transport, therefore need to leave early or cannot stay late.
Lastly, I am generally in favor of dumping dead weight friends, but I am also a believer in acceptance of humans being human. If every few years this is an issue, I don't see it being intolerable. I have been on the receiving end of a friend being graceful and kind when I've been a distracted flake, so see its value.
Good luck
posted by rhonzo at 5:55 AM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
You have a judgement about how stupid this behavior code is (and I think it is awful on many levels as well), but there are a multitude of ways people sometimes need to or choose to manage their participation in things. It doesn’t really make a difference why they are limiting their availability; it is just what they are doing.
Some examples that could create a similar outcome: an elderly parent or grandparent visiting from far away, a sick family member cannot be left alone for long periods of time, there could be a transportation issue where someone needs to use public transport, therefore need to leave early or cannot stay late.
Lastly, I am generally in favor of dumping dead weight friends, but I am also a believer in acceptance of humans being human. If every few years this is an issue, I don't see it being intolerable. I have been on the receiving end of a friend being graceful and kind when I've been a distracted flake, so see its value.
Good luck
posted by rhonzo at 5:55 AM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
Quick added comment--it does not sound like this is in a workplace setting and these guys are refusing to meet with the OP to go over the widget budget.
The OP specifically refers "male friends/working partners" which to me, indicates more networking type relationships which is how I framed my response.
posted by rhonzo at 6:13 AM on June 18, 2022
The OP specifically refers "male friends/working partners" which to me, indicates more networking type relationships which is how I framed my response.
posted by rhonzo at 6:13 AM on June 18, 2022
Some examples that could create a similar outcome: an elderly parent or grandparent visiting from far away, a sick family member cannot be left alone for long periods of time, there could be a transportation issue where someone needs to use public transport, therefore need to leave early or cannot stay
late.
Those things would affect other people all equally. These rules do not. They disproportionately hurt women when men hold them and probably also when women hold them though in that case the woman most directly affected is the one holding the rules so I guess that's her choice?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:15 AM on June 18, 2022 [10 favorites]
late.
Those things would affect other people all equally. These rules do not. They disproportionately hurt women when men hold them and probably also when women hold them though in that case the woman most directly affected is the one holding the rules so I guess that's her choice?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:15 AM on June 18, 2022 [10 favorites]
Truthfully, on a personal level, I would make an effort to eliminate any benefits they might have from knowing me. That means only engaging in the flattest, least notable small talk, never offering to pay for or make food - not even a cup of tea - never asking for their opinion or preference, never making them feel comfortable if I notice they are feeling awkward, never expressing empathy or well wishes towards them, leaving the room if they are just hanging out with someone else, etc. Because these people don’t believe I am a person like they are, so why should I extend to them the privileges of personhood? The goal here is to just push them further and further away from me without showing any overt aggression. Make them want to not be around me, because I sure as hell don’t want to be around them. And this would be all the time, not just when they are in these bizarre relationships with other folks. I’ve only had to act like this around some older conservative relatives though; I’m not sure how seamless it would be if my other friends considered these people to be peers.
For work, it’s definitely something I’d have to weigh against career opportunities and goal completion. Depending on the structure of a workplace there are all sorts of avenues to pursue. If the workplace is making any attempt at being inclusive for queer people, having employees who discriminate based on perceived binary gender would get real messy real quick if the workplace wants to ever hire someone non-binary or support an employee through a gender transition. There are all kinds of actual laws and rules that larger companies supposedly abide by that are rarely enforced which can be wielded to your benefit if you make the right kind and enough noise about them. If your workplace is unfortunately really conservative, you could focus your energy on working well with people who aren’t like the men in your question, keeping close records on who couldn’t meet you when or who was unable to follow through on commitments so upon review by management it looks like these guys suck at their jobs while you have good work chemistry with people who will treat everyone better.
