In the recent spate of sexual misconduct allegations, many conservatives are commending the Pence rule, Mike Pence’s personal policy of never being alone with a woman other than his wife. Proponents of this rule love it for many reasons, without seeing why it is a terrible injustice to women. Here are the reasons they love it:
They believe it prevents men from being tempted to stray (or to cheat, to harass or even rape). But they equate the mere presence of a woman with “the hint of impropriety.”
https://twitter.com/topheradkins/status/930425896003096576
Preventing harassment.
https://twitter.com/BidnessClass/status/932673874424147968
https://twitter.com/KayJay3030/status/932627666196242432
Preventing false accusations, which only constitute 2-5% of rape allegations and usually have very little consequences (given that rape allegations in general have very little consequences).
https://twitter.com/SeamusNorth/status/932059135889289216
But here’s why it fails:
It holds women back by barring them from opportunity.
https://twitter.com/emkateland/status/932652935116480512
It assumes cishetero harassment only.
https://twitter.com/caribcap/status/929217859749806080
It assumes men can’t control themselves.
It equates harassing and assaulting with infidelity, not with abuse of power.
https://twitter.com/THEmattlaff/status/923993604611297280
It blames victims of sexual assault.
It assumes women are liars.
It is fear-mongering about unlikely scenarios.
The Pence rule will be familiar to many of you for its Mormon iterations:
- Missionaries not being allowed in a house if there is no adult man present (even though companions were originally put in place to prevent any potential issues).
- Some Mormon men refusing to give rides to women if they will be the only two people in the car.
- The “reasons” given to bar women & men from serving together on presidencies.
And yet those rules are conveniently forgotten when it comes to a bishop meeting with a woman or teenage girl behind closed doors alone.[1] I blogged about this issue of treating all women as suspects and infusing normal situations with abnormal sexual tension here, and here. There are real world consequences to treating all women as potential victims, assumed liars or temptations to be avoided at all cost. Any way you slice it, that’s still objectifying women.
I was at a leadership retreat many years ago, and the person leading the session asked if I needed to be excused from the assignment that they were giving out that evening for religious reasons. I thought and thought and couldn’t think of any religious objection to the assignment. The instructor said my Mormon colleague had confided in him that he couldn’t do the assignment for religious reasons. I was stumped. I really couldn’t think of a single issue based on my understanding of our shared faith. I concluded he was just looking for an excuse to get out of the assignment.
When I got back to the office I asked this colleague why he had objected to the assignment. He kind of laughed it off and said it was because it was a group assignment with both men and women working together in the evening. I had a strange look on my face so he continued to explain that he had always been cautioned to stay away from mixed gender groups “just in case.” I pointed out that all of our employees were mixed gender groups, and he agreed maybe he was just being too cautious.
When men avoid working with women, women lose opportunities. I am forced to conclude with one of the Tweeters above that men who want to follow the Pence rule should recuse themselves from public life rather than barring women from opportunities. This is one example, albeit a subtle one, of conservative political attitudes coloring our Mormon culture. Jesus didn’t tell the woman at the well to get away so nobody saw him talking to a lone woman, and he entered Martha and Mary’s house without assuming they were hell-bent on seduction.
Discuss.
[1] Some women have reported that they have been asked very intrusive sexual questions in these situations. All it takes is one pervy bishop.
Wheat & Tares 
Oh come on Hawk. I am sure you had SOME reservations about being in a mixed gender assignment. I would assume first and foremost is that you would do so good you would show up the men and their ego’s wouldn’t take it well. 🙂
strange?our chapel has glass windows in all doors so anybody can see into the rooms.
Ron – So does ours except the bishops’ offices, clerks’ offices, and stake offices. Where men and women or men/teens meet alone together. It’s a really weird, mixed message that Mormonism sends on this.
But… but.. she came over to this home this day and she saw her friend, the Latter-day Saint sister, sitting on a chair here and an Elder at her feet- this will shock you- trimming her toe-nails or painting her toe-nails, or something!
