Pudding wrote:
P wrote:
See above post.
If you remain unable to see the obvious then the only logical conclusion is that you are simply not very bright.
That’s some well documented proof there brother.
This isn’t the 1950s when men dominated the workforce.
My advice is to stop watching “Anchorman.”
95% of Fortune 500 CEOs are men.
You are clearly living on a different planet. Let me know when you plan to visit Earth.
corner office wrote:
P wrote:
See above post.
If you remain unable to see the obvious then the only logical conclusion is that you are simply not very bright.
Nice story.
I’ll give you 1/10 for at least making it sound plausible.
0/10
You are now dismissed.
Racket wrote:
P wrote:
Look, I know that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. But I am hopeful that even you have some capacity to see the obvious. Placing limitations on women in their professional lives such as this chaperone rule immediately relegates them to second class status.
You can run this argument the other way to suggest that it's not women that need a chaperone, but the man. And inferring that a man needs a chaperone to meet professionally with a woman suggests he has no or little agency over his body and/or thoughts. Honestly there's just so many arguments you can build from the premise that it's tough to preempt them all.
You seem to have missed the part where it is the men on this thread who are saying that they would not meet with a woman one on one in a business setting - i.e., it is the men who are setting the rules AND who hold the positions of power (in general) rendering this a matter of men setting the rules that ultimately keep women out of positions of power.
Sorry, dude - I give you credit for an honest attempt. But it really is pretty simply stuff. When one group (men) hold an enormous power advantage over another group (women) and then set up artificial rules of engagement that further disadvantage the group out of power then there is a problem.
Trollminator wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
So there should only be female taxi or Uber drivers because a male should want to avoid that job because he wouldn't want to be alone with a female. But can the male be a passenger alone with a female driver?
This still is something that strikes me (honestly not trying to offend) as being silly. I am talking a just an office meeting not a business trip or anything.
Ok let me have a little fun with this. What is one of the men is gay? Should he not meet alone with another male or does this just apply to females?
The whole notion of a man not wanting to be alone with a woman in any setting in the US is ridiculous. It’s 20 fkn 19 folks. There are countless combinations of circumstances which can potentially give the appearance of inappropriateness no matter how limited your exposure to women is, so it’s a real poor excuse to say you don’t want to give off the appearance of doing something wrong.
We are talking about a professional setting here and in this case a reporter, it would be truly retarded for anyone to misconstrue that as an inappropriate relationship. And don’t give me that corporate environment BS, of course they all have policies and norms, one thing is for sure, they have mostly evolved away from gender segregation.
We are talking about a politician openly practicing discrimination and offering a ridiculous reason to justify it. The assumption is either that he can’t control his body or behavior or that any woman he meets with might come on to him. So what if the reporter is male but gay? Somehow he would feel better about it? Again, in a professional relationship it would be completely unreasonable for anyone to believe this meeting would be somehow inappropriate. Now if he is meeting a random escort for a chat I get why he might want to consider the optics.
Do you people really think there is nothing wrong with here in this particular case? Should chaperones be deployed by companies across America to ensure no man feels uncomfortable meeting with female professionals alone? This is beyond absurd and nobody should find this acceptable in our society. Make America Intolerant Again, wtf.
Btw - this is just another example of really odd and extreme male anxiety. If this guy or his wife can’t feel ok with him meeting a reporter alone to speak professionally something is off with their values, whether it’s rooted in religion or not.
This ^
Well said.
P wrote:
Racket wrote:
You can run this argument the other way to suggest that it's not women that need a chaperone, but the man. And inferring that a man needs a chaperone to meet professionally with a woman suggests he has no or little agency over his body and/or thoughts. Honestly there's just so many arguments you can build from the premise that it's tough to preempt them all.
You seem to have missed the part where it is the men on this thread who are saying that they would not meet with a woman one on one in a business setting - i.e., it is the men who are setting the rules AND who hold the positions of power (in general) rendering this a matter of men setting the rules that ultimately keep women out of positions of power.
Sorry, dude - I give you credit for an honest attempt. But it really is pretty simply stuff. When one group (men) hold an enormous power advantage over another group (women) and then set up artificial rules of engagement that further disadvantage the group out of power then there is a problem.
Still waiting for proof that a man not meeting with a woman in a private setting leads to woman not being successful.
I know I won’t get it since you are an obvious troll just trying to argue to the absurd.
Congrats! You play the idiot well...too well.
P wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
The whole notion of a man not wanting to be alone with a woman in any setting in the US is ridiculous. It’s 20 fkn 19 folks. There are countless combinations of circumstances which can potentially give the appearance of inappropriateness no matter how limited your exposure to women is, so it’s a real poor excuse to say you don’t want to give off the appearance of doing something wrong.
We are talking about a professional setting here and in this case a reporter, it would be truly retarded for anyone to misconstrue that as an inappropriate relationship. And don’t give me that corporate environment BS, of course they all have policies and norms, one thing is for sure, they have mostly evolved away from gender segregation.
We are talking about a politician openly practicing discrimination and offering a ridiculous reason to justify it. The assumption is either that he can’t control his body or behavior or that any woman he meets with might come on to him. So what if the reporter is male but gay? Somehow he would feel better about it? Again, in a professional relationship it would be completely unreasonable for anyone to believe this meeting would be somehow inappropriate. Now if he is meeting a random escort for a chat I get why he might want to consider the optics.
Do you people really think there is nothing wrong with here in this particular case? Should chaperones be deployed by companies across America to ensure no man feels uncomfortable meeting with female professionals alone? This is beyond absurd and nobody should find this acceptable in our society. Make America Intolerant Again, wtf.
