Mississippi Gubernatorial Candidates Out-Billy-Graham-ing Each Other

Being alone with women is scary

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

First, Mississippi gubernatorial candidate and state Rep. Robert Foster refused to have a female reporter accompany him on a campaign trip, an otherwise standard practice. Not to be outdone, his competitor Bill Waller Jr., the former chief justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, stated that he would not spend any time alone with a woman (who is not his wife) in a personal or professional setting. According to CNN, here's Waller's murky statement:

"I just think it's common sense. I just think in this day and time that appearances are important … transparency's important. And I think that people need to have the comfort of what's going on in government between employees and people. And there's a lot of social issues out there about that," Waller told the news outlet on Monday. He said his goal "is to not make it an issue so that everyone's comfortable with the surroundings and we can go about our business."

[…]

Waller told Mississippi Today that in his 22 years serving on the state Supreme Court, he never found himself alone with a female colleague.

This reasoning was similar to the one that Robert Foster had provided:

"I trust myself completely, but I don't trust the perception that the world puts on people when they see things and they don't ask the questions, they don't look to find out the truth. Perception is reality in this world, and I don't want to give anybody the opinion that I'm doing something that I should not be doing," he said.

Given Waller's statement that this has been his practice for many years, even the most creative minds won't be able to blame this one on #MeToo (they might still try with Foster, though). So how are we to understand these men's attitudes? Here are some possibilities:

  • While they would deny this as the reason, these men don't trust themselves not to misbehave around women. This should make them look bad to voters.
  • Their wives don't trust these guys around women. Voters may want to inquire why that is, and the reasons may well end up looking bad to voters.
  • These men don't trust women not to behave inappropriately toward them. Any women. This should make said men look bad to voters.
  • These men don't trust how journalists would present such interactions and/or they don't trust the public in how it would view Important Men spending any time alone with women. In other words, these candidates don't trust voters with something fairly basic. Why should voters trust them with much more important things?

If I was a voter in Mississippi, I would feel either 1) suspicious or 2) fairly insulted and stereotyped by now. I expect that individuals in that state are no less able to form judgments about human relationships than individuals anywhere else, even if their politicians apparently hold them in lower regard than I do. The exclusion of women from the same professional opportunities as men is a long-standing problem. Occasionally men express concerns about "what will people say" as a reason not to provide mentorship in a number of settings. This only becomes the reality if we let it become self-fulfilling–meaning, if interactions between one man and one woman are treated as inherently suspect.

Whenever I hear of stories like in Mississippi, or in fact ones where men did misbehave, I am reminded of how somehow none of this was a problem during my clerkship year. As it happened, I clerked for a Southern male judge (Judge Morris S. Arnold of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit) who had an all-female crew of three year-long clerks, one permanent clerk, and one administrative assistant. The fact that it was all women that year was coincidental, and most years it was a mix of genders, including with male majorities.

Never once did I think my judge acted inappropriately toward me. None of my co-clerks ever reported anything to me, either. Sometimes several of us spoke to him in chambers, and other times it was just one of us. Neither did that ever feel uncomfortable nor did anyone else think it was strange.

I have yet to meet anyone who speaks ill of Judge Arnold for any reason. He had (and I believe still has) a happy marriage with a lovely wife. If he could pull off healthy professional relationships with all his female employees in Arkansas over a decade ago, these Mississippi gentlemen could surely give it a shot in 2019.

NEXT: Brickbat: How Irritating

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Irina makes a huge mistake here in that it’s not that the candidates are afraid of one particular woman or even women in general. They are not. They are afraid of the media and the men and women who “believe all women.” So like a group of woman who go on a girls night out having a designated driver and mother hen, they are rationally weighing the chances and deciding it’s worth it to be careful because the downside is so small.

    Also, I would love Irina to opine on the Muslim practice of purdah.

    1. The Kavanaugh incident made this the most rational choice. The standard has dropped to “proof by accusation if you cannot prove that you never met”. It doesn’t even require a full accusation with a place and a date. This means they are having to prove a negative to avoid any and all accusations.

      As long as there is one bad actor willing to lie (and there will always be many), acting defensively is coldly logical no matter what your opinion is of society at large.

      1. Feminists are shocked, shocked, that when the metoo movement blew up, public opinion surveys showed men reported that they were less likely to mentor female direct reports.

      2. Two things: Kavanaugh was not falsely accused, and Kavanaugh has a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

        1. That sir, is a matter of opinion, and why the Pence rules makes sense, subjectivity.

          1. Now that I’ve calmed down. Think about it. We have no evidence that the party happened. Nothing at all. What chance does a man have in a normal situation when he can be shown to be alone with a woman in a situation that at least definitely could have happened? The only logical solution would be to either always have a camera on or never be alone with a woman ever.

        2. He was falsely accused at least 4 times. 3 of those, if memory serves are currently under incitement for perjury, and one was withdrawn. The final accusation, Ford’s, has only a half-accusation on her part (missing a definitive when and where) while having no cooperating evidence that they were even at a party together.

          That is a standard that wouldn’t fly with any court other than a lynch mob. If you believe it, you are evil.

          1. I am going to assume that by “under incitement” you actually meant to say “under indictment.” I cannot find any report of any of Kavanaugh’s accusers being indicted for perjury via the normal legal process (as opposed to being accused of perjury by a partisan political actor, something that has no legal weight). Which accusers are you referring to, and when and where were they indicted?

            1. They’ve been referred to the DOJ for perjury, and I see no sign that the DOJ took any interest in responding to the referral. So, no indictment, though based on the public record, they certainly opened themselves up for it if a prosecutor had felt like going after them.

        3. Judy Munro-Leighton? You know the one who accused Kavanaugh, then recanted?

    2. Irina makes a huge mistake here in that it’s not that the candidates are afraid of one particular woman or even women in general. They are not. They are afraid of the media and the men and women who “believe all women.” So like a group of woman who go on a girls night out having a designated driver and mother hen, they are rationally weighing the chances and deciding it’s worth it to be careful because the downside is so small.

      If you want a text book definition of “mansplaining” here it is.

      1. Considering that it is concerning the thoughts of a pair of men and men in general, mansplaining is reasonable. It is the authors “femsplaining” that is offensive, as she is from a completely different culture from the men she criticizes.

        Furthermore, she ignores one fact any small child knows. “Villains exist”. That undermines all of her points about it being offensive to women in general.

      2. Mainsplaining and being correct often have a significant overlap, if you were to create a Venn diagram (particularly in this situation).

        1. Mainsplaining and being correct often have a significant overlap.

          Meta.

          1. I’ll take that as a complement.

      3. You simply replace the word “explaining” with “Mansplaining”, so you can make even the act of explaining something sexist.

        Did I mansplain that right or do I have to dumb it down further so a feminist can understand it?

        1. The number of guys here who aren’t super clear on what mansplaining is but would like to comment confidently about what they think it means anyhow is highly amusing.

          1. The number of men here mansplaining the term mansplaining is worryingly high.

          2. It’s just another biased nonsense word created as a substitute for argument. Like ‘manspreading,’ ‘assault rifle’ and ‘high capacity magazine.’ When you can’t justify saying something is bad with real words, you use the nonsense words. Saves you the humiliation of being proven wrong. Or even having to know what you’re talking about.

            1. It has a definition. You’re not using it. And then you call it a nonsense word because it never happens.

              Look up the meaning. LOL.

              1. I hope you realize you’ve become an ignorant parody. just because someone makes up a term, it doesnt mean that term has any value. For example, you’re the definition of a cuck.

                1. But if you’re going to use that term – especially this term – don’t misunderstand what it means.

              2. Yeah, it has a definition. “the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.”

                In other words, all it means is a man explaining something when somebody else would prefer they didn’t.

      4. “If you want a text book definition of “mansplaining” here it is.”

        The entire concept is still more evidence that feminism is a fiendish plot to sabotage women.

        1. I mean seriously, what the fuck?

          “Don’t you dare refuse to meet with women alone!! And when you meet with them, for god’s sake, don’t ever explain anything to them!!”

          I mean, are women trying to get us to not take them seriously?

        2. I’m sure sometime soon we’ll be seeing a news item, “Men reluctant to explain things to women after being accused of “mansplaining”.

          And women will be all like, “How dare they!”

          1. You okay?

            1. Well, clearly not, if I think the concept of mansplaining is bullshit, amiright?

    3. The Billy Graham rule long predates any current event. The cause-effect you propose obviously cannot be.

      1. While the rule itself predates current events, current events have shown the wisdom of the rule, and encouraged its increased use.

    4. If I were a voter in Mississippi then all other things being equal, I would probably vote for someone who tried to follow the Billy Graham/Mike Pence rule over someone who didn’t simply because they are less likely to find themselves being falsely accused in an era in which just the accusation of impropriety can be enough to derail someone’s career. Kavanaugh was slandered with false accusations in order to make the process as painful and punishing to the nominee as possible so that he’d withdraw and delay any future nomination until after the midterm election where Democrats hoped that they might be able to retake the Senate. McCain was falsely accused of having an affair with a lobbyist on the front page of the New York Times after he secured the Republican nomination for President. So yeah, false accusations is something that the Left does and will continue to do so long as they think it will work. Denying them the opportunity to do so is just the smart thing to do.

      1. You are ignoring the likelihood that a right-wing prude is gay.

        1. Breaking my rule of not responding to hicklib, but what would their being gay have to do with concerns of a false accusation?

  2. Forget it Jake, it’s Mississippi.

  3. Do these Billy Graham-style candidates also avoid being alone with homosexuals?

    1. I’m sure you think that is a witty comment. I assure you it’s not. To respond, though, I’m sure they never ask if someone is gay or not, though if the fellow is a poof they might naturally avoid one another.

      Let me ask you, then, has there been a problem with gays accusing straight men of hitting on them or making unwanted sexual advances? Some sort of Kevin Spacey situation?

      1. Let me ask you, then, has there been a problem with gays accusing straight men of hitting on them or making unwanted sexual advances? Some sort of Kevin Spacey situation?

        If a “straight” man is hitting on another guy – he’s not straight. And yes – there are plenty of examples of people in power abusing their positions to get sexual favors. And more often than not its a man.

        1. So, in your opinion, to respond to apedad’s point, a straight man likely need not worry about being alone with a gay man (or vice versa). Thus, apedad’s attempt at a dig falls flat on multiple levels.

          1. If a straight man is worried about women making up stuff, might as well be worried about men making up stuff. m_k. The fact that this isn’t as much of an issue points to another cause than just worrying about perception/perfidy.