Honestly I would just have absolutely zero patience with any such shit. I am not an office worker, and some of this is why. But criminy these sorts of things enrage me. The implication that they should not be alone with someone without supervision because… what, they will turn into raving depraved beasts? Their thoughts will be sinful but if there’s another dude hanging out the sin magically evaporates?? The other person will somehow transform into an evil temptress??? It speaks poorly of literally everyone involved. It’s insulting even if it’s not currently happening.
posted by Mizu at 6:17 AM on June 18, 2022 [19 favorites]
For work, it’s definitely something I’d have to weigh against career opportunities and goal completion. Depending on the structure of a workplace there are all sorts of avenues to pursue. If the workplace is making any attempt at being inclusive for queer people, having employees who discriminate based on perceived binary gender would get real messy real quick if the workplace wants to ever hire someone non-binary or support an employee through a gender transition. There are all kinds of actual laws and rules that larger companies supposedly abide by that are rarely enforced which can be wielded to your benefit if you make the right kind and enough noise about them. If your workplace is unfortunately really conservative, you could focus your energy on working well with people who aren’t like the men in your question, keeping close records on who couldn’t meet you when or who was unable to follow through on commitments so upon review by management it looks like these guys suck at their jobs while you have good work chemistry with people who will treat everyone better.
Honestly I would just have absolutely zero patience with any such shit. I am not an office worker, and some of this is why. But criminy these sorts of things enrage me. The implication that they should not be alone with someone without supervision because… what, they will turn into raving depraved beasts? Their thoughts will be sinful but if there’s another dude hanging out the sin magically evaporates?? The other person will somehow transform into an evil temptress??? It speaks poorly of literally everyone involved. It’s insulting even if it’s not currently happening.
posted by Mizu at 6:17 AM on June 18, 2022 [19 favorites]
The OP specifically refers "male friends/working partners" which to me, indicates more networking type relationships which is how I framed my response
Work-related (even of not IN the workplace) networking relationships matter. This is disparate impact (meant in a literal sense, not a legal sense. IANAL).
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:17 AM on June 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
Work-related (even of not IN the workplace) networking relationships matter. This is disparate impact (meant in a literal sense, not a legal sense. IANAL).
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:17 AM on June 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
if they were people who did this all the time I feel like I could easily cut them out of my personal and professional circles, but because it is only for several months every couple years, it seems extreme to take that level of action.
I guess in terms of personal friendships, if they are people who are willing to do this some of the time, then I would think of them as people who do it all the time. I mean, they are essentially deciding that they will change the rules of the friendship any time with no input from you and that they may even be too chickenshit to tell you when it's going on. And it sounds like they will do this for someone they hardly know. I would not consider that tolerable in a friendship.
Work situations are trickier, and I really like Jane the Brown's suggestions. I would not want to threaten people's livelihood over a religious belief, but sometimes a religious belief is going to have some costs, and I don't think that's terrible. I say this as a religious person, though not an evangelical Christian.
I read an essay once by a woman who was asked to change her seat on an airplane because she was next to an Orthodox Jewish man who believed it was not OK for him to sit next to a woman. (I think she refused, but I don't remember.) I bring this up to say that it's not only evangelical Christians who have these kinds of rules around gender, and I think it's important to ask whether prejudice against evangelical Christians is informing some responses.
posted by FencingGal at 6:28 AM on June 18, 2022 [7 favorites]
I guess in terms of personal friendships, if they are people who are willing to do this some of the time, then I would think of them as people who do it all the time. I mean, they are essentially deciding that they will change the rules of the friendship any time with no input from you and that they may even be too chickenshit to tell you when it's going on. And it sounds like they will do this for someone they hardly know. I would not consider that tolerable in a friendship.
Work situations are trickier, and I really like Jane the Brown's suggestions. I would not want to threaten people's livelihood over a religious belief, but sometimes a religious belief is going to have some costs, and I don't think that's terrible. I say this as a religious person, though not an evangelical Christian.
I read an essay once by a woman who was asked to change her seat on an airplane because she was next to an Orthodox Jewish man who believed it was not OK for him to sit next to a woman. (I think she refused, but I don't remember.) I bring this up to say that it's not only evangelical Christians who have these kinds of rules around gender, and I think it's important to ask whether prejudice against evangelical Christians is informing some responses.
posted by FencingGal at 6:28 AM on June 18, 2022 [7 favorites]
some male friends/working partners who grew up in more conservative environments who will from time to time date people who believe in this, which means that our friendships and projects will be suddenly circumscribed. For example, a meeting that runs long and suddenly turns into evening will send someone in these circumstances running for the hills even if it is sub optimal for the project.
OP seems to be talking in part about work situations, not just networking opportunities. If you could clarify, sockmeamadeus, that would be ideal.