This is honestly a pointless debate. Avoiding liability is the overarching rule here. It has nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with avoiding legal problems. For example, having missionaries not go in houses where there are only members of the opposite gender is to protect the church and the missionaries from legal charges. Looking for other reasons behind this is frankly making a mountain out of a molehill.
One of the things I wonder on this is of the people who are fans of the PenceRule, are they in families where both parents work? Or is there a correlation between how one feels on separation of the sexes and having one of the partners (usually the woman) a stay at home parent?
A couple of years ago we discussed ways to avoid the appearance of evil between men and women in RS. Ladies were quite vocal about the extremes they and their spouses go through to avoid being alone with the opposite sex. But I noticed the women who spoke up were all from wealthier families and SAHMs. Not a single one of the ladies that was employed got involved. (Well, except me as I couldn’t let it pass without pointing out the dangers of discrimination and how I personally was being painted as a huge sinner because I occasionally have lunch appointments with male clients. I said it nicely though…)
I work at BYU. I’ve broken the Pence rule many times. No big deal. I know myself and trust myself. I trust the women I work with. We have good, productive relationships. I also happen to believe that the world would be a more sane, safe place if women were in more positions of power. I think the Mike Pence rule tells us a lot more about Mike Pence than about the dangers of working alone with the opposite sex.
Mary and Martha were the wives of Jesus, so no problem! You can’t sexually harass someone you’re already married to. (At least some people think so. See https://gospeltangents.com/2017/11/20/annes-marriage-jesus-polygamist/ )
Here’s the problem: the morality of Mormonism places fidelity so much higher on the list of important values than equality. I’ve often heard the following argument: “I don’t care what it does to your career. My marriage is more important than anything. I am willing to do anything to ensure it survives.” Our theology backs this argument. Marriage is what exalts you, not treating others fairly or kindly. Those are nice things to do, but not at the expense of your marriage. Using this framework it is easy to see how even the most minuscule chance of accusations of infidelity is worse than actually harming the careers of large groups of women.
RetX: Yes, it’s definitely got to be a very specific subset of privilege that creates this kind of rule, one that still sees the workplace as gendered. IMO, that contributes to the problem. When men don’t have to work with women, they start to see them as an intrusion in public spaces, not as a group of people deserving of respect and equal treatment. I am often alarmed by the justifications some women give to exclude women from spaces that they see strictly as the purview of their husbands for fear that women will either seduce or unjustly accuse their meal ticket, endangering their own way of life. It’s pretty paranoid thinking, and unfortunately, I hear it primarily from women at church. The simple fact is that in my decades in business, I didn’t harass anyone, and our strict policies against harassment also helped prevent me from being harassed. The companies I worked for took harassment claims very seriously and there were swift consequences for credible claims. These types of protections make sense far more than barring women from public life, which is the Pence rule outcome.
Another group of people who create a very religious-based gender segregation are Muslim men. Working in Asia, I had to get used to the fact that Muslim men would not shake my hand in a business setting. Usually they would instead put their hand on their heart and give a slight bow of acknowledgement. I was taught this in my culture training, so I avoided any faux pas, but it was still a strange feeling. Any physical contact with a woman was avoided. It was done respectfully, but it was still hard not to feel like I was being “othered,” or considered unclean somehow.
Through most of my career, I was able to forget that I was a woman and instead just felt like I was treated as a person with ideas. Putting one’s sex front and center is in itself unwelcome and weird.
You are wrong about false accusations not having significant consequences. If you posess a security clearance, a false accusation will cause you to lose access to your employment for some time until the issue can slowly be resolved ( wheels of government turn slowly).
CJ — absolutely right, but how often does this happen? Speaking in deliberately vague terms, I know of a government employee who was targeted by a false claim, but the situation was so absurd on its face that it went nowhere. Clearance was not affected in the slightest.