            1. And I suppose that when false accusations of homosexual sexual assault become as common as false accusations of heterosexual assault, we’ll all have to go about wearing collars with recording devices 24/7.

              But I don’t see that as likely, because the demand that a woman’s accusation be treated as automatically true is just that, a demand concerning women’s accusations. It’s rooted in radical feminism, and homosexual men don’t get the advantage of it, and aren’t likely to.

              1. You are assuming that false accusations of heterosexual assault are common. Which is begging the question.

                Also, i’m not even sure accusations of heterosexual assault are all that common regardless of their truth value. More common than a decade ago, but I’d need to see some proof they are more than anecdotally common. i.e. just like homosexual accusations.

                1. “You are assuming that false accusations of heterosexual assault are common.”

                  Yes, I do actually pay attention, thanks for noticing.

                  1. Not like you to make anecdotes the author of your reality. Wait, nevermind – using anecdotes to build a narrative you mistake for reality is your thing.

                    1. Vast majority of sexual assault claims are never prosecuted. The only way you get a small number of false accusations is excluding the population where the D.A. has no evidence.

                      Why ate you so ignorant about literally everything?

                    2. I’m going to assume you posted this before dismissing my link further down the page?

                2. ” I’d need to see some proof they are more than anecdotally common.”

                  Here you go, from RAINN, and anti-sexual violence group. Only about 2% of allegations are proven true.

                  1. This is when the idiots will ask you to prove them false instead.

                3. Unrelated in any way to this argument, I applaud Sarcastr0’s appropriate use of the phrase “begging the question.” It’s misused an awful lot.

                  1. Yup, the sun can shine on a dog’s ass on a clear day.

              2. It’s so interesting to me that you’re thinking about it only from the heterosexual male’s perspective.

                As it happens, gay men (or men who are only perceived to be gay) have historically been accused of sexually harassing or abusing straight men, quite often. And yes, the straight men lobbing those accusations are typically believed.

                1. “….quite often.”

                  Where do you get that?

      2. “Let me ask you, then, has there been a problem with gays accusing straight men of hitting on them ”

        Why would anyone assume a hard-right, Bible-thumping, socially conservative Republican politician is not a closeted gay man?

        Other than ignorance and lack of familiarity with history, that is.

        1. Still waiting on some sort of a list, Rev.

    2. “Billy Graham-style ”

      Billy Graham was the most admired American for decades. You [and Manta in the original post] use him as a sneer. I can assure you that his name is not a sneer in Mississippi.

      1. It’s called “The Billy Graham Rule,” you putz.

      2. That may help to explain Mississippi’s deplorable condition.

        1. It was more likely the 150 years or rule under Democrats prior to the mid 90s.

          1. Still backward, bigoted, and deplorable — and now Republican!

    3. Can’t speak to Graham or these virtue-signaling snowflakes, but Falwell certainly didn’t avoid being alone with Giancarlo Granda.

      1. Potiphar’s wife is unavailable for comment.

  4. I believe you’re wrong in your judgement here. This is a fairly common (if old fashioned) practice in rural conservative parts of the country. My dad follows this practice himself. It’s not about not trusting themselves or other women, it’s the fact that when you live in a rural area where everyone knows everyone else, gossip can be something that can ruin your reputation very quickly. Avoiding even the appearance of opportunity of infidelity is a powerful way to avoid such gossip.

    1. “when you live in a rural area where everyone knows everyone else, gossip can be something that can ruin your reputation very quickly. Avoiding even the appearance of opportunity of infidelity is a powerful way to avoid such gossip”

      Getting an education, developing marketable skills, showing some character and ambition, and leaving the can’t-keep-up backwaters would be a better plan.

      1. What if someone grew up in a rural area who has marketable skills, has character and ambition, and decides to stay in the hometown to, I dunno, make it a better place?

        Should blacks kid leave the ghetto? Do hispanic kids need to leave the can’t keep up barrio?

        C’mon man, where the originality in your act. Drop your pants, get some laughs at least.

        1. Should blacks kid leave the ghetto? Do hispanic kids need to leave the can’t keep up barrio?

          Can’t have a reason thread without the racism.

          1. I know, Rev is pretty racist isn’t he.

      2. My dad is a successful large scale farmer. How would you suggest he do this outside of a rural area?

        1. by razing, say, San Francisco, plowing it, and planting it. Which would be a massive improvement. And it comes with its own fertilizer.

        2. From an office in a city. Most “farmers” these days never step foot on a farm.

          1. So, if that’s the case, these “farmers” better be able to get their tractor to connect to the internet. 😉

            1. They are, what do you think they’re doing in there while the tractors use GPS to follow a computer generated path to optimally hit each section of field with exactly the right treatment?

              1. Hasdrubal, I just learned that recently. I was trying to make a joke.

                Trump said that tractors need to be hooked to the internet…sort of an offhand remark about it related to rural hi speed internet. He was mocked on twitter by know-nothings. They liberals didn’t take 30 seconds to do an internet search about these things.

          2. “From an office in a city. Most “farmers” these days never step foot on a farm.”

            What a bizarre comment. I don’t believe you know anything at all about “farmers.”

            Do you think the guys at the CBOT trading desks are farmers, or something? 😀

    2. I believe you’re wrong in your judgement here. [Goes on to cite rural practice with little relevance to the present examples or stated rationales.]

      I believe you’re wrong in your reasons here.

  5. How many revelations by right-wing politicians who turn out to be closeted gays will be necessary before these rubes strt refraining from being around men, too?

    1. Please provide a list of prominent right wing politicians who turn out to be closeted gays. Note, just because a man is not out marching in a Pride parade, it does not mean he is in the closet.

      All I can think of is the former Speaker of the House from IL (maybe), but was he in the closet? The toe tap guy (Larry Craig) who got busted at the airport? Please exclude Lindsey Graham, nothing but unconfirmed rumors about him, and if someone had something on him, he would have come out by now.

      1. Memory says there have been several; common enough that it no longer catches my attention, like that spate of preachy types caught visiting hookers and having affairs a few years back.

        No references, because there have been too many to bother remembering. You may as well ask me for global warming alarmists who travel by airplane to conferences decrying air travel.

        1. I dunno, if someone makes a claim, and you ask for evidence to back it up, and they are unwilling to provide it, that kinda makes their claim weak, does it not? Your response of appealing to the trope isn’t evidence either, but a boomerang of balsa.

          1. Your proof was absence of memory, which is hardly convincing either.

            1. As a news junkie, I’ve got a pretty good memory for these things. You think pulling up the name Larry Craig happens on accident?

              And I’m from Missouri, the “show me” state. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is somewhat lacking Rev’s assertion. You’re more than welcome, like a tag team WWE match, to help him out if you’d like.

              Standing by….

              1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but this isn’t an extraordinary claim.

                But here’s a list. I found in in five seconds on Google. And since it was never “confirmed”, that one doesn’t even include J. Edgar Hoover.

                Not to mention that when you get to non-famous folk, the “anti-gay bully in high school who came out years later” isn’t that uncommon a guy.

                1. No, it is an extraordinary claim based on the quantity by which Rev was saying it occurs. I never doubted it happened, moreover, I gave at least two examples of occurrences.

                  Rev made the claim it happens all the time, but then when he provides a list, gives 14 names going back 82 years. That’s not a lot of occurrences.

                  So, if you’re saying the exception proves the rule, you’ve not even proven the rule itself to use the exception to it as proof of it.

                  1. You’re blowing what the Rev said out of proportion in order to make it sound exceptional. Here’s what he actually wrote:

                    How many revelations by right-wing politicians who turn out to be closeted gays will be necessary before these rubes strt refraining from being around men, too?

                    No one claimed a “rule”. What was pointed out is that it’s not uncommon. Check out Wikipedia’s list of political sex scandals in the US. Supposedly straight men getting caught with other men is a fair chunk of them.

                    So yes. If your concern is winding up on that list because of an untrue accusation, then men aren’t safer then women.

                    1. Please. He has several time in this tread made it sound like it happens all the time, which it doesn’t. Check out his comment from July.18.2019 at 7:15 pm.

                      Sex scandals themselves, when you look at how many politicians there are, aren’t very common, much less the sub-set of them which are conservatives who are in the closet AND anti-gay in policy advocacy. Even though it has happened, it’s so uncommon that it is worth remarking on.

          2. Google “conservative politicians who were closeted gays” and you get your choice of countless top-20 lists. You can even specialize with something like “18 homophobic leaders who turned out to be gay or bi”.

            Give it a try and develop a new life skill with your mastery of the Google internets……

            1. Noted. So I will do your homework for you. *sigh* I did a DuckDuckGo search with your term.

              Top 20. Boy, that’s sure a lot then. Many in that Ranker list (#1 result in my search) are not politicians. Rev must be right when there is a whole 20 of them over the last 20 years or so years, which is about as far back as that list goes.

              The NewNowNext #2 result goes back to the 1970s with overlap with the #1 result in terms of names. And some of those politicians are small town mayors. Gotta dig really, really deep for that top 20 list. It isn’t even Buzzfeed list status.

              #3 result is from HuffPo, again with overlap, listing the same names frequently, and it only goes 17 deep.

              Confirmation bias much? Care to try again?

              1. You’re sure going out of your way to deny what seems to be pretty common knowledge.

                1. You’re trying real hard to deny the scarcity of the event in question. It’s common knowledge that the Space Shuttle crashed twice, but Space Shuttle crashes don’t happen very often.

      2. “Please provide a list of prominent right wing politicians who turn out to be closeted gays.”

        I generally oppose performing basic research for right-wing rubes; how are they to learn if their betters are always spoon-feeding them?

        But here are a dozen examples you claim to have missed: Bob Allen (Florida), Roy Ashburn, Bruce Barclay, Robert Bauman, Richard Curtis, Mark Foley, Phil Hinkle, Troy King, Edward Schrock (Virginia), Ralph Shortey, Jim West, Steve Wiles.

        I’ll add these names as a bonus, just because: Randy Boehning and Wes Goodman.

        Here is a another head start if you wish to become informed.

        1. Ah, so your supposed proof is actually evidence of rarity. You list 14 politicians with careers going back decades upon decades, in one case to 1937. I didn’t look up all of them.

          My good friend, statistics, clearly shows me that, even if all 14 of them were politicians that were in office today, that it’s not common.

          Back of the envelope, let’s assume that half of senators/congresscritters/governors are Republican (generally speaking this is about where we are at most times). If all 14 were part of that list and in office over the past 10 years, that comes out to .004% of all Republicans in high office have had gay sex scandals.

          Sorry bro, cool story though.

