Is Hatred for Mike Pence’s Marital Code Driven by Feminist Resentment?

 

The Rage Generating Machine went into overdrive when word got out that Vice President Mike Pence goes out of his way to avoid even the appearance of inappropriateness with women. A reporterette with Canada’s National Post says that Mike Pence’s commitment to remaining faithful to his wife is because he’s a part of … I am not making this up… “rape culture.” She writes, “The implicit reason is that he must avoid alone-time with women lest his stringent religious moral code fall apart in the presence of a little lipstick and décolletage. That is rape culture.”

How much of this hate, I wonder, is driven by feminist jealousy that Mrs. Pence has found a good, decent, loyal man?

I mean, if you’re a woman of the left, consider your dating pool is made up of men in the model of Bill Clinton. Anthony Weiner. Elliot Spitzer. Al “Release the Chakras” Gore. John Edwards. Chris “Waitress Sandwich” Dodd. Ted Kennedy. Gary Hart. Jesse Jackson. former NY Gov. David Paterson. Gary Condit. Jim McGreevey. Gavin Newsom.

You can kind of see how women on the left might resent a marriage where the man respects his wife so much he chooses to avoid even the appearance of inappropriateness.

Published in Culture
Tags:

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 77 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Unfair.  Jim Greevey was scrupulous about avoiding late night drinking and alone time with other women.

    • #31
  2. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):

    Couldn’t you use the exact same logic to claim that any man willing to go unchaperoned sends the signal that he’s a predator?

    I thought the common consensus is that all men were predators ready to rape any womyn at any time…

    … and by refusing to meet women without a chaperon, Mike Pence confirms it!

    Kafka would be proud.

    • #32
  3. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):
    Couldn’t you use the exact same logic to claim that any man willing to go unchaperoned sends the signal that he’s a predator?

    I’d say practically speaking, at least in Western cultures where chaperoning is still normal, if women are supposed to display their honor by ensuring that they’re chaperoned, men are also supposed to display their honor by not taking advantage if a woman is for some reason unchaperoned.

    Now, it would be horrible if the honorable thing for a man to do were to take advantage of a woman because her chaperone is not around, so this kind of chivalry makes sense. But it also makes it easier to infer that the woman, not the man (who is expected to be honorable in either case), is signaling a specific openness to naughty opportunities if she’s with a man unchaperoned.

    Where this argument breaks down, I think, is in your claim that men are expected to be honourable.  They may be commanded to be honourable, but that’s hardly the expectation.  If they could be expected to be honourable, then there would be no reason to command them to be.

    Instead, men are expected to be predators. Knowing this to be true, an honourable man will do his utmost to signal his honour by doing the opposite of what a predator would do, i.e. seek out arrangements to meet women unchaperoned.

    • #33
  4. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Yet to read any reaction from administration critics Schwarzenegger, McCain, and George Will.

    • #34
  5. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    V the K: reporterette with Canada’s National Post says that Mike Pence’s commitment to remaining faithful to his wife is because he’s a part of … I am not making this up… “Rape Culture.” She writes, “The implicit reason is that he must avoid alone-time with women lest his stringent religious moral code fall apart in the presence of a little lipstick and décolletage. That is rape culture.”

    I think he’s more worried about “accused of rape or sexual harassment culture”, then he is about suddenly finding himself lusting uncontrollably.

     

     

    • #35
  6. James Golden Inactive
    James Golden
    @JGolden

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Actually in a business situation I invoked this policy a long time before I was a couple. The problem is that people gossip. If you go eat with a person of the opposite sex (not in groups) gossip will occur. It does not matter if there is anything to the gossip or not. It will hurt reputations, both male and female. That gossip may get back to significant others and harm those relationships, because people like to do that sort of thing. The gossip will get to coworkers and management, both will question your judgement or try to use said gossip against you. It is just safer to avoid a one on one, male – female dynamic in a work situation. If you are doing a meal that involves opposite sexs then just ask a few other people along or bow out. It really is not difficult to do.

    Yes, but…

    In the modern world, does this mean that no one should ever have lunch or coffee with just one other person ever?  Meaning no more one-on-one interactions at all.

    (I’m mostly being facetious.)

    • #36
  7. James Golden Inactive
    James Golden
    @JGolden

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Yet to read any reaction from administration critics Schwarzenegger, McCain, and George Will.