If you are in fact talking about men at work who won't be alone in a room with a woman, that is problematic and should be taken up with HR. If it's a religious issue, HR can come up with accommodations that will work around the religious belief AND also take into consideration the fact that some women's professional duties could be negatively impacted by the religious belief.
posted by cooker girl at 6:40 AM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
OP seems to be talking in part about work situations, not just networking opportunities. If you could clarify, sockmeamadeus, that would be ideal.
If you are in fact talking about men at work who won't be alone in a room with a woman, that is problematic and should be taken up with HR. If it's a religious issue, HR can come up with accommodations that will work around the religious belief AND also take into consideration the fact that some women's professional duties could be negatively impacted by the religious belief.
posted by cooker girl at 6:40 AM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
For example, a meeting that runs long and suddenly turns into evening will send someone in these circumstances running for the hills even if it is sub optimal for the project.
My understanding of OP's position is that we're talking about "Mike Pence Rules" being something that some men you work with periodically seem to take up, and not something that is actually in play as a workplace rule or expected workplace standard.
If it was the latter, you'd absolutely have an HR and legal case, but if it's "occasionally, dudes I work with decide they can't work late anymore", that's different and there's not much you can do.
Asking somebody to violate their personal beliefs for their job, particularly in a way that might have an impact on their personal lives or relationships, is a guaranteed lose-lose scenario. Even if you disagree with them, even if their beliefs boil down to "my new partner is weird and controlling", doesn't matter. We don't get to make those decisions for other people.
If something happens in a colleague's life that results in their being unable to complete the work on schedule for whatever reason that is a conversation you'll need to take up with your management and figure out how to deal with at the project planning and scheduling level, like you would any other religious accommodation, family issue or injury, or or or.
posted by mhoye at 6:48 AM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
My understanding of OP's position is that we're talking about "Mike Pence Rules" being something that some men you work with periodically seem to take up, and not something that is actually in play as a workplace rule or expected workplace standard.
If it was the latter, you'd absolutely have an HR and legal case, but if it's "occasionally, dudes I work with decide they can't work late anymore", that's different and there's not much you can do.
Asking somebody to violate their personal beliefs for their job, particularly in a way that might have an impact on their personal lives or relationships, is a guaranteed lose-lose scenario. Even if you disagree with them, even if their beliefs boil down to "my new partner is weird and controlling", doesn't matter. We don't get to make those decisions for other people.
If something happens in a colleague's life that results in their being unable to complete the work on schedule for whatever reason that is a conversation you'll need to take up with your management and figure out how to deal with at the project planning and scheduling level, like you would any other religious accommodation, family issue or injury, or or or.
posted by mhoye at 6:48 AM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think this is something that you just have to respect and accommodate as differing beliefs and ways that people conduct their lives. Often tied to culture or religion, which everyone has a right to observe, or personal comfort, differently than you. It has nothing to do with "Mike Pence" and it might be helpful to divorce your thinking about it from a specific politician/set of politics.
In my social circle, many men do not socialize alone with women who are not their wives and I know that a couple are mindful in the workplace of things like solo meetings and meals. They are not sexist nor conservative. Additionally, a number of Black men in my family will absolutely not be in a room with a white female colleague alone, let alone do something like have lunch. They are not sexist, conservative, or racist.
In the workplace, I think you have to show respect for people who are different than you and find ways to get the work done within everyone's level of comfort. Socially, well, if you can't respect other people's feelings, it doesn't seem like it makes sense to try to have a relationship.
posted by fies at 7:06 AM on June 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
In my social circle, many men do not socialize alone with women who are not their wives and I know that a couple are mindful in the workplace of things like solo meetings and meals. They are not sexist nor conservative. Additionally, a number of Black men in my family will absolutely not be in a room with a white female colleague alone, let alone do something like have lunch. They are not sexist, conservative, or racist.
In the workplace, I think you have to show respect for people who are different than you and find ways to get the work done within everyone's level of comfort. Socially, well, if you can't respect other people's feelings, it doesn't seem like it makes sense to try to have a relationship.
posted by fies at 7:06 AM on June 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
If it was the latter, you'd absolutely have an HR and legal case, but if it's "occasionally, dudes I work with decide they can't work late anymore", that's different and there's not much you can do.