          1. I humbly note, that I forgot to move the decimal over to places, that is .4%. Still, let’s go back to 1937 then, 82 years ago, one of the examples given. If half of all politicians in high office were Republican, and there are 14 examples Rev gives, that means every year there is a 0.0583698% chance there was a gay closeted Republican sex scandal.

            Never mind that in 1937, and indeed prior to 1980ish, virtually everyone, even liberals were in the closet.

            1. Keep on denying. You’ll convince more people that way.

              Makes me wonder how crowded *your* closet is.

              1. So, your only defense is to accuse me of being a closeted gay engaging in projection? That makes your blabber even funnier.

              2. Hes the only one using actual facts dumb fuck. Maybe choose words more carefully. Maybe you should google the word common.

          2. I provided a head start. Do your own research. Or drive to the nearest modern, successful town and ask someone there to do it for you.

            Carry on, clinger. Until you are replaced, that is.

    2. If you ever want to see how liberals truly view homosexuals, look to how they treat closeted conservatives. If you ever want to see how liberals truly view racial minorities, look how they treat black and brown conservatives. There is no hatred like the left has for the groups they claim to represent.

      I should also note for any new commenters here that while Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland purports to talk down to and malign conservatives, it is he who is hiding behind a pseudonym in order to express his supposedly “correct” opinions. His pseudo may be understood as directly equivalent to Antifa’s use of black masks.

      1. Yes, liberals are the real racists.

        Not the party defending sending a citizen back where she came from.

        1. I’m sorry, but between the accusations of treason, support of clearly false accusations of criminal misconduct, attempts to impeach him contrary to all evidence, support of active terrorist organization Antifa, and even actually calling for Trump’s assasination, an off the cuff angry remark is hardly a new low in our national discourse.

          1. This time it’s the President of the United States, dude.

            1. He didnt state to use force. Countries ar not races. He basically told her to put her money where her mouth was. Turn around the corrupt states she seeks to emulate before bringing corruption here. You did read the entire comments, correct? Oh, its sarcastro, silly question.

              1. He didnt state to use force

                He doesn’t need to. He’s the President of the United States riling up his base that someone doesn’t belong because of their viewpoint, Jesse. You and I both know where that ends.

                And what you’re saying he was saying about go to the states you want to emulate? That’s not what he said. Telling that you need to rewrite it in your head to make it more palatable to defend.

            2. I’m not saying it’s good by any means, but it is neither shocking, nor the worst thing said by an elected official this month. In short, it’s not important.

              1. Naw, it’s the worst thing a politician said this month.

                First, because he’s the President. And second because he was invoking otherness for American citizen congresswomen.

                The effect can be seen in the crowds chanting for Omar to be exiled for her views, as Trump looked on.
                And in the thread about it, where people argued that these womens’ policy positions are so radical that they should not be treated as citizens.

                This is where the GOP is now; citizenship is based on approval of your politics. Thanks, Trump.

  6. “Never once did I think my judge acted inappropriately toward me. None of my co-clerks ever reported anything to me, either.”

    Could that have been the luck of the draw, professor? What if you had been hired by Judge Kozinski? The ‘clerks staying quiet’ part might not have been much different, but the ‘judge acted inappropriately’ part could have been an entirely different matter.

  7. Here’s another possibility for these men’s attitudes:

    1. They read the New York Times article of July 1, 2017, reporting the results of a Morning Consult poll commissioned by the Times, in which a majority of women polled deemed it unacceptable to have dinner or drinks with someone of the opposite sex other than their spouses. Women also considered it inappropriate to have lunch alone with a member of the opposite sex by 44% to 43%. 38% of women polled felt that being in a car alone with a member of the opposite sex was inappropriate, and (of particular concern to me as an employer) one woman in four even felt that work meetings with members of the opposite sex were inappropriate.

    Link to article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-at-work-gender-study.html

    Got a comment on this, Irina?

    1. “Women are always right, except when they disagree with me, then it’s internalized misogyny”

  8. “If I was a voter in Mississippi”

    But you are not. None of your four theories seem likely to be how a typical Mississippi voter views things.

    This is just a “gorillas in the mist” post where the “sophisticated” foreigner observes the strange [to you] customs of the natives.

  9. Noting that this behavior could not be a reaction to the #MeToo movement because it preceded that movement ignores an important reality. There are intelligent people of great foresight who can anticipate potential consequences well before most others. I find them mostly among conservative circles.

    1. I chuckled a bit at this too.

      She’s like someone who says, “Obama was right about Russian in 2012, things changed.”

      Yes, but foresight is a feature we like to have in our leaders. Not brilliant hindcasters who can always “tell you what went wrong” 5 years after a Sarin attack in Venice.

  10. Did Clinton rape Kathleen Willey?
    Did Kavanaugh assault Balsey Ford?
    Your opinion on these questions will determine how persuasive you find this post.

  11. This is more like old-school where your kids (or tenants ALA Citizen Kane) need to keep the door open. It is an appearances thing, but because the door is open, it is “impossible” to fool around.

    It is a guarantee to the parents or landlord (or voters in this case) that nothing could possibly be going on. Which is silly but there you go.

    Because we all know what happened when Kane eventually closed the door.

    He lost the election.

  12. This is the most tendentious essay I’ve seen in Reason in some time, and that’s really saying something.

    1. Definition of tendentious:
      “[M]arked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view : BIASED”
      For sure!

    2. I agree that this blog is not worthy of the Volokh Conspiracy.

      1. It’s a cold day in hell, but apedad and I agree.

  13. Irina’s analysis fails, she is too cosmopolitan to get this. In addition to the good points made by Meuser and Number 2, I’d add that these candidates’ decisions will appeal to voters because they basically represent a “f**k you” to all the abrasive, snowflake women making dubious claims and ruining men’s careers. And the f-u elides into other, related areas where men are getting shafted, e.g., Damore getting fired by Google for expressing obvious truths. There’s a lot of suppressed anger over these things; these candidates are being politically astute.

    1. “Politically astute” and “childish goddamn morons” are not mutually exclusive, sure.

  14. I don’t understand how you can function in a professional setting without sometimes being alone with a woman.

    Suppose you’re a lawyer. Do you refuse to work on a case with female colleague? Do you refuse to met alone with a female client?

    Do you never go to lunch with a female co-worker.

    Truly bizarre.

    1. “I don’t understand” got that part right.

      1. That’s for sure.

        There’s nothing bizzare about it at all. In a world where you might have enemies willing to lie to take you down, and a woman’s accusation is widely regarded as proof of guilt, the only real defense is making sure you always have an alibi.

        Manta doesn’t want to admit that’s what is going on here: It’s a defense against false accusations; A woman can’t accuse you of raping her if you can prove you were never alone with her, so that you always have witnesses that it didn’t happen.

        1. Its not only bizarre – it shows a complete lack of maturity and blatant sexism on behalf of the male. I would not trust any male who said he couldn’t be alone with a woman to walk my dog let alone be put in position of power where he has influence over public policy.

          What’s also bizarre that in 2019 people like you continue to defend this behavior.

          1. Your attitude shows a remarkable lack of awareness of other people’s world.

          2. It’s not bizarre in the slightest. Men and women are not the same. Men are larger, stronger and more aggressive. That’s why most rapists are men and why it’s different for us. It has nothing to do with our maturity or beliefs about women. The abuses of false accusations made by the sex(es) we sleep with to damage others require everyone to have an alibi all of the time.

            Gay men and women are just as concerned about being falsely accused. It’s about being alone with a potential sexual partner, nothing more.

            1. “The CDC’s nationally representative data revealed that over one year, men and women were equally likely to experience nonconsensual sex, and most male victims reported female perpetrators. Over their lifetime, 79 percent of men who were “made to penetrate” someone else (a form of rape, in the view of most researchers) reported female perpetrators. Likewise, most men who experienced sexual coercion and unwanted sexual contact had female perpetrators.”

              Scientific American story on CDC report on female rape

          3. The guy isn’t saying he can’t be trusted to be alone with a woman. He’s saying the woman can’t be trusted to tell the truth about what happened while they were alone, so he doesn’t dare risk what she might say later.

            Only somebody who thinks they’re privileged against false accusations due to being in the party that generally levels them could view that as an unreasonable stance for somebody in politics to take.

            1. What a great working relationship. ”

              “I can’t trust that this colleague with whom I’m working on this project/case/whatever isn’t going to suddenly make a baseless accusation of assault.”

              Good cooperation there. Note that the rule seems to apply to all women at all times, including those you may have worked with for years.

              How would you feel if a colleague of yours said he didn’t trust you not to make a false accusation of some sort of misconduct? Because that’s what this is about. It reflects a basic mistrust of all women. I mean, do you worry about a male colleague telling people you suggested that the two of you pull some sort of scam?

              1. The issue is when the baseless accusations are believed, despite being baseless.

                Let’s draw an analogy for you, one which you may appreciate. A time ago, domestic servants used to be more common. Often, they’d take care of the children of their employers, as well as having their own children. And in general, most children were good. But sometimes, a particularly “clever” child would dislike a servant (or their child), for whatever reason. Now the child couldn’t fire the servant. But, if they claimed to their parents that the servant (or their child) stole something of theirs….

                The servant would be fired. The parent wouldn’t question their child, there was no due process, even if the accusation was just he said/she said, the servant was gone. And the child gets their way.

                Were all children like this? No. Most? No. But maybe a couple. Or maybe emotions or another issue hit, that just…pushed. But as a servant, they couldn’t tell which was which. They’d be ultra careful…about all of them.

        2. Oh woe is me – to live in this age as a White male when :

          (1) The only racism is unfair accusations against snowflake butthurt White males

          (2) The only sexism is unfair accusations against snowflake butthurt White males.

          It must be a miracle that I’ve yet been crushed under this heavy yoke of brutal oppression. Sometimes I wonder how life would feel free of the relentless discrimination I suffer as a White male. Hell, it’s a wonder I can keep a sense of humor…….

          1. Spoken like a Girondin.

            1. General observation : Snowflake butthurt white males are such drama queens. Sometimes historically erudite ones (I grant that), but histrionic melodramatic drama queens….

              1. Thanks for the compliment, but I can’t hold a candle to VD Hanson. But at the end of the day, though, all ya did was is just level an ad hominim.

                This concept of “white fragility” is curious, because the whole concept of it was created by non-whites complaining about whites being racist, like it was they themselves who are “fragile.” To play dime store psychologist, it’s a massive projection problem.

              2. No; I pointed-out your analogy was colossally absurd and ineffectual. I’m completely immune to fear of the guillotine, just as I am to most conservative pearl-clutching trauma.

