Quote:

---

The problem is an inane policy of believing all women. If we are going to start talking about treating men and women fairly, that is as good a place to start as any.

---

while I don't agree with "believe all women" as a policy (for the same reasons you do), I think we should keep in mind that it started because many women's experiences were "believe no woman".

Women have similar stories to yall in that they spoke up and got nothing, blackballed, or physically threatened.

edit: me fail english. that's unpossible.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe.

But it certainly highlights that all it can take is an accusation of harassment and your ass is on thin ice.

When the rules are that slanted against you, can you hardly blame someone for not willing to take the risk?

---

But you don't know that your view is the "correct" one. What makes you so sure that this was a vindictive attack against, your words, a bad employee already out the door anyway?

The only word you got was "harassment"...which covers a wide range of issues. How are you so sure it wasn't a case of miscommunication?

---

It does not matter what you call it or what caused it.

Once you get a claim against you, you can not win.

Kind of like a lawsuit. No matter how innocent you are, you can not win.

This has nothing to do with anything but liability. Everything else is a false canard

And anybody who supported Blausey Ford, the Duke lacrosse accuser, etc. is aiding the other side.

The law of unintended consequences never fails. And unfortunately it is unrealized.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The problem is an inane policy of believing all women. If we are going to start talking about treating men and women fairly, that is as good a place to start as any.

---

while I don't agree with "believe all women" as a policy (for the same reasons you do), I think we should keep in mind that it started because many women's experiences were "believe no woman".

Women have similar stories to yall in that they spoke up and got nothing, blackballed, or physically threatened.

edit: me fail english. that's unpossible.

---

Agree. Which is why you need a witness.

Quote:

---

The law of unintended consequences never fails.

---

That's why this whole conversation is bonkers because you refuse to acknowledge the unintended consequences of your BGR.

it's interesting we view who is the power position in these situations.

Quote:

---

Agree. Which is why you need a witness.

---

Then apply BGR to men too

Why? It is unnecessary unless you are a female boss.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The law of unintended consequences never fails.

---

That's why this whole conversation is bonkers because you refuse to acknowledge the unintended consequences of your BGR.

it's interesting we view who is the power position in these situations.

---

Interesting that you do not believe one can invoke the BGR and not discriminate.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The law of unintended consequences never fails.

---

That's why this whole conversation is bonkers because you refuse to acknowledge the unintended consequences of your BGR.

it's interesting we view who is the power position in these situations.

---

The power people are the people who took the risk, started the business, etc. Male or female.

Quote:

---

Why? It is unnecessary unless you are a female boss.

---

Im surprised why you wouldn't want to make absolutely sure you don't get a false accusation.

Why take that risk? You've said it yourself that all it takes is 1 accusation, true or not, and you're screwed.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Interesting that you think the BGR is not inherently discriminatory. It literally means that you will do one thing in the workplace with one sex and not the other. Whether it's justified is a different question than whether it's discriminatory.

---

I don't think this is illegal discrimination. We already legally treat people different based on their sex with different bathroom, dress codes, and maternity vs paternity leave differences. Not having a private meeting with the door closed i don't think counts as denying employment opportunities.

I think it's tough to deny someone elses experience because we think we have been in same/similar circumstances as they are and feel differently about the outcome.

Just to clear, I am not advocating for agreeing with any accusation of sexism (believe all women) or buying into a systemic sexist culture argument.

I do, however, think the refusal to even acknowledge our potential biases is failing to serve our fellow man like we should.

Quad Dog said:

---

You're not exactly wrong. But a little Devil's Advocate says that it is going to happen regardless, so you might as well do the right thing and treat all your employees the same.

---

If its going to happen anyways, I'd rather it happen to someone else.

How about you do you, and I'll do me?

Quote:

---

How about you do you, and I'll do me?

---

Now now that's how you got into this mess

Pro Sandy said:

---

Let's also recognize that women have to worry about things that us men rarely do. Our bias is being male.

When I walked across a dark parking lot, I dont worry about if the person walking towards me is going to rape me. But women do worry, a majority do, about these things. "Women are also considerably more likely than men to say that they "always" or "often" feel unsafe participating in everyday activities like taking the bus alone, going on a first date, and exercising outdoors."

Do we think that fear disappears when you the male boss says "hey female employee, come into my office and shut the door."?

Treat people with equality, I'm all for that. But recognize that when you treat a women the same way you do a man, she may interpret it different.

Remember the BGR was created "to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion."

https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2019/03/28/women-safety-sexual-assault-awareness

---

Thats not news to some of us.

There's a simple reason why I fill up my wife's car with gas or I'm the one who makes trips to the store after the sun goes down, and the reason is that I'm a fairly fit 6'2 190 and she is 5'2 110. I don't look like an easy target, whereas she does.

Quote:

---

Agree. And that brings us to what is really at the bottom of this debate.

Men and women are different. And once you realize that, I think you realize that you can not treat them the same and situations have to be handled differently.

And that does not mean you are putting women at a disadvantage in my opinion. It is simply recognizing truth.

---

This has been such a strange conversational path. We've gone from false accusations to women are just needy people who can't ride the bus without panicking.

All the while, we still haven't even considered that we may be unintentionally putting them at a disadvantage and just writing it off like "no we aren't. end of story."

Quote:

---

If its going to happen anyways, I'd rather it happen to someone else.