But it's not that. It's someone deciding they can't work late WITH CERTAIN other people. Can't meet along WITH CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE. So imagine for a second two account managers, one male and one female and a client who follows these rules. Now the male account manager can meet with the client any time any place. Can have social lunches with the client. Can get drinks in off hours. One of them can't. Which of those do you think will do better with this client? Now how will that affect that woman's career when her numbers are evaluated?
Imagine a project manager following these rules, and two team members one male, one female. Imagine a manager deciding who to promote into a position they work closely with -- must frequently meet with one on one. Whom will they chose? Imagine they USED TO follow these rules but now broke up with that person and no longer do. When they USED TO follow those rule rules, they had a close working relationship with a male candidate but not a woman candidate because he couldn't even have lunch with her. Whom will he choose? Imagine a researcher seek collaborators for a big grant, will they choose the scientist they can't even meet with to go over the data?
Asking somebody to violate their personal beliefs for their job, particularly in a way that might have an impact on their personal lives or relationships, is a guaranteed lose-lose scenario
So they don't have to violate their personal beliefs. But if the rules is they can't be alone with a woman, drink with a woman, etc. etc., then the rule (for anything even vaguely workplace related) means they can't meet with men alone either. Easy-peasy. That's a reasonable accommodation of their religious or whatever belief. They don't have to violate their beliefs, but they don't get to do harm to people they work with or their careers either. Now the question becomes whether this puts undo-hardship on the employer, which it might for some jobs/employers. People who follow these rules can't work in those jobs.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:00 AM on June 18, 2022 [34 favorites]
But it's not that. It's someone deciding they can't work late WITH CERTAIN other people. Can't meet along WITH CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE. So imagine for a second two account managers, one male and one female and a client who follows these rules. Now the male account manager can meet with the client any time any place. Can have social lunches with the client. Can get drinks in off hours. One of them can't. Which of those do you think will do better with this client? Now how will that affect that woman's career when her numbers are evaluated?
Imagine a project manager following these rules, and two team members one male, one female. Imagine a manager deciding who to promote into a position they work closely with -- must frequently meet with one on one. Whom will they chose? Imagine they USED TO follow these rules but now broke up with that person and no longer do. When they USED TO follow those rule rules, they had a close working relationship with a male candidate but not a woman candidate because he couldn't even have lunch with her. Whom will he choose? Imagine a researcher seek collaborators for a big grant, will they choose the scientist they can't even meet with to go over the data?
Asking somebody to violate their personal beliefs for their job, particularly in a way that might have an impact on their personal lives or relationships, is a guaranteed lose-lose scenario
So they don't have to violate their personal beliefs. But if the rules is they can't be alone with a woman, drink with a woman, etc. etc., then the rule (for anything even vaguely workplace related) means they can't meet with men alone either. Easy-peasy. That's a reasonable accommodation of their religious or whatever belief. They don't have to violate their beliefs, but they don't get to do harm to people they work with or their careers either. Now the question becomes whether this puts undo-hardship on the employer, which it might for some jobs/employers. People who follow these rules can't work in those jobs.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:00 AM on June 18, 2022 [34 favorites]
Response by poster: OP seems to be talking in part about work situations, not just networking opportunities. If you could clarify, sockmeamadeus, that would be ideal.
Apologies for the lack of clarity! So, in my line of work, a lot of people collaborate outside of their individual workplace on (unpaid) joint projects, which, while not directly work-related, are then often used both for networking (and even the building of close friendships) and also for significant resume-building. "Ah yes, I see you worked on the A project, you're exactly the kind of person we are looking for!" or "Hey B, I saw your work on the C project, you should meet D, who does a lot of that kind of thing". But because this is all voluntary, it's not really the kind of thing you could go to HR or DEI about -often it's not even at the same workplace - even though as others have noted it absolutely has an impact. So like academics working on a paper together, or programmers coding something interesting in their off time, or lobbyists/activists co-working on legislation.