                I’m curious : What’s the whole appeal of this silly victim-hood shtick anyway? Brother Brett above claims right-wingers are the only ones prone to this hysteria because they’re the only victims. Whether fantasy or lie, that’s clearly not true. Yet it’s always right-types weeping and gnashing teeth over the extinction of the white male. Post after post here from snowflakes whining over the danger of being alone in a room with a women. Can’t you see how pathetic that is?

                1. Meh, you don’t understand the analogy. The Girondins thought they were safe, they thought they could use the energy of the radicals for Revolution, but keep them in check and not take the Revolution *too* far. But the center didn’t hold and they were purged. It doesn’t have to be literal. Sheesh.

                  To answer honestly, though, the extinction of the white male stuff is overwrought, because white males are way to competent, on the whole, to not be valuable as a group to society. They will always be in power and wealth, to some large extent or another, because of intelligence alone, not to mention that women find white men attractive. Now, I hope you understand, though, that if one group is in charge for a long, long time (in Western Civ), that it is perfectly rational to not want to be displaced from the top of the hierarchy. That’s just human nature, please tell me you can get that, at least.

                  As for the “whining”…that’s where you misinterpret rational self interest in explaining why we are not acceding to the wishes of feminists as whining. Note, it’s not men bitching about this Graham rule stuff, it’s women like Irina “whining” that men are adapting to the new norm post metoo norm by looking out for number 1. Think of it like this, many men, even if they want equality between the sexes, are not willing to volunteer to go to the front and fight. That, again, is just human nature, and I hope you can understand rational self interest. If you can’t, then there is no hope for anybody on this subject.

                2. I understood your analogy perfectly, which is why I said it was wacko. There is no danger on my horizon of being swept away by the revolutionary justice you cringe trembling over. As long as I behave with a modicum of manners, tact, and decency there is a sub-atomic chance I’ll be targeted by your fantasy feminist harpy medusa (though I bet she looks great in thigh-high black boots). Yes, there have been a few MeToo cases which seemed unwarranted – Aziz Ansari comes to mind – but the vast majority don’t. Heads-up : Women deal with a towering Mt Everest-size pile of sh*t. That’s where MeToo comes from, not from some ultra-Deep State conspiracy against snokeflake butthurt males, White or otherwise.

                  I’m glad your natural competency, value, intelligence, and sexiness frees you from much fear of the anti-White male jihad. Might you also take comfort from the fact that being from the “group is in charge for a long, long time” also has security value?
                  That’s just a suggestion for your added peace of mind.

                  Lastly : It’s not “rational self interest” when it’s irrational posturing. You do understand how the two are mutually exclusive?

                  1. Aww, poor women, having to deal with life being tough. Like everyone else in all of human history. Not long ago, men and women just had to work pretty hard to get enough to eat.

                    So you think that the leftists don’t eat their own? I’m afraid to inform you that it happens routinely, and I can’t help your ahistorical ignorance. But let me give you an example from the opposite side of the aisle. You know how non-Trump Republicans are gone after, so are the moderate liberals? Well, take a look at what happened the the woman in charge of Planned Parenthood. Happens all the time buddy.

                    And I was talking about white men in general, being on the whole, competent and valuable and considered attractive. White women are generally as well, and since people naturally are attracted to their own kind, white people aren’t disappearing from the face of the earth any time soon. But even you have to admit that there is a concerted effort to push white men from their (generally earned) positions in the dominance hierarchy.

          2. Oh woe is me – to live in this age as a White male when :

            (1) The only racism is unfair accusations against snowflake butthurt White males

            From this week’s USA Today/Ipsos poll:

            ” Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? – People who call others “racist” usually do so in bad faith”

            All respondents: 47% agree, 29% disagree.
            Republicans: 71% – 3%
            Independents: 46% – 18%
            Democrats: 31% – 35%

            Hell, even non-whites agree more than they disagree, 44% – 24%.

    2. I can’t speak for lawyers, but in the professional world, it’s fairly easy.

      You can’t avoid, say, being alone with a woman on a elevator without looking strange by stopping to get off. But it is actually fairly easy, to avoid being alone with a woman elsewhere. Always leave the door open to your office for starters.

      A female colleague ask you to lunch? Suggest that X from accounting tag along (even if it is another woman). Always bring a co-worker for a client lunch. If the co-worker is a woman who is meeting the client with you, then you say “meet you at X restaurant.” Also, you always bring your significant other to those after work get togethers, and avoid the spontaneous ones, saying that you have family obligations. If you go to the holiday party at least, people don’t think your anti-social. And these days, less and less people want anything to do with their coworkers after work hours.

      Emails – stay strictly professional as these are archived. Instant Messenger gets tricky if a co worker starts flirting, as this is not archived, but because it is not face to face, just say you have a phone call after short spell.

    3. Yes, you reveal your ignorance.

      I have been doing this very thing, which for me as an Orthodox Jew is a religious requirement. (The Talmud ascribes this to King David.) And yet somehow I managed to function as a lawyer for 20 years, in the process having my name published as counsel on some 50 published decisions in my area of law.

      1. in the process having my name published as counsel on some 50 published decisions in my area of law.

        Weird. I checked “Bored Lawyer” in Westlaw, but didn’t find you.

        1. Check out the special “Boring” database. 😉

      2. King David an authority on sexual morality?

        Really?

        1. He paid for his sins. Did he write the rules before or after he send the man to the front to get killed hide the cuckolding though?

      3. Well, good for you, but it might help progress the discussion if you could explain what you have done in situations where other lawyers might be alone with someone of the opposite sex.

        Have you ever mentored a female associate? Worked for a female partner? Worked closely with only a female associate as the only junior on the matter?

        [I am assuming you’re a male. Just a guess, but the sexes would obviously be reversed if not.]

        Is this one of those legalistic things where, if you’re in a semi-enclosed space that is continuous with other open air spaces where there might be other people, you’re not “alone”? So you can have a private discussion with a female in your office, as long as the door is open a crack on a hallway that connects with your secretary’s desk down the hall?

        1. Have you ever mentored a female associate? Worked for a female partner? Worked closely with only a female associate as the only junior on the matter?

          Yes to all.

          Is this one of those legalistic things where, if you’re in a semi-enclosed space that is continuous with other open air spaces where there might be other people, you’re not “alone”? So you can have a private discussion with a female in your office, as long as the door is open a crack on a hallway that connects with your secretary’s desk down the hall?

          Don’t know what you mean by “one of those legalistic things.” If you are somewhere where the door is open and anyone else (a secretary, another partner or associate) can just walk in, it is not a problem. That is always the situation in the day time — others walk into my office from time to time without asking. The fact that someone can come in at any time is an obvious deterrent. (Same applies to an elevator. They can stop at any time and someone can walk in.)

          It is really not hard to do, if you use common sense and discretion.

          1. Don’t know what you mean by “one of those legalistic things.”

            What I mean is whether you have to employ somewhat attenuated reasoning to reach the conclusion that you’re in compliance with the underlying prohibition, formalistically rather than functionally. Based on what you’ve said here, you can be alone with a woman, in an office with an opaque, closed door, on an office floor where no one else is actually then known to be, so long as the door is unlocked, you have an “unannounced entry” policy, and there’s a non-trivial chance that someone might be on the floor at any time during your meeting.

            Most people would just call that “alone with a woman.”

          2. And what about lunch?

            I mean, there might just be the two of you at the table, but in a restaurant.

            What’s the big deal with that?

            1. Do you drive to the restaurant separately or together? Once there, is all conversation strictly work related? What are the chances that someone will see the two of you together, even across a table, and think that you’re buddy-buddy enough to go to a sit down meal together….which is what people do on a first date.

        2. Do you consider a lack of a sign of success, as a lawyer, if female associates are not mentored?

          1. It depends on whether you think of lawyers as businesspeople.

            1. I’ll be honest, and say that I don’t know what you mean. If it means what I think it means, then I would say lawyers as professionals can have a successful career and worthy career and never mentor a single woman ever. This could whether on purpose or just accident of fate, that no woman (due to self selection or when he was a lawyer, not many female laywers pre-1970s) ever crossed his path.

  15. Sorry Irena,

    We live in a world today, where weak sexual allegations can destroy a career in politics. The case example of Matt Dababneh in California is a good example. It’s very much worth a read. It doesn’t matter if the story shifts. It doesn’t matter how many witnesses are on the other side. A weak allegation, sometimes for political gain, and your career is done. There’s no effective defense, not alibis, not character witnesses, nothing. Except maybe “I’m literally never alone with a woman who isn’t my wife”.

    And that sucks for women in general, if they can’t ever be with a male mentor in a non-public situation. But if these weak allegations by a handful of women are forcefully acted upon, despite their weakness, despite any defense a guy might offer…. A guy has to make a choice. Risk his career, or make a policy choice that avoids that risk.

  16. You’re leaving out option 5, which is probably closest to the truth — they don’t want to be the target of false accusations like Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas, and if they are, they want their defense to be believed.

    1. Neither one of those men was falsely accused. And both of those men sit on the Supreme Court.

      1. That, sir, is a matter of opinion, and thus you perfectly illustrate the reason why the Pence/Graham rule is not such a bad idea.

        As for Kavenaugh, it’s hard to expect a high school kid to abide by it, because so much of a male’s time/energy at that age *is* to get a girl alone!

        1. It really isn’t.

          1. If two masses of people have differing opinions upon examining the same data, and there is no objective way of observing the true reality, then, indeed, it’s a difference of opinion.

              1. I take it you’re not a positivist then. Your Solipsism is noted though.

    2. Neither Thomas nor Kavanaugh was falsely accused. We have two perjurers on the Supreme Court.

      1. Based on what evidence, pray tell? You confirm the point that a man has to act to prove a negative in these cases, as these women are believed with nothing at all to support the claim.

        1. So I take it you mean, when you say, “based on what evidence?” you mean other than the sworn witness testimony of the putative victims. Anything else you want to categorically disallow as inapposite, so as to more easily entrench your own evidence-less presumption of innocence?

          1. Even given the sworn witness testimony, all of which in Kavenaugh case was, to put it loosely, about a firm as wormwood, then you admit here though, that if he had followed the Graham Rule, he wouldn’t have been accused, or, that there would be more than one witness.

            1. Plenty of evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself during his appeals court confirmation hearing, and note that whatever th strength of the evidence presented in the Ford matter, Grassley took care to railroad the nomination through without really looking any further.

              It was a disgrace.

              1. I think the whole “we like beer” contingent perfectly understands that Kavanaugh was lying – they just don’t mind it because they felt the whole proceeding was bullshit. I wish they’d be honest about it instead of force the rest of us to play their doublespeak games.