How about you do you, and I'll do me?

---

As a Christian, how do you square this with the commands of Jesus?

(note: I get that I also fall short of the standard and my actions frequently diverge from my words. I think that's a wholly different matter than words also not being congruent)

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

If its going to happen anyways, I'd rather it happen to someone else.

How about you do you, and I'll do me?

---

As a Christian, how do you square this with the commands of Jesus?

(note: I get that I also fall short of the standard and my actions frequently diverge from my words. I think that's a wholly different matter than words also not being congruent)

---

Which commands?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Agree. And that brings us to what is really at the bottom of this debate.

Men and women are different. And once you realize that, I think you realize that you can not treat them the same and situations have to be handled differently.

And that does not mean you are putting women at a disadvantage in my opinion. It is simply recognizing truth.

---

This has been such a strange conversational path. We've gone from false accusations to women are just needy people who can't ride the bus without panicking.

---

Who said anything like that? Sounds like you are projecting.

Quote:

---

Which commands?

---

How we treat our neighbors?

Quote:

---

Who said anything like that? Sounds like you are projecting.

---

Follow the thread man.

And again, you seem to be ignoring the rest of my post about checking your own bias.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Which commands?

---

How we treat our neighbors?

---

Give me the precise quote and citation.

Then be so kind as to break it down into how we are supposed to put ourselves in potential harms way in the name of equality.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Which commands?

---

How we treat our neighbors?

---

Been following the discussion and I'm a bit torn on this. I definitely see the point that we are to treat others with respect and graciousness regardless of the cost to ourselves. However, I keep falling back on ther other side of the discussion. I don't see anywhere in Christianity where it is my responsibility to risk my life, livelihood, and calling to further the material, secular success of someone else.

My job is my calling, and it gives me the opportunity to do good works and help people on a frequent bases. It also allows me to be a good father and provide for my children. I also often have the opportunity to be generous, even though I'm not as good about that as I should be. I would give up or risk all of this for Christ. For instance, if I had to start performing euthanasia, abortions, or wasn't allowed to treat certain groups of people, then I would be done. I'm not too terribly worried about it, but you never know. However, I do not feel a moral imperative to put my career and calling at risk to make sure that everyone I work with has an equal chance for secular, financial success. I don't think that's a Christian imperative.

Let me try another example to elucidate the difference. If I saw a half naked woman on the road running in terror, then I would stop, render aid and try to help her. Despite the fact that this is a chaotic situation, easily misconstrued, and with a decent chance to end badly for me. That is the Christian thing to do. However, there are certain women I've worked with where I would not be alone in an office with them, despite the possible detriment to their careers. I feel no moral imperative to take such a risk.

Quote:

---

Give me the precise quote and citation.

Then be so kind as to break it down into how we are supposed to put ourselves in potential harms way in the name of equality.

---

If you want to legalize your way out of it, go ahead. You know what' I am referencing.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Give me the precise quote and citation.

Then be so kind as to break it down into how we are supposed to put ourselves in potential harms way in the name of equality.

---

If you want to legalize your way out of it, go ahead. You know what' I am referencing.

---

You're trying to "legalize" me into it.

Christ also told us, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."

It's almost as if we're supposed to be prudent and take action to protect ourselves in a fallen world.

Thank you for the response.

Why do you juxapose your "opportunity to do good works and help people and be a good father" against their "material financial success"? You seem to judging yourself by your ends and them by the means. it's great that your values drive you to view your material, financial success in that way...however, I don't know that it justifies our drive for material, financial success vs someone elses.

Before we get too far, I am not an advocate of "equality of outcome" here. It just reads to me like we are unwilling or unable to see how advantaged we are vs someone else.

Personally, I think what you referenced in your last paragraph is a burden of leadership. You have a responsibility to the rest of the organization to develop people and improve the talent in your charge. Giving a certain gender unequal access I think goes against this, as you'll develop a blind spot over time... as well as establishing a baseline that someone can't be trusted purely because of their gender.

Quote:

---

You're trying to "legalize" me into it.

Christ also told us, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."

It's almost as if we're supposed to be prudent and take action to protect ourselves in a fallen world.

---

"Legalize" was around trying to get at some chapter and verse nitpicking. I'm not trying to legalize you into anything.

Why is equality this dirty word? (again, not about outcome). It's interesting how we never view that in light of being the one who is robbed. Probably because we haven't been on the receiving end of it.

I get your point, and I think this is where the difference lies for me. In the theoretical scenario of a false accusation, the worst thing that could happen to me would be for me to lose my job and make it more difficult for me to find another. The worst case scenario for the excluded woman is being passed over for a promotion that she would have received if not for the exclusion. The best possible outcome for me not excluding everyone is absolutely nothing. The best possible outcome for the woman being excluded is getting a promotion.

So to recap private, closed door meetings
My upside: none. My downside: losing my job and having trouble finding another
Her upside: getting a promotion. Her downside: not getting a promotion

From a straight risk/benefit, it makes no sense. There is only downside for me and no upside. All the upside is on her end and she has much less downside.

The rest of my post was just me justifying protecting my livelihood. I am not greedy or ambitious. I like my job, I help people, I support my family, and I get to be generous. Those are all things worth protecting. I don't really see a "Christian" imperative in this situation to risk my entire livelihood to ensure someone else has the possibility of career advancement. This is an entirely secular issue.