But I should also clarify that the part that's affecting me the most is primarily emotional - I don't worry about missing out on opportunities personally, but it makes me angry and upset, sometimes for several days, every time it happens because I know this kind of thing does, workwise, limit women's opportunities and friendwise, acts to make women sort of lesser, more disposable friends. And it's particularly painful because this sort of thing has happened with really close friends or people I've had very close collaborative histories with, and sometimes with people who listened really thoughtfully, agreed that this kind of thing was extremely destructive and damaging...and then proceeded to do it a few years later. I see that some people have suggested being less judgmental, but I really don't know how to because it's the attitudes behind the (mostly unspoken) rules that I'm upset with rather than just the impact of the rules alone.
posted by sockmeamadeus at 8:30 AM on June 18, 2022 [8 favorites]
Apologies for the lack of clarity! So, in my line of work, a lot of people collaborate outside of their individual workplace on (unpaid) joint projects, which, while not directly work-related, are then often used both for networking (and even the building of close friendships) and also for significant resume-building. "Ah yes, I see you worked on the A project, you're exactly the kind of person we are looking for!" or "Hey B, I saw your work on the C project, you should meet D, who does a lot of that kind of thing". But because this is all voluntary, it's not really the kind of thing you could go to HR or DEI about -often it's not even at the same workplace - even though as others have noted it absolutely has an impact. So like academics working on a paper together, or programmers coding something interesting in their off time, or lobbyists/activists co-working on legislation.
But I should also clarify that the part that's affecting me the most is primarily emotional - I don't worry about missing out on opportunities personally, but it makes me angry and upset, sometimes for several days, every time it happens because I know this kind of thing does, workwise, limit women's opportunities and friendwise, acts to make women sort of lesser, more disposable friends. And it's particularly painful because this sort of thing has happened with really close friends or people I've had very close collaborative histories with, and sometimes with people who listened really thoughtfully, agreed that this kind of thing was extremely destructive and damaging...and then proceeded to do it a few years later. I see that some people have suggested being less judgmental, but I really don't know how to because it's the attitudes behind the (mostly unspoken) rules that I'm upset with rather than just the impact of the rules alone.
posted by sockmeamadeus at 8:30 AM on June 18, 2022 [8 favorites]
It is reasonable for this to be upsetting, because it is disrespectful for people you have relationships with to limit your relationship without explanation for an arbitrary reason. They're important to you, but it's impossible to feel like you're important to them if they decide to do something like this. It's fundamentally different than if they got busy with other things or stopped enjoying their time with you.
If someone you really care about does this, I would let them know that you are hurt and you aren't okay with being treated as disposable. That will give them a chance to reconsider or to, at some point in the future, come back with an apology and an assurance that it won't happen again. And I'd mentally recategorize them as acquaintances rather than friends.
posted by metasarah at 8:49 AM on June 18, 2022 [5 favorites]
If someone you really care about does this, I would let them know that you are hurt and you aren't okay with being treated as disposable. That will give them a chance to reconsider or to, at some point in the future, come back with an apology and an assurance that it won't happen again. And I'd mentally recategorize them as acquaintances rather than friends.
posted by metasarah at 8:49 AM on June 18, 2022 [5 favorites]
They don't have to violate their personal beliefs. But if the rules is they can't be alone with a woman, drink with a woman, etc., etc., then the rule (for anything even vaguely workplace-related) means they can't meet with men alone either.
Exactly.
I can't say it any better than if I only had a penguin ... did, so I just wanted to take this opportunity to signal boost their comment.
posted by virago at 8:56 AM on June 18, 2022 [10 favorites]
Exactly.
I can't say it any better than if I only had a penguin ... did, so I just wanted to take this opportunity to signal boost their comment.
posted by virago at 8:56 AM on June 18, 2022 [10 favorites]
If I'm reading the question correctly, some of this driven not by the men themselves, but by the men's (newish) girlfriends.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 10:34 AM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
I have some male friends/working partners who grew up in more conservative environments who will from time to time date people who believe in this, which means that our friendships and projects will be suddenly circumscribed.On the one hand, I think this is an unhealthy relationship pattern. On the other hand, you can't really tell a work acquaintance, "ignore your girlfriend. She's being overly possessive and jealous." It feels sucky, but I'm not sure what you can do about it besides acknowledge that it sucks, and live your life by rules that are more open and welcoming, and less based on fear, jealousy, and possessive patterns of relationship.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 10:34 AM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
This isn't just a case of personal beliefs. Personal beliefs are fine when it's a case of someone who doesn't eat pork to stay kosher or believes in a certain god or gods or no god at all and, on an individual level, doesn't affect other people. Personal beliefs that involve not interacting with someone else because of an unchangeable or immutable part of who they are as a person is such a specific thing that there is even a word for it: discrimination. This is discrimination and to not call it discrimination and suggest that it should just be gone along with in professional settings is insidious.
if they were people who did this all the time I feel like I could easily cut them out of my personal and professional circles, but because it is only for several months every couple years, it seems extreme to take that level of action.