              2. Sure, some evidence you see that he perjured himself (maybe, maybe, not in my opinion, but okay)…but not that that he attacked Ford, who herself lied. There is no evidence of that, other than Ford’s testimony, of dubious worth.

                We were talking about the he said, she said aspect of this question, not what “boof” means or whatever you’re citing.

              3. So, there’s a great new book out about the Kavanagh trial. It rather heavily implies that Ford perjured herself…extensively.

                See, it seems that Ford was not exactly an angel in High School. Now, the Trump administration decided not to pursue that route. But, in hindsight, looking at the evidence there, and what Ford actually said….

                1. Is that the book produced by two Federalist-Heritage-Olin-Bradley clingettes?

                2. Ohhhhh, it “heavily implies” she “perjured herself [ellipses] extensively”? Why, that’s far more damning than “proves” she perjured herself! AND she was a drunken whoring slutty drunk who’re in high school? Case closed, sir. I said case closed!

                  1. We know with certainty that Ford perjured herself about her “fear of flying” and her “second door”.

                    We know she perjured herself about her “near rape” story, because she changed it multiple times – meaning at least one of her statements was false.
                    We cannot prove she was lying about ALL versions of her story, because they were non-falsifiable. There was so little detail that it is impossible to produce evidence against.
                    Although the testimony of someone Ford claims was a witness saying it didn’t happen is a pretty solid sign that it didn’t happen…

            2. I thought the Graham Rule was roughly, “Don’t socialize with women not your wife except in the company of others,” not, “Don’t drink irresponsibly and rape women.”

              1. Did it occur to you, that if you don’t socialize in the company of women, then you wouldn’t be drinking around them, then one would not drunkenly try to rape them (because they aren’t around)?

                1. The Graham Rule would not seem to preclude men from socializing with women in a party situation.

          2. “So I take it you mean, when you say, “based on what evidence?” you mean other than the sworn witness testimony of the putative victims.”

            So… the accusation is evidence that it’s not a false accusation?

            1. Yes, they’ve gone there. But only for women, mind you.

          3. The sworn “victims'” testimony that omitted enough details to render their claims non-falsifiable, therefore making it impossible to charge perjury? Is that the sworn victims’ testimony you’re talking about?

  17. Sorry Irena,

    *rolls eyes*

    A weak allegation,

    Matt Dabebneh contradicts your entire argument. And that you had to pick him is telling that you have no way to refute what the author of this piece is stating.

  18. Nice appeal to ignorance there with your strawmen about how these men think. How about addressing the elephant in the room: false accusations have serious political power in 2019. They will tarnish your reputation, destroy your professional network, and even cost you your job, your family, neighborhood, and life. You may even be jailed wrongfully only to be released decades later after exonerating evidence is presented. Yeah, I wouldn’t want to be “alone” with women in a private setting either.

    1. See my post above, and the New York Times article I linked to. These men appear to be behaving in a way that the majority of American women who want them to behave. Kind of galling for a woman to be criticizing them for doing what women apparently want.

  19. I’m surprised no one has mentioned VP Pence, who got a lot of flak during the election for this very policy. It’s easy for oh-so-cosmopolitan city slickers to sneer at quaint rural attitudes, and says more about the city slickers intolerance and lack of empathy, and their lack of interest in trying to understand anything outside their immediate area of expertise.

    Also shows one of the worst traits of modern liberals: their contempt for others extends to discounting agency for others, and that they, the social justice warrior elites, no so much better what is good for others.

    1. You’re right; modern liberals should afford their rural compatriots the same kind of respect and deference they afford Muslims, Sikhs, conservative Jews, and their conventions of dress and intermixing.

  20. “Here are some possibilities:”

    Here’s one you left off. They don’t trust women not to make false accusations that would be very difficult to disprove without additional witnesses.

    1. A woman is far far far more likely to avoid reporting an assault than she is to file a false one.

      1. Maybe.

        Note the difference between a Type I and a Type II errors, though, and why from a man’s perspective, it doesn’t matter if she is more likely to ignore it.

        1. “Maybe” nothing. A woman is far far far more likely to avoid reporting an assault than she is to file a false claim.

          1. So fucking what? False claims demonstrably happen. The #me too movement is doing everything it can to make it impossible for men to defend themselves against false claims. If they get their way, the only defense will be to avoid ever being alone with any woman.

            1. Yes, false accusations demonstrably happen… in extremely rare instances. Of course, that’s all some people, like yourself, need to declare that all claims are false. And your #metoo gibberish is just gibberish. Back to your daily pants-wetting.

              1. False Rape Allegations

                “The purpose of this paper is to report the findings on the incidence of false rape allegations from a long-term study of one city’s police agency. This investigation is a case study of one police agency in a small metropolitan area in the Midwestern United States. This city was picked because it offered an almost model laboratory for studying false rape allegations. False rape allegations were investigated from 1978 to 1987. A ranking police official notified the investigators whenever a rape charge was declared false and provided records of the case. In the study, 41 percent of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false.

                1. That study is a well known outlier, Brett. He classified as false reports allegations where the police told him an accuser had recanted.
                  Doesn’t take a genius to see the flaw in that methodology.

                  1. “He classified as false reports allegations where the police told him an accuser had recanted.”

                    Seriously? If it makes sense, any sense at all, to count allegations as true, then we have to treat recanted allegations as false.

                    Are you seriously proposing a rule where women’s accusations are evidential, but their recantations aren’t? If anything, recantations should be more reliable, they’re ‘admissions against interest’, they lay the woman open to charges of filing a false police report.

                    1. Is anyone in these studies counting all allegations as true, though?

                    2. Sarcastro: “Is anyone in these studies counting all allegations as true, though?”

                      Yes, as I’ve pointed out in a bunch of comments. All of the studies that show a low prevalence rate assume that allegations that are not cleared as false, are true.

                    3. TiP, you are misapprehending the conclusion of these studies. They are about false accusations;
                      they don’t make any findings about the remaining allegations being true.

                    4. “TiP, you are misapprehending the conclusion of these studies. They are about false accusations;
                      they don’t make any findings about the remaining allegations being true.”

                      *Headdesk*

                    5. Explaining things sometimes is a waste of time, but let me come into this late.

                      It’s binary, if the allegation is not true, then it must be false, and if it’s false, it must not be true.

                  2. “That study is a well known outlier, Brett.”

                    Outlier from what? Most studies assume allegations are true if they are not shown to be false. See here for and example.

                    1. The consensus of studies on the issue is Between 2 per cent and 8 per cent.

                      From YOUR link, TiP:

                      Kanin reported that 41% of 109 consecutive rape cases investigated by the police department of a small, Midwestern city over a 9-year period were determined to be false reports. Unfortunately, Kanin provides little information about the methods used to evaluate the police department’s system for classifying cases. The study did not appear to employ a definition of a false report

                      He apparently used no systematized method for analyzing the police reports (e.g., a coding system) or any system of independent raters or coders to guard against bias. These are particularly
                      important limitations, given that the police department he was studying used procedures that are now specifically discouraged by the U.S. Department of Justice and denounced by the IACP. According to Kanin, the police department always made a “serious offer” to polygraph the alleged victim

                    2. “The consensus of studies on the issue is Between 2 per cent and 8 per cent.”

                      As I said, the “consensus of studies” assumes that any accusation not proven false is true. The study I linked to found that, “(5.9%) are coded as false allegations” but…

                      “The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. This determination can be made only after a thorough investigation. This should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred.”

                      Indeed, the study also found that 45% of allegations fell into the “case did not proceed” category, “…applied if the report of a sexual assault did not result in a referral for prosecution or disciplinary action because of insufficient evidence or because the victim withdrew from the process…[or the incident didn’t meet the definition of rape]”.

                      In order to reach the 5.9% false conclusion, the study had to assume that none of the cases that did not proceed due to insufficient evidence were false.

                      In fact, every study in the “consensus” assumes that any allegation not initially closed as “false” is true. This is a much greater problem than the one you point out in the Kanin study.

                    3. So you quoted a study and now turn around and say it’s making a false conclusion. Bang-up work, there.

                      And you appear to be assuming that finding the rate of confirmed false accusations requires that you also find that everything else is true, which is not what any of the studies posit.

                      The 41% number if an outlier, and it turns out it’s because it’s using data gathering techniques that are disavowed by everyone else.

                      Are you so committed to women being liars about rape that you cling to it so fervently you’re willing to ignore the consensus of the other studies?!

                    4. My thesis: I don’t know the rate, but the 41% study is a way high outlier and should be ignored.

                      Your thesis: I know the rate; the 41% is the truth, all other studies are false. Bitches be lyin’ about rape all the time.

                    5. “So you quoted a study and now turn around and say it’s making a false conclusion. Bang-up work, there.”

                      Sigh.
                      1. You claim that there is a “consensus of studies on the issue” that shows a rate “between 2 per cent and 8 per cent.”

                      2. I quoted one of the studies in your “consensus” to show that they don’t actually claim a prevalence rate that low, but a rate of proven allegations: “To classify a case as a false allegation,
                      a thorough investigation must yield evidence that a crime did not occur. ”

                      3. I pointed out that the study did not classify as false a large percentage of cases that did not proceed for lack to evidence. This makes sense because they are only counting proven false allegations as false.

                      So, can you point to a single in your “consensus” that shows a low false accusation rate that does not assume that unproven allegations are true? (hint: you can’t)

                      If not, you have no business criticizing the Kanin study.

                    6. ALL the studies are about allegations proven false, TiP. That’s what we’re discussing! That’s what Brett offered the 41% number as showing!

                      A study about allegations that did not result in a conviction would be tendentious at best.

                    7. “ALL the studies are about allegations proven false, TiP. That’s what we’re discussing! That’s what Brett offered the 41% number as showing!”

                      Sigh. We are discussing the prevalence of false accusations. See upthread: “false accusations demonstrably happen… in extremely rare instances”… “A woman is far far far more likely to avoid reporting an assault than she is to file a false claim.”

                      None of these claims would be supported by a showing that accusations are rarely proven false. They are just as rarely proven true.

                      If you are claiming that between 2-8% are proven false and the rest may or may not be false, you are certainly correct, but that’s not generally how these studies are cited. They are cited, as in this thread, to show that we should rely on women’s allegations because they rarely make false allegations.

                    8. For all your sighing, you’re introducing a new thesis. You’ve now moved far afield of your original defense of the 41% study.
                      And despite your latest post, in the thread we are in the study came up to prove that women lie about rape commonly.