Bro Jones, I’ve known two cases of false accusations where I work. Yes it may be rare, but because of the nature of our clearances, they had to find other assignments or even other jobs while it was investigated. One was resolved in 60 days, the other in a year. Too risky for me.
CJ,
What are the consequences if a sex discrimination case is filed against you?
The risk of false reporting is far, far outweighed by the risks of no reporting at all. There are hundreds of reasons why clearance would be temporarily suspended, many much more common than a false sexual harassment claim. It’s a retort along the same lines that are used to give little, if any, consequences for the actions of a rapist/assaulter, “it’ll ruin their lives, haunt them forever”.
The same thinking kept people from putting tires on their cars (it could get a flat), and investing in nuclear energy (it could melt down). Just because you’ve seen (or heard of) something happening once or twice does not make the necessity invalid.
Bro Jones, a sex discriminaton investigation means reassignment during the investigation, likely reassignment of the parties involved and termination if found to be true. The people a the top (politicians can often get a pass) are treated differently than the rank and file for problems.
I ageee that reporting is vital, but the consequences of an investigation are difficult, regardless of outcome, in this line of work.
Excellent post, Angela.
I’m not a fan of the Pence rule, nor do I agree with the verse from the KJV frequently used to support it: “avoid the appearance of evil”, which comes from 1 Thessalonians 5:22. That scripture is often used to imply that one should avoid being associated in any way with something “bad”, such as holding a Starbucks cup (it must be coffee) or, as in this case, being alone with a woman in any way.
A more accurate translation of that verse (and the previous verses in order to get context) would be: “Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil.” Another way it could be said is to “avoid all types of evil,” which is a different meaning than how the verse is used in the LDS Church.
Then you deal with the consequences, even (and especially) for people at the top. Any position should have support enough that if that person died, the work would still continue. If it doesn’t, then -fix that-. Every organization has had to deal with people leaving unexpectedly. Every employee has had to deal with unexpected changes to their work. This should not be a special class of consequence.
If a CEO is accused of routinely murdering inters, you conduct an investigation. You don’t go, “well, the consequences of just investigating would be too difficult, and there are so many false accusations”.
The consequences of an investigation may be difficult, but those consequences pale in comparison to those to the victims of rape, assault, and harassment.
Hear, hear, Frank Pellett!
I’ve agree with the comments and have written too much. My only point is the “Pence Rule” makes sense in some high consequence environments.
“johndehlin”: First, there’s about zero chance you are actually John Dehlin given your comment. Also, you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills or have simply opted not to read the post. That’s your prerogative I suppose, but your comment doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Nobody disputes that the church wants to avoid liability. They are simply doing this by treating it as a certainty that women will make false allegations or that men will assault women if given the opportunity. That’s the point. The Pence rule infuses normal non-sexual situations with abnormal sexual tension and paranoia.
As a stay-at-home wife who hears too often of affairs, I’m probably more sympathetic to the impetus behind the Pence rule. But the field that my husband works in is predominantly female, so I realize it’s just not feasible in most work environments.
As far as the bishop thing, it makes me think of when medical professionals do more sensitive procedures on patients and they are *required* to bring in a second person. This is considered protection for the patient as well as the medical professional. When bishops are probing on the sexual stuff, I feel like this type of rule would make sense to protect everyone involved.
I am excited that abuse is being brought to light after centuries in the dark, but it is becoming increasingly frustrating to see how quick we are to dismiss the fear of false accusations because it interferes with our black-and-white thinking. The low incidence of false accusations does not make a person irrational for wanting to protect against them. Thinking otherwise is a bit too close to the conservative’s, “The health of the mother is only a factor in x% of births, so it’s okay to ban all abortions.” Why do we need to pick a side, anyway? No one actually wants anything less than justice.
As far as Mike Pence and other Peter Priesthoods, I think they’re ridiculous. One time a counselor in my bishopric did this crazy lunge to keep a classroom open after my husband walked out first, leaving just the two of us. Like I was going to jump him. But the rule of itself does not have to be sexist — whether or not Mike Pence is. Is it impossible for a guy to promote a woman he hasn’t taken to dinner? If so, can a third wheel really not be pulled in? I visit teach just enough to know that you CAN get three people together sometimes.