Just because they're not ALWAYS doing it doesn't mean it's not something that is always a part of them. If it were me, I would not work with these people ever if they decided granting me humanity was sometimes in effect and sometimes not based on their whims. Why should they get to use you for personal and professional gain while deciding that they hold the reins on the relationship and can block reciprocity whenever they want? It is extreme for them to block you from these interactions. Mike Pence is an extremist and this type of discrimination IS extremism. That people think that it is extreme to stand up to to this type of discrimination allows extremism to gain a foothold.
posted by urbanlenny at 10:39 AM on June 18, 2022 [15 favorites]
if they were people who did this all the time I feel like I could easily cut them out of my personal and professional circles, but because it is only for several months every couple years, it seems extreme to take that level of action.
Just because they're not ALWAYS doing it doesn't mean it's not something that is always a part of them. If it were me, I would not work with these people ever if they decided granting me humanity was sometimes in effect and sometimes not based on their whims. Why should they get to use you for personal and professional gain while deciding that they hold the reins on the relationship and can block reciprocity whenever they want? It is extreme for them to block you from these interactions. Mike Pence is an extremist and this type of discrimination IS extremism. That people think that it is extreme to stand up to to this type of discrimination allows extremism to gain a foothold.
posted by urbanlenny at 10:39 AM on June 18, 2022 [15 favorites]
Here is a thing that would be utterly reasonable to say to a friend/friendly acquaintance: “When you go along with your wife/gf’s regressive, misogynistic expectations, you are actively supporting regressive, misogynistic values, and that disturbs me.”
Because in terms of impact and harm, there is zero difference between “I refuse to be alone with a woman who isn’t my wife because I deeply believe it’s wrong,” and “I refuse to be alone with a woman who isn’t my wife because my wife deeply believes it’s wrong and I’m ok with that.”
posted by theotherdurassister at 12:23 PM on June 18, 2022 [13 favorites]
Because in terms of impact and harm, there is zero difference between “I refuse to be alone with a woman who isn’t my wife because I deeply believe it’s wrong,” and “I refuse to be alone with a woman who isn’t my wife because my wife deeply believes it’s wrong and I’m ok with that.”
posted by theotherdurassister at 12:23 PM on June 18, 2022 [13 favorites]
Mod note: Several deleted. I think most people here know, or should know, that Ask Metafilter is about helping the OP answer their question, and not about making it into a general discussion about your related feelings and / or personal complaints or turning it into a debate with other posters. We don't have constant mod coverage any more, especially on weekends, so please try to do your part not to create a mess.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:35 PM on June 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 2:35 PM on June 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
with friends: respect their romantic relationships and back off. (Many, many people don't want their SOs in after-hours 1:1 social settings with members of the opposite sex; and many people find it simplifies their life to avoid them.)
with work colleagues: proactively arrange scenarios that are less likely to be a problem. Mornings rather than evenings. Dry vs drinking. Lunch cafes rather than atmospheric restaurants. Groups rather than 1:1. Keep talk professional rather than personal.
posted by fingersandtoes at 5:38 PM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
with work colleagues: proactively arrange scenarios that are less likely to be a problem. Mornings rather than evenings. Dry vs drinking. Lunch cafes rather than atmospheric restaurants. Groups rather than 1:1. Keep talk professional rather than personal.
posted by fingersandtoes at 5:38 PM on June 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
The best thing to do is just not have a relationship with them anymore, and collaborate with better people
posted by Violet Hour at 10:25 PM on June 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Violet Hour at 10:25 PM on June 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Ask a Manager says this behavior violates discrimination laws FWIW.
posted by Violet Hour at 12:54 AM on June 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Violet Hour at 12:54 AM on June 22, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older Mojang to Microsoft Account Woes | How to deal with a belligerent boss at a job you... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Ms. Moonlight at 1:18 AM on June 18, 2022 [5 favorites]