                      Your defense of the 41% study was wrong. Your argument to ignore the other studies findings was based on a thesis you’ve taken from people not citing the studies and put this argument in their mouths.

                    9. Fair enough, If you agree that we have no idea how common they are. I thought you were defending the claim up-thread that we know that they are rare, which is usually how these studies were used. But you correct that these studies show that they are only 2-8% proven false, with the rest potentially false.

                    10. OK. I do think it’s a stronger statement about the default assumption to say without support that women lie all the time than to say that women lie rarely, but I do acknowledge that neither is a statistically supported statement.

                    11. “I do think it’s a stronger statement about the default assumption to say without support that women lie all the time than to say that women lie rarely…”

                      It’s the OP that makes it about women. When one person accuses another of a crime, either the accuser is a liar or the accused is a criminal. A priori, there’s no reason for a default statement that privileges one person over the other.

                    12. One group is all women. The other group is accused rapists. These groups are not the same size; making default assumptions about them is different.

          2. So you claim, but there is not real way to back that up.

            No one can possibly get a real count of “not reported” incidents, and to be fair on the other side, every reported rape that doesn’t result in a criminal conviction should be counted as a false accusation.

      2. Yes, but if you’re a man who doesn’t sexually assault women, you don’t have any reason to worry about a woman avoiding reporting an assault. It has nothing to do with you, because you don’t sexually assault women. So the question is not which is more likely, it’s is the one that could actually happen to you a possibility? And if so, what can you do to reduce that possibility?

        Kind of like even if prostate cancer is far more likely that, say, pancreatic cancer, I don’t worry about the rates of prostate cancer because I’m a woman and it can’t affect me. Telling me how much more common prostate cancer is doesn’t change anything. I’m still going to be concerned with the one that might actually affect me.

        1. Kenvee, you’re conflating sexual assault, with unwanted advances, and other very gray area subjects. Just ask Aziz Ansari. Having a woman say “he promised me a job if I would s*ck his d*ck” would be all it takes to ruin a career, and no assault is involved.

          Frankly, as a woman, I figure you’d be worried that some woman might do this to a male you are close too, like a brother.

      3. That’s only of interest to sexual assaulters.

        Men who don’t sexually assault women are concerned that they’ll be accused of something they didn’t do, not concerned about not being reported for something they didn’t do.

        And that’s especially true if you think the people you’re engaging with are inherently dishonest (and I wonder why a conservative politician might think that about a reporters…), increasing the risk of any false report. Then throw in a clear personal bias against them and their politics, and the value of a false allegation is tremendous.

        1. I’m pretty sure even men who DO sexually assault women aren’t scared of the possibility that they might fail to report it.

      4. A, so what. See Matthew’s comment for more.
        B, prove it. We have no good statistics on either the incidence of unreported assaults (if we did, they wouldn’t be unreported) or the incidence of false accusations.

      5. All it takes is one villain. You only need one, and the higher you go, the bigger a target you are.

  21. Good evidence that Gary Hart was set up. And that could very well have led to a different president if the weak Dukakis/Benson ticket did not happen then. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/was-gary-hart-set-up/570802/

    1. Gary Hart brought that shit on himself by inviting/taunting the press to look into the allegations, which were about adultery not assault. It’s possible that if he’d done the ol’ “That’s a private matter between me and my family” two-step, which was still viable at the time, or the “I’ve been a bad boy and I’m sorry” soft shoe things might have turned out differently.

  22. Shorter Irina Manta: Stop making it so difficult for feminists to use false accusations as a political weapon against you.

    1. Shorter jubulent: I can’t read.

      1. Even shorter OtisAh: wrong.

  23. Enjoying the unvarnished movement conservative commentary from the Conspiracy’s carefully cultivated following, Prof. Manta?

    1. Do you think she spends even 30 seconds perusing the comments? You’ve got a high opinion of the value of your input to this blog. Somin does a drive by now and again in them, Volokh himself is nice enough to clarify here or there, and only Bernstein actually engages.

      1. Most of the value of my contributions involves demonstrating the hypocrisy, partisan polemics, misleading nature, and faux libertarianism of many Conspirator contributions.

        That, and directing attention to the diffuse intolerance and ugly backwardness of many of the Conspiracy’s carefully cultivated right-wing followers.

        1. So, yea, you have an inflated sense of your worth. Rev is gonna show those Conspirators and commentators, it’s gonna be yuge! Best comment section *ever* because of you. Lot’s of people have been talking about it.

          You sound almost Trumpian.

          1. It’s a marketplace of ideas. Do you contend liberal-libertarian content that objects to intolerance, ignorance, and backwardness should be banned by the proprietor of this movement conservative blog?

            Perhaps you should inquire concerning openings at the Volokh Conspiracy Board Of Censors.

            1. I’ve not called for censorship, but humility. Read what I said again. Do you have your own blog, I will gladly put it on my list of bookmarks.

              No wonder you’re so bitter all the time. Narcissism is a deep character flaw.

  24. Take out men v. women for a minute. Change it to teacher and student. Do you think it’s wise for a teacher and a student not to be alone together? Do you agree that being behind a closed door with one student is something that should be avoided? Do you think teachers are taught not to give rides to students alone? Now, do you think those rules/pieces of advice are given because they’re worried the teacher will assault the student? Or something else?

    Think through that and maybe you’ll begin to understand why a personal policy like this isn’t a sign that somebody is untrustworthy (untrusting perhaps, but such caution is generally a benefit).

    1. Now, do you think those rules/pieces of advice are given because they’re worried the teacher will assault the student?

      Yes.

      The thing you’re forgetting, however, is that those rules apply regardless of sex. If you refused to have a closed-door meeting with anyone, that wouldn’t be a problem. Refusing them only to women, or only to Jews, or only to blacks? That is a problem.

  25. You skip a fifth bullet – These men don’t trust others (including their political opponents) to take innocent events and interactions out of context in order to attack their reputations.

    In skipping that fifth bullet, you display a distressing (and from your comments in the article, probably willful) ignorance of the number of false accusations and the damage they cause to the families of all involved.

    I would agree that the exclusion of women from professional opportunities is a problem. It is, however, an inevitable consequence of the extremes of the #MeToo and “Believe All Women” phenomena.

    I am glad you had no problems during your clerkship year. I will point out that you admit it was over a decade ago during a time when accusations were taken as just that – accusations pending evidence. I question whether your own clerkship would have been equally uneventful in today’s climate of guilty-until-proven-innocent.

  26. She’s just trolling, nothing to see here, move along.

    But while we’re on the subject of Republican politicians trying to minimise the target they present to the media artillery, why on Earth do some of them still give interviews without making and keeping their own recording ?

    You’re much more likely to be torpedoed by a sly edit than a Christine Blasey Ford. For one thing a sly edit requires much less effort.

    1. I suspect a lot of them, at the federal level anyway, are suffering from a kind of Stockholm syndrome.

      1. Or maybe the constant often gauzy claims of being taken out of context are more eyewash than truth.

        1. That wouldn’t explain the stupid failure to record the interview yourself; That’s saved more than one interview subject’s ass.

          But it isn’t a failing limited to conservatives, it seems to be universal. It just bites the left less often because they’re usually being interviewed by allies, not foes.

          1. Or, it is helpful to politicians to not have a second record so they can lean on media bias.

            1. OK, Sarcastro, let’s game this out. Four situtations.

              1) Both sides of the interview have recordings. Both sides have to be honest about what went down, unless they can arrive at a mutally agreeable lie, because both sides can have their lies exposed. This is the idea situation for honest people.

              2) Neither side of the interview has a recording. Basically you only do this if both sides want to be able to lie, or there’s a severe power imbalance. (FBI interrogation, job interview…) Or, of course, the interviewer and interviewee are on the same side, and want to be able to coordinate lies without risk of exposure.

              3) Only the interviewee records. The idea situation for the interviewee, the interviewer has to be scrupulously honest because any lies can be exposed. Sucks for the interviewer. Basically never happens in a journalistic context.

              4) Only the interviewer records. The usual situation with journalists, AND the worst for the interviewee.

              1 is the only stable corner of the matrix, because by wearing a wire somebody could always have moved the situation to a corner more favorable to themselves.

              And not recording it yourself is only favorable to you if you know in advance the other side of the interview is an ally. Which is virtually never the case for Republicans, and only usually the case for Democrats.

              No, it’s basically always stupid not to have your own recording, it only has advantages.

              1. Brett, you are assuming a social trust in the media that doesn’t exist.

                If a politician wants to leave open that some misstatement of his is coming from a biased media it’s to his advantage not to nail down the truth of what he’s said. The fact that the target of his attacks is the only one holding the truth becomes and advantage.

              2. There’s one big problem with your theory.

                If you lie a lot.

                In that case, having your own recording means that it can get out somehow for some reason (leaked, stolen, sup peona during the early phases of a trial, etc.) and then your own documentation shows that you’re a lying liar that lies a lot.

                That said, what we see in practice is that in most cases confirmation bias and motivated reasoning means that people who already like the person being interviewed will rationalize it to fit their pre-conceived narrative, and people that don’t will do the same.

  27. None of my co-clerks ever reported anything to me, either.

    Which means nothing: they could have been silenced by the trauma of living in a rape culture which is invisible to you on account of you being white & (presumably) cisgender.

  28. Every week, without fail, I sit down and spend exactly zero hours, zero minutes and zero seconds worrying I will be falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault and rape. But then I’m an adult who treats women respectfully. Your mileage may vary.

    1. Do you wear a seatbelt, even though to drive carefully?

      1. No, I wear a seatbelt because the law says I must.

        1. So I take it you’re young enough that you never had a choice?

          However, since the likelihood of you being caught without your seat belt on is so low, but the penalty high, yet you still wear it, is therefore proof that you are capable of evaluating risk in exactly the same way as those who decline to be alone with women.

          1. Take it however you like. You’re wrong, but since that list grew by two in just one of your posts, I doubt it will bother you much. Worrying that all bitches be out tryin’ to entrap you is nowhere near wearing a seatbelt on the list of reasonable precautions. In fact, it’s nowhere on the list of reasonable precautions. But hey, you do you.

            1. Again, you don’t understand risk precaution, so you’ve just shown your ignorance twice now yourself. But hey, go ahead and ride that uninspected elevator you’re advocating for, and build a house without a fire break, because the risk is so small.

              Like you could stop me from being me, eh? And you can be you, all Real Housewives snark all you want and I won’t give a shit either. Isn’t it nice how this tolerance thing works out?

              1. You clearly don’t understand precaution either, because you just throw it around like a magic talisman that lets you do anything you want rationalized as avoiding some remote risk.