    I haven’t either.  But National Review did have at least 4-5 pieces on it, perhaps more (I lost count), all of which defended Pence.

    • #37
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    James Golden (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Actually in a business situation I invoked this policy a long time before I was a couple. The problem is that people gossip. If you go eat with a person of the opposite sex (not in groups) gossip will occur. It does not matter if there is anything to the gossip or not. It will hurt reputations, both male and female. That gossip may get back to significant others and harm those relationships, because people like to do that sort of thing. The gossip will get to coworkers and management, both will question your judgement or try to use said gossip against you. It is just safer to avoid a one on one, male – female dynamic in a work situation. If you are doing a meal that involves opposite sexs then just ask a few other people along or bow out. It really is not difficult to do.

    Yes, but…

    In the modern world, does this mean that no one should ever have lunch or coffee with just one other person ever? Meaning no more one-on-one interactions at all.

    (I’m mostly being facetious.)

    To answer that question we first need to know whether you are conservative or Republican.

    • #38
  9. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    1.) As an academic, this is why I have an open door policy (well, as a practice it’s a “cracked door” policy).  Caesar’s wife must be above reproach, and conservative academics must be even more so.

    2.) I’ve seen a pastor forced to retire for eating lunch in public with a woman friend of his daughter -basically because it started a rumor-mill that no amount of correct information could stop.  The entire leadership of the church agreed it was stupid, but the pastor couldn’t do his job.  He agreed to retire as he was getting close anyway.

    3.) How much worse would it be for Mike Pence?  He already has a thousand rumors about his sexuality flying around from the left.  If we’re making a ranking, Caesar’s wife is down at the bottom, I’m somewhere in the middle, and Mike Pence is taking pointers on how not to track dirt into the pearly gates from St. Peter himself.

    4.) I have long wondered how, after 20 years where the rules were fairly explicit (every woman is a sexual harassment threat waiting to happen, so don’t make off color jokes, flirt, or do anything that could be even remotely construed as controversial or a come-on), that so many men still managed to get themselves trapped in he-said-she-said sexual harassment proceedings.  I now know -they’re idiots who haven’t been paying attention.

    • #39
  10. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    James Golden (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Actually in a business situation I invoked this policy a long time before I was a couple. The problem is that people gossip. If you go eat with a person of the opposite sex (not in groups) gossip will occur. It does not matter if there is anything to the gossip or not. It will hurt reputations, both male and female. That gossip may get back to significant others and harm those relationships, because people like to do that sort of thing. The gossip will get to coworkers and management, both will question your judgement or try to use said gossip against you. It is just safer to avoid a one on one, male – female dynamic in a work situation. If you are doing a meal that involves opposite sexs then just ask a few other people along or bow out. It really is not difficult to do.

    Yes, but…

    In the modern world, does this mean that no one should ever have lunch or coffee with just one other person ever? Meaning no more one-on-one interactions at all.

    (I’m mostly being facetious.)

    To answer that question we first need to know whether you are conservative or Republican.

    Don’t give them ideas, guys.

    • #40
  11. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    V the K: The Rage Generating Machine went into overdrive when word got out that Vice President Mike Pence goes out of his way to avoid even the appearance of inappropriateness with women. A reporterette with Canada’s National Post says that Mike Pence’s commitment to remaining faithful to his wife is because he’s a part of … I am not making this up… “Rape Culture.” She writes, “The implicit reason is that he must avoid alone-time with women lest his stringent religious moral code fall apart in the presence of a little lipstick and décolletage. That is rape culture.”

    Any word on what this reporterette had to say about President Trump’s, er, cat-grabbing remarks?

    • #41
  12. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Sabrdance (View Comment):
    I now know -they’re idiots who haven’t been paying attention.

    The most manly of male failings.  They don’t believe it will happen to them.

    • #42
  13. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    I’ll add – when it’s the cultural norm for young(ish) women to be chaperoned, it also becomes more reasonable for others to suppose a woman willing to go unchaperoned is, ah, up for more stuff. I got myself into that kind of culture clash once, and know others who have. Looking back, I can see why someone who was used to the nice girls being chaperoned might have thought I was deliberately playing at temptress. I wasn’t – I was just clueless. Ah, well, lesson learned, and fortunately only cost a surprise groping, which, disturbing as I found it at the time, was much less than it could have cost.

