In 2002, Mike Pence told the Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.
My completely unscientific impression is that this sort of code of conduct is unusual, but I might be wrong. Regardless of how common or not it is, I can't see why anyone who is not Mike or Karen Pence should have any strong opinions about it. I certainly can't see why anyone should be offended. But I failed to account for the modern American progressive's intolerance for any deviation from their prevailing orthodoxy.
That one sentence generated dozens of columns from leftists. They weren't writing to compliment Pence for his commitment to his marriage, they made over-the-top, borderline insane criticisms that deliberately misstated Pence's position and exaggerated its consequences beyond the limits of parody.
Laura Turner's op-ed piece for the Post on March 30 is a case in point. When she writes "But for men to categorically refuse to meet one-on-one with women is often dehumanizing and denies the image of Christ that each person bears," she is taking issue with a stand that Pence never articulates. Pence only avoids dining alone with a woman other than his wife. There are many occasions during a work day when a man and a woman may meet alone in an office setting and Pence's rule, on its face, would not interfere with those interactions. She also accuses Pence of "fuel[ing] the myth that loads of women are waiting around to falsely accuse powerful men of rape." If Ms. Turner had any real friends one of them would have warned her how stupid that sentence is.
She then accuses Pence of limiting women's career opportunities. "If a woman at work cannot meet one-on-one with her boss or colleague, her options for advancement (or even being taken seriously as a colleague) are extremely limited." Again, Pence's rule is not nearly that broad. To suggest that the opportunities for women who work with him are "extremely" limited is ludicrous. But to make that argument raises the threat that men who try to protect their marriages could be put through the wringer of a sex discrimination charge.
For the progressive, everything is politics and politics is everything. He can't just say "That's just how Mike Pence does things. It's not my style but its not my business."
Mike Pence's refusal to dine alone with other women does not imply that all women are foul temptresses or rape hoaxsters. Nor does it imply that Pence is completely incapable of controlling his sexual urges around them. It is a prudent recognition of the reality of our fallen nature.
The National Opinion Research Center published a survey in 2006 that 15 to 18% of married people have had a sexual affair outside of their marriage. I doubt very much that all of those people set out to cheat on their spouses. For many of them it "just happened." And there are also so-called emotional affairs, where there is no physical intimacy, that can be almost as damaging to a marriage as full-blown adultery.
I think Pence's personal code is a recognition that no one is immune to temptation. Anyone who claims he is is a liar or a fool. Maybe when everything in his life and marriage are going great, Pence can have all sorts of interactions with the opposite sex without a hint of an improper thought getting into his head. But all marriages go through periods of stress: illness in the family, financial troubles, working long hours, kids getting into trouble, etc. When that happens, people become more vulnerable to seeking escape in an extramarital affair. They also become more vulnerable to entertaining suspicions that their spouses are up to something. Pence shouldn't be lambasted because he takes precautions against those eventualities.
No comments:
Post a Comment