                There’s some small risk about being alone with a guy as well, why doesn’t that pass your arbitrary threshold?

                And then you throw in that people thinking you’re dumb is being intolerant. That fallacy is never a sign your argument is going well.

                1. Sarc, if I had a problem putting up with people who are not the sharpest tool in the shed, I wouldn’t bother replying to Rev’s comments. Strange, though, that you’re suddenly you’re hopping off the civility train when it comes to insulting fellow commentators or using harsh language, how convenient!

                  I recommend Taleb’s books Antifragile or Black Swan to understand risk. There are summaries if you won’t take the time to read. I can’t provide a master class in a blog comment. But here’s another example, just to get you to understand (if that is possible)…it’s a lonely country road, you look both ways before crossing the street even though the chances of getting run over are very low due to such limited traffic, but even if the chances are low, the results are catastrophic, so you (perhaps needlessly) look both ways. I KNOW you engage in such behavior, don’t lie. If you saw a gun lying on the table at a friends house, the first thing you wouldn’t do is pick it up, would you?

                  Again, this is how the left treats carbon emissions, so you can understand why a man might worry, using the same logic, about false accusations that can’t be dis-proven. The downsides to a man not being alone with a woman are about as big as looking both ways before crossing the street, and this doesn’t preclude women being mentored either.

                  1. I’m insulting your argument, not you. And I didn’t do it through empty name-calling.

                    I’ve read Taleb, dude. Have you? Because his argument isn’t the blank check you’re taking it for. The precautionary principle talks about changing the scope of cost-benefit analysis, not picking a single black swan and basing your entire policy around it.

                    And carbon emissions aren’t a black swan event.

                    That you apply your ‘precaution’ to women and not men is arbitrary and you never explain it. Because you aren’t actually operating in the precautionary policy zone you wish you were, but in an area far more outcome oriented.

                    1. Huh, nice backtrack. There is a distinction between saying someone is dumb, and they are making a dumb argument, and you didn’t make it.

                      If you’ve read any any of Taleb’s arguments, it sure doesn’t show. Because you care more for one side’s supposed downside (the poor wimenz) you aren’t evaluating the risks rationally at an individual level. You’re the one who is actually outcome orientated, more concerned about the gains of feminism. It’s like your concerned about a tragedy of the commons situation with the poor unmentioned women out there, lost in the wilderness, because *some* men make the individual choice to protect themselves through rational self interest.

                    2. Read my last paragraph again – I’m talking about your argument that you weren’t being tolerated, not anything about you.

                      I did a pretty deep read of Taleb as part of my political risk analysis class, and I reiterate my above arguments. I’m not talking about how I evaluate risk; I haven’t even put my own policies up for discussion.

                      I’m talking about how you aren’t aren’t following the precepts he sets forth, which shows how your ‘evaluating the risks rationally at an individual level’ isn’t what you’re actually doing, it’s more what you’re invoking.

                      Sure, I could also make the social cost-benefits analysis in that you’re creating an externality to women based on your own inchoate ideas of where risk lies. But that’s not a position I need to take since your benefits analysis is borked; I don’t need to talk about your complete lack of costs analysis.

    2. I don’t worry about it, either, but that’s because,

      1) I don’t work in politics, so I don’t have a target painted on my back.

      and,

      2) I work in an open office, my job never puts me alone in a room with a woman.

      Point 1 is by far the most important.

      1. Add 3) you are not a student at a US-based college or university – maybe peer-level to number 1.

        1. 2 kind of implies 3, but, yeah. Glad I’m not in college today! We’re strongly considering sending our son to study abroad, in no small measure to keep him out of the insane asylum American colleges have become.

      2. I dunno, the fact that your job might otherwise require you to be alone with a woman, putting that woman at risk of an assault from you, seems far more important.

  29. All the conservative men here, some of the libertarian men: bitches be lying.

    Feels backlashy; like a last gasp.

    1. Subjective opinion. From the perspective of the OP, sounds like whining that she wants it both ways; men to not be jerks but non-jerk men not to worry about jerk women.

      1. Yeah it’s subjective – that’s why I said feels.

        Though your argument that it’s unreasonable for someone to both not want to be sexually assaulted and also not want to be preemptively treated as the worst kind of liar is a trip.

        1. It’s called the Precautionary Principle. Think of it how you wish conservatives would act towards global warming. When one is not 100% sure what could happen, or what exactly is going on, so you take the worst case scenario and rationally act to mitigate it.

          1. Taking the precaution of never fully trusting a woman doesn’t quite sound like robust risk management.

            1. Neither does the way liberals worry about carbon emissions.

              Often, the disagreement between left and right is a matter of how we analyze risk. Liberals worry about being shot, thus they want to remove guns. Conservatives worry about being shot by democrats, so they want to be able to shoot back, and they worry about the government having all the guns. Liberals look to government and don’t see a risk of tyranny as mush, so they don’t worry about government having all the guns. etc. etc.

              1. “Often, the disagreement between left and right is a matter of how we analyze risk”

                True enuff, but then you follow up with a cartoon. Let’s up the game, and I’ll use myself as a example: I live in a large city with a poor reputation for crime. But though I reside in a so-so neighborhood and walk a mile to work & back daily (at every hour of day and night), there’s little danger I’ll be victimized; the heavy crime is focused in much poorer areas. And if those odds are small, the chance a gun will serve me any positive use is absolutely microscopic.

                You want risk analysis? If people bought guns like they do any other tool – for the slightest possibility of real need – there would be millions upon millions less guns in circulation and the country would a much better place. Gun ownership in the United States is a psychological phenomena which has zero to do with “risk analysis”. The same is true of paranoid overreaction to common sense gun laws – or your fantasy of shooting it out with the tyrant’s black helicopters.

                It’s kind of funny : I don’t think you could have raised a subject more disconnected from real mathematical odds and risk analysis than guns. Of course your fear of avenging harpy feminists comes in a close second. Why do right-types enjoy luxuriating in wild fears?

                1. >If people bought guns like they do any other tool – for the slightest possibility of real need – there would be millions upon millions less guns in circulation and the country would a much better place.

                  Only the first half of that is true (maybe). As you also said:

                  >the heavy crime is focused in much poorer areas.

                  Those people, if acting rationally as you presume would be even more heavily armed! Whole neighborhoods would be occupied by people that each have personal armories.

                2. I’ll just cut to the quick here, and if black democrats in the ghetto didn’t shoot so many people, there wouldn’t be very many calls for concealed carry permits any more than calls for gun control.

              2. You seem to be ignoring the social cost of never trusting a woman the same way you trust a man.

                1. The rule isn’t “never be alone with a woman”. It’s “Never be alone with a woman not your wife.”

                  So it explicitly allows you to trust a woman on at least some occasions.

                  1. Brett, you’re not exactly helping your case here.

                    1. I’m not trying to “help my case”, I’m trying to correct your description of the situation. The Graham/Pence rule does permit you to trust a woman under some circumstances, and you said “never”.

                      People adopt the Graham/Pence rule to safeguard themselves, not to minimize social cost. But you’re assuming there’s no social cost to enabling false accusations, which I find dubious.

                      I think eventually we’ll just be forced by the obvious logic of it to all wear recording gear 24/7. It’s the obvious alternative to the Graham/Pence rule.

                    2. Except you don’t trust your wife to be alone with another man either, no?

                2. There are no solutions, only trade-offs.

                  1. We’re not a utilitarian society.

                    Suddenly deciding that in this arena we should be is a weak dodge.

                    1. No, we are not a utilitarian society, but who the hell are you to decide the level of trade offs each person is willing or comfortable to make or engage in? The sheer hubris of the comment you just made is astounding. I wonder if you’re really aware of how egotistical it is.

                    2. You’re up in arms over my criticizing someone else’s choices and the logic behind them? Because that’s not hubristic, neither is it censorship nor oppression, that’s just argument.

                      Pointing out that your tradeoffs levels are arbitrarily fine-tuned to exclude women but not men is not my taking some huge stand against the world, it’s saying your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

                    3. Up in arms? No, just saddened in a sort of expected to be dispirited way.

                      As per type, the liberal’s liberal here (the irony) knows what’s best for everyone else, and isn’t shy about letting us know it.

                      And you’re reading into my position across the board social policy, rather than people making their own personal choices.

                    4. I’m not arguing from my own authority, I’m arguing from your lack of coherent support for your personal policy.

    2. some of the libertarian men: bitches be lying

      Some women become bitches by lying in a specific way: levelling false accusations.

      The Twelve Tables, the oldest laws of the Romans, specified the death penalty for perjurers. But the execution happened in a specific manner: the convicted were flung from the Tarpeian Rock, which was named after a woman historical figure of Rome who betrayed the Romans to their Sabine enemies for the promise of material gain — but the Sabines killed her once she served her purpose for them.

      So the issue is somewhat more involved than just being ‘backlashy’.

      1. The issue is more involved because of some Roman rock?

  30. I think the Pence rule is a little more rational than Professor Manta gives it credit for.

    1. McCain got accused of having an affair with Vicki Iseman, with normally sane people like Kevin Drum arguing that McCain was denying the claims in the wrong way. Yes, a candidate could try to be alone with an attractive woman but not to be so familiar with her that people talk, but a bright-line rule makes it easier.

    2. People have affairs. Even good people who trust themselves not to. Even people whose spouses trust them. If Foster promised his wife that he wouldn’t be alone with a woman on the campaign trail (and he claims he did), I don’t see how I can blame him. It’s possible he’s cheated in the past, but it’s also possible that she’s just worried and he reassured her.

    3. One of my favorite law professors wouldn’t meet alone with students at office hours with his door closed. (I found out when I began to close the door and he asked me not to.) As good looking as I am, I suspect that he trusted himself not to sleep with me.

    With all that said, the easy solution for this would have been to bring a campaign volunterr.

  31. The author makes some good points about treating women as a demographic rather than individuals. She could also add that individual men can make both valid and false assault claims against other men.

    However, her comments on Judge Arnold remind me of what Judge Kavanaugh’s clerks said about him. This reinforces the counterpoint that demonstrated good behaviour does not protect reputation if anyone is inclined to alter public perception through either fuzzy memory or outright lies.

  32. These men don’t trust women not to behave inappropriately toward them. Any women. This should make said men look bad to voters.

    The author seems to have a poor grasp of probability.

    It isn’t that those men don’t believe any woman could be trusted, or that they don’t trust any women. It’s that they believe there is a non-zero probability of untrustworthiness (or similarly applied expectation for your other examples), and that expected value of that probability times the payoff is very bad.

    That’s some seriously shoddy reasoning in this article.