Btw - this is just another example of really odd and extreme male anxiety. If this guy or his wife can’t feel ok with him meeting a reporter alone to speak professionally something is off with their values, whether it’s rooted in religion or not.
This ^
Well said.
Imagine Mike Pence as POTUS refusing to meet alone for a political dinner with another head of state... total bizzaro nonsense.
Fat hurts wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
It probably depends on the history of the company. If they had a couple inappropriate behind closed doors activities it made sense.
I had an office with females under my supervision and it never came up. ( I am not sure whether or not that was an intended pun)
Try again.
This is one of the reasons glass offices are popular these days.
In my career I must have had at least 10,000 individual meetings with females and this was never an issue. No one even suggested that I needed to be careful.
Now maybe I was lucky, maybe I was just naive, but that was a world of trust that I'm glad was my experience.
RepubNuts wrote:
P wrote:
This ^
Well said.
Imagine Mike Pence as POTUS refusing to meet alone for a political dinner with another head of state... total bizzaro nonsense.
Yeah. Kinda like Trump meeting alone with Putin. Totally bizzaro.
Pudding wrote:
P wrote:
You seem to have missed the part where it is the men on this thread who are saying that they would not meet with a woman one on one in a business setting - i.e., it is the men who are setting the rules AND who hold the positions of power (in general) rendering this a matter of men setting the rules that ultimately keep women out of positions of power.
Sorry, dude - I give you credit for an honest attempt. But it really is pretty simply stuff. When one group (men) hold an enormous power advantage over another group (women) and then set up artificial rules of engagement that further disadvantage the group out of power then there is a problem.
Still waiting for proof that a man not meeting with a woman in a private setting leads to woman not being successful.
I know I won’t get it since you are an obvious troll just trying to argue to the absurd.
Congrats! You play the idiot well...too well.
Did you attend the Trump School of Reasoning?
DemNuts wrote:
RepubNuts wrote:
Imagine Mike Pence as POTUS refusing to meet alone for a political dinner with another head of state... total bizzaro nonsense.
Yeah. Kinda like Trump meeting alone with Putin. Totally bizzaro.
Trump grabs 'em by the p**** in public.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/09/10/16/3822A35000000578-0-image-a-5_1473521252287.jpgLet’s switch it around.
What if the reporter said she wanted to cover his campaign and he told her he would if she would take a 15 hour ride alone with him in his truck?
Still a non-issue?
Conundrum wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Try again.
This is one of the reasons glass offices are popular these days.
In my career I must have had at least 10,000 individual meetings with females and this was never an issue. No one even suggested that I needed to be careful.
Now maybe I was lucky, maybe I was just naive, but that was a world of trust that I'm glad was my experience.
Wilt Chamerlain?
D. A. wrote:
Let’s switch it around.
What if the reporter said she wanted to cover his campaign and he told her he would if she would take a 15 hour ride alone with him in his truck?
Still a non-issue?
Let's turn it around for you.
What if a MALE reporter said HE wanted INTERVIEW YOU and YOU told HIM YOU would if HE would take a 15 hour ride alone with him in his truck?
Are you game?
Conundrum wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Try again.
This is one of the reasons glass offices are popular these days.
In my career I must have had at least 10,000 individual meetings with females and this was never an issue. No one even suggested that I needed to be careful.
Now maybe I was lucky, maybe I was just naive, but that was a world of trust that I'm glad was my experience.
You work in a strip club, brah?
Conundrum wrote:
This still is something that strikes me (honestly not trying to offend) as being silly. I am talking a just an office meeting not a business trip or anything.
What? Are you a caveman? Why do you think men and women can't go on business trips together?
Given how low liberal reporters are willing to stoop to trap a conservative politician, you cannot be too careful.
Just look at how many political hit jobs President Trump is facing.
P wrote:
Pudding wrote:
That’s some well documented proof there brother.
This isn’t the 1950s when men dominated the workforce.
My advice is to stop watching “Anchorman.”
95% of Fortune 500 CEOs are men.
You are clearly living on a different planet. Let me know when you plan to visit Earth.
Here on Earth, most people don't meet with the CEO. They meet with their managers or co-workers. You were probably not smart enough to realize that of over the last 40 years that women have been hired for the majority of new management jobs that have been created. You probably didn't realize that over the last 40 years women have gone from holding 25% of manager positions to 40%? A women employee is nearly as likely to meet with a female manager as a male manager. And since women make up 47% of the workforce, they are just as likely to network with other women.
The very weak argument that this practice leads to women being less successful just doesn't hold water in the real world.
And I'm sure you'll try to come back and say that the male dominated senior leadership teams shows that you are right. Don't do that. It will only make you look silly (and wrong...again).
You're way over your head here chief. Time for you to move along.
Pudding wrote:
95% of Fortune 500 CEOs are men.
You are clearly living on a different planet. Let me know when you plan to visit Earth.
Here on Earth, most people don't meet with the CEO. They meet with their managers or co-workers. You were probably not smart enough....[/quote]
WTF are you writing about here? Utter nonsense. CEO don't meet with people except managers and co-workers? CEO DON'T HAVE co-workers. They are at the top.
You're version of "Earth" seems to be very FLAT.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Another record day for the stock market.
M-A-G-A!!!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/B7E8E660-A48D-11E9-9B9D-A4546EBBD081
Using stock indexes as proof of the success of Trump's economic policies will come back to haunt you.
qs wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Another record day for the stock market.
M-A-G-A!!!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/B7E8E660-A48D-11E9-9B9D-A4546EBBD081Using stock indexes as proof of the success of Trump's economic policies will come back to haunt you.
Promising illegal aliens free healthcare will not gain the Dems the White House next year.
