I follow this rule most of the time. If I need to do lunch with a female coworker I go as a group. There may be brief occurrences where I end up in a conference room with one other female but that isn't a typical scenario that can go off the rails.

I never assume that I won't ever be tempted or falsely accused. I've had numerous friends who had their marriage end due to adultery, I see countless events where someone is accused of harassment in a private moment.

Guarding myself against temptation is the prudent thing to do.

And unfortunately, false accusations.

I thought having a nurse in the room for every patient was paranoid overkill until I remembered you are a dermatologist

Quote:

---

Guarding myself against temptation is the prudent thing to do.

---

The counterpoint is that you are holding women down in the workplace and are honestly unfit for leadership if this is what you have to do.

Lets also go easy on the "false accusation" nonsense as well. It is still by far the minority of cases and not worth considering.

Note: I do think the "no complaining about your spouse to the opposite sex" is a very good rule. No ones saying you don't need guardrails to avoid slipping down the slope. But, I think complete exclusion is a bit far and causes damage in it's own right.

I'm unfit for leadership because of this?

Dude you just want to criticize everything.

Quote:

---

I'm unfit for leadership because of this?

Dude you just want to criticize everything.

---

You're unwilling to treat a woman in the workforce the same as you would a man. If I am your boss, I have concerns: I have to worry about all interacts you have with other female co-workers because you're intimating that you can't control yourself...or any team you're on with women because you aren't going to do what's necessary to get the job done - ie, meet with them 1 on 1 if the situation calls on it.

So, the answer is yes. You're unfit.

(I am being very frank to try and demonstrate how silly that position is)

PacifistAg said:

---

It would be impossible to do my job if I refused to meet with men privately, or if they refused to meet privately with me. I just don't get why it's such a challenge.

---

Of course you don't get it. When you pray, do you thank God you are not like us sinners?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Guarding myself against temptation is the prudent thing to do.

---

The counterpoint is that you are holding women down in the workplace and are honestly unfit for leadership if this is what you have to do.

Lets also go easy on the "false accusation" nonsense as well. It is still by far the minority of cases and not worth considering.

Note: I do think the "no complaining about your spouse to the opposite sex" is a very good rule. No ones saying you don't need guardrails to avoid slipping down the slope. But, I think complete exclusion is a bit far and causes damage in it's own right.

---

That's not the counterpoint. It's a bad faith argument. That's why the retort from several is about needing someone else to keep you from being rapist or holding women back. It's an intentional misrepresentation of the idea behind the BGR.

Frok said:

---

I'm unfit for leadership because of this?

Dude you just want to criticize everything.

---

Do you think his claim that women would be at a disadvantage under you if you're, for the most part, unwilling to be around them on a one-on-one basis has any merit? That seems like it would sort of obviously be the case to me, and if you think otherwise I'd like to hear why.

Many churches and organizations have policies in place to protect children that require 2 deep leadership, meaning no adult can be in a one on one situation with a child, unless it is their own child.

Is this policy to protect the child or the pedophile? I think we would all agree it is to protect the child. We still don't allow pedophiles to serve in children's ministries, even with another person in the room. But, for nonpedophile volunteers, as explained to me in one of those trainings, if you are never in a potentially compromising situation, you cant be accused of it. It's a win-win.

The so called BGR comes from the Modesto Manifesto to "avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion." As we see even today with christian leaders who fall to sexual sin and churches that suffer from it, we need protections for our people. We should also protect our pastors not only from temptation, but even the appearance of wrong doing. Susan may legitimately in Pastor Bill's office for prayer and counseling due to a rough marriage, but the appearance of something else going on will start rumors and be harmful to all involved, even if completely false.

How does this work in the business world? I'm not sure, but I know of a lot of sexual predators whose crimes have come to light of raping women in one on one situations.

Quote:

---

That's not the counterpoint. It's a bad faith argument. That's why the retort from several is about needing someone else to keep you from being rapist or holding women back. It's an intentional misrepresentation of the idea behind the BGR.

---

Bad faith how? Are we getting technical about whether the "counterpoint" is a true and exact counterpoint?

No ones debating the thought behind the BGR rule. it's just heavy handed and has ramifications beyond that of just the person using it. You're freezing people out and making yourself susceptible to groupthink. You're giving up a lot on the fear of a false accusation.

Cassius said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

It would be impossible to do my job if I refused to meet with men privately, or if they refused to meet privately with me. I just don't get why it's such a challenge.

---

Of course you don't get it. When you pray, do you thank God you are not like us sinners?

---

You've had two comments directed towards me on this thread. Both are utter nonsense. I meet privately with men all the time. They don't think I'm laying in wait just to falsely accuse them (the % of actual false allegations is miniscule anyways). We are professionals and do our jobs in a professional manner. I couldn't do my job without private meetings, and if a male counterpart refuses to do so, that's on him and if anyone's career is jeopardized as a result, it should be the one who is incapable of meeting with the opposite sex.