    1. Also, I totally used the right tags, but Reason’s software is just so garbage that it embedded my non-quote comment as a second quote.

      1. I totally used the right tags

        Nuh-uh, you’ve copied the opening blockquote tag and forgot to add the slash. Like this:

        1st blockquote but missing slash at closing tag

        This intended as regular text.

        1. Well, I’m dumb. Reason still needs a an edit button. At least they used to have a “preview” option. I can never understand why people decide to remove useful features from software.

  33. The backlash against men not desiring to be alone with women is fascinating. If that’s what a man decides to do, who really cares? It doesn’t affect the women in any way.

    1. If a man is willing to be alone with men but not women, that extra access might be unfair – men get to do the ridealong interviews and get extra time in a mentor relationship that women don’t.

      And to be fair, I’ve been a much better mentor to men than women. I’m willing to be alone with women, but if you spend too much time alone with any particular person who might be linked to you romantically, people will talk.

    2. I mean, the number of people here who are pretty sure there are women lying in wait to entrap every man out of feminist spite is kinda troubling, even if it doesn’t bloody my nose or pick my pocket.

      But it sure does affect women. It creates an inequitable work environment when a guy can meet one-on-one with a boss or peer and a women cannot.

      I’ve been to cigar-and-brandy events that had career equity where women were not welcome due to concerns of propriety.

      1. “I mean, the number of people here who are pretty sure there are women lying in wait to entrap every man out of feminist spite is kinda troubling,”

        Man, woman, whatever. Who would want to associate with someone who will automatically be believed if they accuse you of wrongdoing. This was a predictable consequence of the #BelieveWomen crap, no?

        1. No, all it is is proof you’ve never bothered to understand anything about #metoo or believing women except how unfair it all is to you.

      2. Judy Munro-Leighton?

    3. “…who really cares? It doesn’t affect the women in any way.”

      It does deprive them of a possible false claim in the future.

      1. Bingo. Manta is mad that Republican politicians are learning to dodge this particular attack. The left always gets mad when their victims adapt rather than remaining clueless.

        1. Good lord is this paranoid telepathy.

          1. Wait, Manta’s entire article is based on the premise that she can read the minds of these male politicians, but you are accusing Brett of “paranoid telepathy” because you somehow read his mind to discover the true purpose of his posts?

            1. Brett is accusing Manta of having a secret agenda to facilitate fraudulent accusations of rape for partisan gain.

    4. This morning I stepped into my boss’s office for a quick chat and then went on my way. According to the Billy Graham rule, this was “improper” even though I’m gay and she’s sixty. Under this rule, her being promoted to her position was unwise, because the number of men she supervises makes a lack of one-on-one sessions a problem. For that matter, performance reviews with an employee (typically a one-on-one closed door chat, for privacy reasons) means that bosses must always match the sex of their employees.

      1. A violation of the letter, but the the spirit, of the “law” if such a thing was ever written out to quibble over. I’m sure you know that we all get less sexy as we get older. Women of matronly age don’t have to worry much about sexual harassment, and from straight people, neither do gays.

        1. Vice-President Pence is 60 and his wife Karen Pence is 62. They rather infamously still play by the Billy Graham rule, so no, age is not an out.

          And as y’all make clear, the rule is about the possibility of both people behaving improperly, regardless of reciprocation. So me nominally not being interested in my boss doesnt’ say she can’t harass me, and anyway, many Evangelicals (especially older Evangelicals) don’t really believe people are gay, they think we’re just choosing to be perverts and might swap back to being “normal” if we just got the spirit of Jesus in us or something.

          That said, you completely ignored every sentence after the first. If more people followed this rule, sex-integrated workplaces are a major problem because if your sex doesn’t match your bosses, there’s all sorts of perfectly normal and intercept boss-employee interactions that are forbidden.

          1. Let’s be real. They still practice it because of habit and mutual agreement, but a 62 year old woman doesn’t really have to worry about a man hitting on her. Also a 60 year old man who is rich and in a powerful position, well, even without considering the differences in nature between the two sexes, should still not be alone with the ambitious intern.

    5. Are they “men” though? Or do they just have penises?

  34. Are you denying any and all possibility that either of them could be attacked for womanizing, in today’s hostile environment, where such a charge is increasingly common?.

    How often does ANY candidate for major office have a SINGLE journalist shadowing them? A journalist of ANY gender?

    Leave the campus, and spend some time in the real world. Just sayin’.

  35. I’m curious if the proponents of the Billy Graham rule would apply it to plumbers, AC repairmen, gardners and other blue-collar professionals who do house calls.

    Is the plumber supposed to refuse a job if a woman’s husband and kids are gone? Does the maid have to schedule around the husband’s work hours? Can a car mechanic meet with a woman in his office to go over what he did?

    Somehow I don’t think those are the sorts of guys Billy Graham had in mind.

    1. No, the Rule applies to people in high profile positions where enough people would see a benefit from taking them down, that someone might think the risk of a false accusation worth it.

      In some cases, making false accusations can be profitable.

      1. No, it doesn’t only apply to high profile men. That’s a detail you’ve invented to further your dissembling. The Graham rule is standard extreme evangelistic patriarchal gobbledegook of the same type that has women wearing head-to-toe coverings. Y’know, those coverings that offend you so? Similar concept here, only with your blessing in place of your outrage.

      2. Yeah, that’s a blatant lie.

    2. Haven’t you ever heard of the cliche start to a porn movie, with the pool boy or pizza delivery man?

      As a former blue collar professional, yea, you should be concerned. There is the realities of the marketplace though, and there are enough men, or women for that matter, who will take the risk because it *is* such a rare thing. But then again, blue collar plumbers have less to lose.

      I take it, then, that you don’t support police body cameras, since statistically, police misconduct is so rare?

      1. Actually, if politicians start wearing body cameras, that would solve the problem, as well as creating a new type of fake amateur pornhub video. It would also let politicians prove it when they say someone took them out of context.

        (This being Volokh, I should point out as far as I understand, single party recording without consent isn’t legal in many states).

        1. *Secret* recording. In most all cases, if you say “I’m starting my camera now, m’kay?” and put your phone (which is recording the entire conversation) in the middle of the table, it’s A-OK.

      2. If porn fantasies justify the Billy Graham rule, then we’re back to it forbidding any two people who aren’t married from being alone. Gay porn exists too, ya know.

        That said, this is an entirely different situation from body cameras. Body cameras are “trust but verify”. Billy Graham is “don’t trust, always forbid”. One is an attempt to better ensure trust isn’t misplaced. The other is a way to preclude trust from forming.

  36. “…every reported rape that does not result in a criminal conviction should be counted as a false accusation.”
    MatthewSlyfield, I realize that you have acknowledged in the past that you are not a lawyer, but I would hope even a layman would realize just how wrong this is.

    1. A similar method is standard practice among gender studies folks and others who study false allegations. For example, here is a commonly cited study that claims that only 5.9% of allegations are false. But, they say,

      “The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. This determination can be made only after a thorough investigation. This should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred.”

      If this is a feasible methodology, there’s no reason not to use the similar methodology that MatthewSlyfield suggests which would put the “true” reporting rate at about 2%.

      1. The most accurate way to state what we know would be something like:

        “studies of rape accusations generally show that something between 2 and 6% are able to be proved false after investigation, something between 2 and 6% are concluded to be true by a jury at trial, and we can’t be sure about the other 88-96%.”

        Both sides steal a base by reporting the number concluded to be false or concluded to be true and allowing their readers to infer that the remaining number were conclusively determined to be on the other side.

        (Note: I didn’t look up the actual numbers and used my rough understanding as an illustration – I may be way off, so if you need to know the real numbers, go look them up!)

        1. “Both sides steal a base by reporting the number concluded to be false or concluded to be true and allowing their readers to infer that the remaining number were conclusively determined to be on the other side.”

          Fair enough, although I can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone other than myself claim that only 2-6% of allegations are true, but the claim that only 2-6% of allegations are false gets published regularly in the MSM.

    2. “but I would hope even a layman would realize just how wrong this is.”

      Presumption of innocence.

  37. TiP, I know you are a lawyer (and may or not be a gender studies folk) but such folk, as far as I’m aware, do not try criminal rape trials. The idea that a trial resulting in acquittal equates to a “false” accusation is absurd.

    1. “TiP, I know you are a lawyer…”

      To be clear, I am not a lawyer.

  38. Upon re-reading, I may have missed your distinctions.

  39. Waawaa. We turned relations between men and women into a pool of sharks and now the men won’t jump in. You can have your power to destroy a man at a whim or you can have men comfortable with participating in society. Its one or the other ladies.

  40. As an officer in the USAF in the late 80s, early 90s, I was trained in OTS to never have a closed door meeting with a female subordinate. That, if necessary to “counsel” (discipline) such a person, get the first Sgt or section commander to chaperone, otherwise the door was to be kept open. The training emphasized the phrase “perception is paramount”. That what others believe about you could be prejudicial to good order and conduct.

    1. Precisely. This has been standard practice among the millions of men and women that have served in the US military for at least 40 years now.
      It worked well to reduce the number of accusations made – which, if you believe all women, means it also reduce the number of sexual assaults.
      Everyone desires that, I assume? This should be considered a good practice, then.

  41. What’s wrong with having a colleague or someone as a chaperone when you’re dining or socializing with some person of the opposite sex? It doesn’t strike me as all that difficult, though maybe there are just so many situations where unmarried men and women *just have to* be alone for totally essential reasons.

  42. Anyone who believes Irina’s crap or that Kavnanagh was guilty of anything is a liberal moron who shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Women, especially single ones who think the most important “right” is killing their babies so they can let beta males penetrate them without protection, prove by their actions every day why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

  43. Don’t pretty much all male OB/GYNs now require a female nurse to be in the room for all exams?

    1. I might distinguish between a vaginal exam and most interactions.

  44. Bullet point 4 seems the most naive, or at least a poor way to describe the problem.

    >These men don’t trust how journalists would present such interactions and/or they don’t trust the public in how it would view Important Men spending any time alone with women. In other words, these candidates don’t trust voters with something fairly basic. Why should voters trust them with much more important things?

    The first sentence is the whole thought process. Why should politicians having distrust toward the media to tell a correct story implicate them having distrust in voters? Folk wisdom is that a lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots.

  45. Another possible explanation is that these men just don’t see women as equals and want to avoid putting them in any responsible position, and this is their latest excuse.

    Waller, for example, now has a rationale for never appointing a woman as chief of staff. Such a person necessarily would have to spend some time alone with him. That job is now reserved just for the guys.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.