If I were in politics, I would also follow the Pence rule. There are way too many instances of accusations of sexual harassment or worse. In the US senate, Pence would have made sure that his top legislative assistant was a man. When campaigning, the campaign manager would be a man. Other than that, there was probably not any other restriction on his hiring, or association. For Mike Pence, this rule has worked well. For others, I do not know. Were there legislative aides or campaign personnel who were passed over for promotion because of his rule? Perhaps.
In more general business, I have seen this rule from both men and women. I have gotten extra lunch invitations from the boss, because the lone woman in our department will not go to lunch alone with him. Since she and I are not in competition for promotions or assignments, this is not a big problem. They will meet alone together in the office, but generally keep the door open. If most of the managers in the company had the Pence rule, it would be hard in certain situations. It would be tough if the HR manager and the boss to meet privately as required in many circumstances.
Mary Ann and Hawk— It sure seems that if there was a real concern there would be no interviews without a second person present.
I can understand the rationale behind the Pence rule, but like most rules a black and white application of the rule is nonsensical. A sliding scale approach is much more reasonable. For example, mixed gender work lunches in public locations are low risk and are a necessary part of business. Sharing a hotel room with someone of another gender poses a higher risk of impropriety or miscommunication and is probably best to be avoided. The reality is that circumstances where the Pence rule might reasonably apply are rare, are often foreseeable and can be avoided with with proper planning. The way I see it, most of the time the male who pulls a last minute Pence rule denial of access does so because of his conceit and self centeredness.
> The Pence rule infuses normal non-sexual situations with abnormal sexual tension and paranoia.
> if there was a real concern there would be no interviews without a second person present.
Or better yet, YW and sisters could talk to the relief society president when a totally private conversation is necessary.
Great post. I cannot stand the Pence rule or his smugness.I agree it is easily forgotten when a bishop interviews a woman or girl alone.
The Pence Rule makes sense in many situation, but not all. It’s a judgment call.
When Dallin Oaks was dating his current wife (he was an apostle) he had someone with him. I heard his wife relate this experience.
Why would Dallin Oaks not go on a private date like all other Mormon guys ?
So I’m coming around to seeing the sliding scale of ‘protection of one’s self’ as being cautiously a good idea.
A woman should avoid being alone with a man who has sent out signals that he sexually harasses women. A man should avoid being alone with a woman who has sent out signals that she either sexually harasses or makes false accusations against men. Sometimes it is very obvious who we should avoid. Sometimes it is not and we STILL end up in situations of distress. We can’t bar entirely the opposite sex without causing more harm than the risk of harassment/false charges warrants (without good reason). We just have to do our best to both protect ourselves and function normally. Seems about like everything in life.
While social and news media have extrapolated from what Pence actually said to what is now being called the “Pence Rule”, to be fair to Pence, he never said he would never be alone with a woman other than his wife. Rather he said he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he wouldn’t attend an event where alcohol would be served without her by his side. While you can argue that is still discriminatory (and Hawkgrrrl has done that previously) it is still a significant difference particularly when it comes to work situations.
Another nail in the coffin of the Pence Rule is the fact that you never know if the other party is heterosexual and/or cisgender. People following the Pence Rule with Kevin Spacey were still abused.
No matter how much you fear being alone with another person, stuff still happens.
I agree with RetX that it’s best to avoid people who are giving signals that they might harass or that they might falsely accuse. Treating the entire other sex as suspect is where it becomes problematic, though.