You make it seem like women are just itching to falsely accuse you of something nefarious. It shows such a offensively low view of women. But, to respond to your nonsensical deflection, I'm a sinner like anyone else. Don't place limits on women because your character and reputation may be lacking.

Quote:

---

How does this work in the business world? I'm not sure, but I know of a lot of sexual predators whose crimes have come to light of raping women in one on one situations.

---

I don't get the "Sorry women, you careers will plateau because you might be raped. Be thankful." argument.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

How does this work in the business world? I'm not sure, but I know of a lot of sexual predators whose crimes have come to light of raping women in one on one situations.

---

I don't get the "Sorry women, you careers will plateau because you might be raped. Be thankful." argument.

---

well, I didn't make that argument, so I won't be able to discuss it with you

But Ravi being a sexual predator isn't the result of his failure to follow the BGR. He was a predator who used an international ministry to prey on women. Rapists and predators don't rape because they succumbed to temptation while being alone with a woman. It's about power, and he created a framework with zero accountability to facilitate his predatory behavior.

But, as I mentioned earlier, a Fred Rogers Rule would be far more effective and would guard against any false allegation even gaining traction. Be of impeccable character. The Pharisees tried to denigrate Christ's character by pointing out the sinners He hung out with. Those allegations didn't gain traction because of who people knew Him to be. If some woman came out and made allegations against Fred Rogers today, they wouldn't gain traction because of who we all knew him to be.

Quote:

---

well, I didn't make that argument, so I won't be able to discuss it with you

---

you're the one whos connecting adherence to the BGR rule and women getting raped in the workplace in one-on-one settings, not me.

If what I posted isn't your argument, then tell me what it is.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

That's not the counterpoint. It's a bad faith argument. That's why the retort from several is about needing someone else to keep you from being rapist or holding women back. It's an intentional misrepresentation of the idea behind the BGR.

---

Bad faith how? Are we getting technical about whether the "counterpoint" is a true and exact counterpoint?

No ones debating the thought behind the BGR rule. it's just heavy handed and has ramifications beyond that of just the person using it. You're freezing people out and making yourself susceptible to groupthink. You're giving up a lot on the fear of a false accusation.

---

If you don't believe that people have complete control and perfect emotional regulation at all times, if you believe in systemic sin, if you believe in spiritual warfare beyond the material realm, it should be easy to see why the BGR is a good idea. Emotional affairs occur sometimes not because people set out to have them but because they open themselves up little by little and find themselves farther down the road than they imagined. It's not physical but it's not right, it's still cheating. Now imagine if they'd had someone there to let them know they crossed a line, or to change the dynamic of vulnerability by being a group moment. This is the idea. Protection against false allegations and actual predatory behavior is part of the package but not necessarily the primary focus some here make it out to be.

I have a low anthropology and high christology. I also find myself less and less of a materialist and (I believe) less deceived about my ability to control myself and the world around me. That's where my argument comes from.

I don't view anyone's career as their highest calling, man or woman. There are more important things.

Edit: I see where you got the fear argument from. It was from my response to RA and his 'Fred Rogers' rule. I pointed out it didn't work for Brett kavanaugh. Your response has simply been to marginalize or ignore it. He was called a rapist on every major news network in front of his family. Doesn't seem to have done anything for him. RA also seems to ignore this very public and profound dynamic in the national tenor of this discussion. Impeccable character doesn't actually do anything anymore - it's the bailey in the motte and bailey argument. It's the era of social justice; power dynamics reduced to sex and race are all that matters for guilt. One more reason to follow the rule. But the people that create the atmosphere seem to not take any responsibility.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

well, I didn't make that argument, so I won't be able to discuss it with you

---

you're the one whos connecting adherence to the BGR rule and women getting raped in the workplace in one-on-one settings, not me.

If what I posted isn't your argument, then tell me what it is.

---

As I said and you quoted, for the workplace, I don't know how best to apply this principle, but I do see bad things happening.

I see Matt Lauer who raped a woman after getting her in one on one situations in his office. I see abuses in my life of work. I attend trainings where women are advise to not walk alone at night across the parking lot, but can call the security for escorts. I know women have to think about the possibility of being sexually assaulted in the workplace a lot more than I do. I've pretty much never think about my self being a potential victim of sexual assault, unless I ended up in jail. My wife, she says things like that cross him mind on a regular basis when she is in a parking lot alone. If I have a male and female working alone on a night shift, I often make the rounds through the work center, partly just so they know they are not alone.

I've had a situation where an individual not under my supervision was working with some of my personnel. He was accused of some bad sexual crimes. I got them transferred away, but in the mean-time, we prevented him from having one-on-one situations with our personnel. I often times myself sat in the corner of the workcenter, something I never did, just to prevent a one-on-one situation.

But it isn't rape that the primary drive of the rule is, as you saw in my post. Billy says it is to prevent even the appearance of wrong-doing. I don't think he is really talking about women falsely accusing him of rape, but people talking about him having an affair. I've seen quite a few people who are accused of having affairs, some true some not, but all stemming from them spending time alone.