Years ago, I had a male employee whose role also required him to occasionally go to dinner with clients who were in from out of town. It was part of managing our relationships, and generally reciprocated both directions; these were dinners in public restaurants, a very common practice. His wife was a very jealous person, and he told me about an incident that had occurred a few months before I took my role as his boss in which he had been at dinner with a female client. His jealous wife came to the restaurant and confronted him with the client, accusing him of having an affair, and making a huge scene in the restaurant, screaming and throwing things. He told me this with great embarrassment because he knew he couldn’t trust his wife not to show up at a business dinner and make a scene, so he was unable to conduct client dinners, and he was explaining to me why he couldn’t take care of his client dinner, meaning someone else had to go entertain them for him. This held him back in his career because his wife’s behavior was so unprofessional and embarrassing. He eventually chose to take a non-leadership role in another department where client relations and entertaining were not a factor. It was one of the most outrageous things I ever heard of, to be honest. It made me wonder if she was just crazy or if he had in fact cheated on her before, and she had reason to be jealous. Either way, the extra drama impeded his progress for sure. We did have our one on one meetings in my office with the door closed, though, which was also pretty normal. Confidential things are often discussed in these settings such as hiring and firing and disciplinary decisions, and leaving the door open is not always appropriate.
Also of note:In all the jobs I’ve had in my life going back to college, I’ve only ever had two male bosses. If I observed the Pence rule, I would never have socialized with a single one of my supervisors other than those two.
JLM’s comment can’t get 9 likes here without a reckoning:
“The reality is that circumstances where the Pence rule might reasonably apply are rare, are often foreseeable and can be avoided with with proper planning.”
Avoided at what cost? I answer: at the cost of the careers of the *people* you are avoiding. You can’t go to dinner with one of your work-bros and then scrupulously avoid scheduling a dinner with a woman down the hall. Well, you can, but you’re being discriminatory: you’re denying that woman an opportunity that you are extending to the man, simply because she is a woman.
There appears to be no other way that the problem can be “avoided.” And while I’m at it, what principle lets me share a room with a male colleague, but not a female one?
There’s no middle ground here: treating opposite sex colleagues differently is either acceptable in some circumstances, or not acceptable under any circumstances. By the general tone of this thread, I sense that the majority here (or at least the most vocal participants) take the latter position. If that is so, cop to it. If not, what about a limited Pence Rule?
And on one other point:
I thought uncomfortable sexual discussions with bishops were the norm – what gives? Is there enough genuine perversion by bishops to justify making everyone confess to two people, rather than one? If so, I vote we cut the crap and go straight to shouting from the rooftops.
“Treating the entire other sex as suspect is where it becomes problematic, though.”
I agree. I’ve seen it from both men and women in the Mormon world, but maybe because I’m a man I’ve had far more issues with women. And perhaps it catches me even more off guard because it wasn’t part of my personal upbringing and my only sister is not and has never been this way toward other guys.
I despise this cultural notion that men are beasts, ready to be overpowered by every whim of passion at a given moment. I believe I am just as capable as a women or any person at controlling myself and behaving respectfully to myself and others. I find it very hurtful to be viewed and treated as a threat in benign situations while attempting to just be a genuine and friendly human being.
These artificial cultural barriers I think are really hurting our ability to grow together as a community and to be true friends with one another – which is a shame for everyone.
First, there’s about zero chance you are actually John Dehlin given your comment.
Idk, John Dehlin’s kind of a woman-exploiting and -harassing jerkbag.
And the “but it might lead to an affair” excuse is just really sad. Why aren’t we asking why some guys see all women as a potential threat? Why aren’t we talking about how to help them deal with this issue?
Are they unmarried and terrified of having sexual feelings at all? Are they in a loveless marriage? Are they in a strongly devoted marriage, but develop crushes easily and are scared to death that they’ll crush on someone who isn’t their spouse, and then that will lead them to question everything they have? Is this all just stuff we’re trying desperately to ignore, even at the cost of committing grievous injustice?
My understanding of the relevant psychology is that most people crave sexual novelty, but at the same time they also need emotional bonds that develop and strengthen over time. Keeping in mind that everyone’s feelings and needs are different, it just seems like a really bad idea all-around to force your committed romantic partner into the role of your exclusive sexual partner. And I say this as someone who’s been in and knows a bunch people in polyamorous relationships between equals, who are all doing just fine despite some people being unable to wrap their heads around it.
Finally, there’s also the fact that the #PenceRule means trans women get even more excluded from society, since Certain Men Whose Feelings Are More Important Than My Safety Or Equality can’t deal with suddenly having pantsfeelings for “a dude.” One day you’re a bro, the next you’re fetish porn.
I got into a long and convoluted and ultimately painful discussion about this idea as a result of Karen H’s earlier post on BCC. Suffice it to say, I came appreciate my husband even more for treating his female colleagues as people, and was sorely disappointed in my brother apparently viewing women first and foremost as risk.
Basically, it all comes down to the fact that both left and right don’t answer questions because they both have a “protect the narrative” rule that says that if we answer important questions that our rivals ask, then all will be lost, since it will put a dent in our precious party-line. Hence, the right will never answer the question about what to do with low-income people, but will just keep saying, “work harder,” while the left will never answer questions about how to protect men from false accusations of all kinds, because there’s a fear that if anything about patriarchy doctrines is moderated, then the power of the whole movement will be lost. Hence, if a guy brings up false accusations, rather than the left looking for creative ways to make men feel secure, they just scream “sexist-misogynist” and dump that person. And, of course, if anyone brings up the fact that no ordinary person can afford a home on either coast, the right just screams “welfare cheat!” and then shuts their ears. Both sides, right now, are just up to their ears in intellectual dishonesty, because both right and left share the Leninist doctrine, both Banonites and Clintonites, that the public is so stupid that they can’t handle a nuanced argument and can’t handle solutions that are complex enough to address worries on both sides. So both left and right basically adjust all their talking points to lead to basically telling the other side to shut up and go away, which is why both left and right spend a lot of time on the issue of who may speak and who may not speak, because everyone wants everyone else to shut up. I know twelve people in my personal world who got falsely accused, so false accusations happen really regularly and destroy people all over the place. The problem for the right is that if we discuss the fact that prosecutors routinely withhold exculpatory evidence, then , they fear, the criminal element will run with that and say, “See! We told you so!” And similarly, on the left, if we question children and women, and find out that while most accusations are true, many are false, then they’re afraid the right will run with that and say, “See! You never have to believe them again.” This mutual fear of giving the other side any ammunition at all is what is driving everything, and turning almost everyone on the right and left into liars of the sort you find in theology, where they’ll tell any lie because they believe the core tenets of the faith are so precious that all the lies around the edges have to constantly be answered with some kind of “shut up” technique. This is the main problem, in terms of the left, right now, in dealing with the tens of thousands of false accusations that happen every year. In order to protect the narrative of “believe women and children,” they’ve thrown out everything they used to believe in, like mercy, forgiveness, due process, the presumption of innocence, and just basic honesty. And so, as long as the left won’t answer questions with anything except, “I’m never talking to you again,” or, “Shut up!” or, “Sexist-misogynist pig!” then ordinary men will not feel safe. In other words, the left needs to, as it looks at ways to protect women from sexual assault, simultaneously look at the massive problem of false allegations and address that too. It’s not intellectually impossible to address both issues, but for “protect the narrative” reasons, no one will.
I trust my behavior very well. I mistrust hers. I’ve seen it. I’ve been through it. Chances of a false allegation isn’t very high, but IF it happens, a company will do anything to save face. And if that means letting YOU go with a golden handshake, then THAT is what’s going to happen. And that happened to me well before metoo came around. All thanks to an “out-of-control” prank that ended with negative publicity. The Court of Public Opinion is always very quickly to cast a verdict! I dodged a bullet when looking back to the whole ordeal. I didn’t care much that extra money they gave me. But it took me several years to heal psychologically from being accused and let go for something I did not do. So I interact with women as little as possible and I invoke the Pence Rule as much as I can. Whether or not it hampers the advancement of women is really not of my concern. Sorry!