I think the appearance of wrong-doing is the bigger thing for a leader to be concerned with. Does that mean we need to avoid one-on-ones in the work place? Well, I don't practice that myself. But I think we need to be aware of even the appearance of a sexual relationship occurring between a leader and a subordinate can be toxic to the work environment. And in my experience, those accusations come in the form of "well, they do spend a lot of time together..."

For those of you who won't be alone with a woman to prevent accusations or the appearance of a relationship, would you be alone with an out gay man?

Maybe it is my lack of exposure to it, but I don't think society views those similarly.

If a married man spends time with a married woman who is not his wife, I have often seen those accusations made. I can't think of a single accusation when it deals with a homosexual man. Can you?

It definitely happens, and obviously not as often just because of population sizes, especially in certain professions.
Approach it as a hypothetical then, if you managed a perfectly diverse group made up every race, gender, sex, and orientation. Who would you not meet with in private?

If we are dealing with hypotheticals, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

I think this is more telling.

"Nearly two-thirds say people should take extra caution around members of the opposite sex at work. A majority of women, and nearly half of men, say it's unacceptable to have dinner or drinks alone with someone of the opposite sex other than their spouse."

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/july/most-americans-like-the-billy-graham-mike-pence-rule-including-women

Dinner and especially drinks is very different than a one-on-one in a professional setting.

Well, of course they got that response based on that question.

I think what we are talking about here are very benign normal business interactions that some say they won't even have a meeting in their office with the opposite sex. That's very diff than what you linked.

Agreed drinks and a meeting are different, but it does show that there is concern about one on one situations and the goal isn't to keep women from advancing.

Pro Sandy said:

---

Agreed drinks and a meeting are different, but it does show that there is concern about one on one situations and the goal isn't to keep women from advancing.

---

But again, those two are very diff. I don't think you can draw any conclusion in the direction you are advocating.

And I don't think anyone that observes this rule is actively trying to keep women from advancing. I just think it ends up happening due to that 'rule'.

Would anyone refuse a one-on-one with a female boss?

Quad Dog said:

---

Would anyone refuse a one-on-one with a female boss?

---

potentially, if it made my wife uncomfortable

Pro Sandy said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Would anyone refuse a one-on-one with a female boss?

---

potentially, if it made my wife uncomfortable

---

So a female boss sends you a calender invite for a mid-afternoon meeting to discuss confidential work-related matters, you're calling your wife to check with her before accepting?

If you have a female subordinate, how do you do simple things like deliver performance reviews?

PacifistAg said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Would anyone refuse a one-on-one with a female boss?

---

potentially, if it made my wife uncomfortable

---

So a female boss sends you a calender invite for a mid-afternoon meeting to discuss confidential work-related matters, you're calling your wife to check with her before accepting?

If you have a female subordinate, how do you do simple things like deliver performance reviews?

---

If my wife doesn't know I have a female boss prior to this meeting, I havent done a good job being a husband. My wife knows about my day and if she expresses that it makes her uncomfortable, then I have to take that into consideration in future meetings.

I had a female boss before and for my evaluation, she had my immediate supervisor come in as well. Only time I had that as my other bosses have been male and evaluation debriefs were done one on one with them.

In order to protect both parties from temptation and false accusations, I won't meet one one with my Baptist or Adventist coworkers. Sure it might be an encumbrance on their career but they should be thankful. I am only trying to protect their faith from being tempted to change their religion to a more true version of Christianity, while at the same time protecting myself from false accusations of proselytizing

But that doesn't really answer my question. You get a calendar invite for a mid-afternoon meeting to discuss confidential work-related topics with your female boss. Your wife knows you have a female boss. Do you have to call your wife and get her blessing before accepting the invite from your boss? If your wife says "no", what do you tell your boss? Would your wife's discomfort be driven by a lack of trust in either you or your boss? Or something else?

Pro Sandy said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Would anyone refuse a one-on-one with a female boss?

---

potentially, if it made my wife uncomfortable

---

So a female boss sends you a calender invite for a mid-afternoon meeting to discuss confidential work-related matters, you're calling your wife to check with her before accepting?

If you have a female subordinate, how do you do simple things like deliver performance reviews?

---

If my wife doesn't know I have a female boss prior to this meeting, I havent done a good job being a husband. My wife knows about my day and if she expresses that it makes her uncomfortable, then I have to take that into consideration in future meetings.

I had a female boss before and for my evaluation, she had my immediate supervisor come in as well. Only time I had that as my other bosses have been male and evaluation debriefs were done one on one with them.

---

Wait...did you request the supervisor before hand? Or did she? Or was that company policy?

The only time I have ever had a performance review that included a 3rd party was when someone was getting fired/put on a PIP or the subordinate felt they had been treated unfairly or inappropriately by the supervisor. In all cases, one or both were gone by the end of the quarter.

She requested it when the meeting was set up.

It was one of the best evaluations I ever got.

I assumed it was because she didn't want to put herself in one on one situations that might look compromising. It didn't bother me at all.