    After a date, if one party invites the other up for coffee, or to look at some etchings, we’re all supposed to know that’s an excuse to create hanky-panky opportunities. In an environment where chaperoning were the norm, it wouldn’t be surprising that willingness to go unchaperoned – for any reason, at any time – could be thought to send the same sort of signal. The feminists do have a point there, though it’s better labeled as inevitable social signaling rather than as “rape culture”.

    All you describe seems accurate. Of course today this is not the norm anymore. So Mike Pence just seems like a weirdo in admitting this. Kind of like admitting you eat a burger with a knife and fork.

    • #43
  14. James Golden Inactive
    James Golden
    @JGolden

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    James Golden (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Actually in a business situation I invoked this policy a long time before I was a couple. The problem is that people gossip. If you go eat with a person of the opposite sex (not in groups) gossip will occur. It does not matter if there is anything to the gossip or not. It will hurt reputations, both male and female. That gossip may get back to significant others and harm those relationships, because people like to do that sort of thing. The gossip will get to coworkers and management, both will question your judgement or try to use said gossip against you. It is just safer to avoid a one on one, male – female dynamic in a work situation. If you are doing a meal that involves opposite sexs then just ask a few other people along or bow out. It really is not difficult to do.

    Yes, but…

    In the modern world, does this mean that no one should ever have lunch or coffee with just one other person ever? Meaning no more one-on-one interactions at all.

    (I’m mostly being facetious.)

    To answer that question we first need to know whether you are conservative or Republican.

    Conservative-leaning libertarian.

    • #44
  15. Eustace C. Scrubb Member
    Eustace C. Scrubb
    @EustaceCScrubb

     
    The Reticulator

     

    Matt Balzer (View Comment):
    I think if I were in the VP’s position I wouldn’t have given that information out, because it’s a given that if there’s ever any possibility that he’s violating those rules they’ll jump on him for that, regardless of the fact that they’re currently against it.

    Billy Graham had a similar policy. Any time spent alone with a woman not his wife, whether for counseling or planning or whatever, would be seized on to attack him, or would be an opportunity for rumors. So he just didn’t do it.

    Some other, lesser known pastors have the same policy.

    Last year my wife and I visited The Cove, Graham’s retreat center in North Carolina. Though he is nearing 100 years old and Ruth has passed, a docent told us Graham always has two nurses on call, continuing his long established policy.

    • #45
  16. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):
    Couldn’t you use the exact same logic to claim that any man willing to go unchaperoned sends the signal that he’s a predator?

    I’d say practically speaking, at least in Western cultures where chaperoning is still normal, if women are supposed to display their honor by ensuring that they’re chaperoned, men are also supposed to display their honor by not taking advantage if a woman is for some reason unchaperoned.

    Now, it would be horrible if the honorable thing for a man to do were to take advantage of a woman because her chaperone is not around, so this kind of chivalry makes sense. But it also makes it easier to infer that the woman, not the man (who is expected to be honorable in either case), is signaling a specific openness to naughty opportunities if she’s with a man unchaperoned.

    Where this argument breaks down, I think, is in your claim that men are expected to be honourable. They may be commanded to be honourable, but that’s hardly the expectation. If they could be expected to be honourable, then there would be no reason to command them to be.

    Instead, men are expected to be predators. Knowing this to be true, an honourable man will do his utmost to signal his honour by doing the opposite of what a predator would do, i.e. seek out arrangements to meet women unchaperoned.

    I see what you’re saying. Nonetheless, it would remain true that a man might defend his honor by merely asserting he had it, while a woman would still be expected to defend it with a chaperone. Part of it is, in cultures where it’s expected that women be chaperoned, a man’s honor is not as damaged by taking advantage of a woman as a woman’s is by getting taken advantage of, and it’s easier to give others the benefit of the doubt over small matters.

    • #46
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    James Golden (View Comment):

    In the modern world, does this mean that no one should ever have lunch or coffee with just one other person ever? Meaning no more one-on-one interactions at all.

    (I’m mostly being facetious.)

    To answer that question we first need to know whether you are conservative or Republican.

    Conservative-leaning libertarian.

    In that case, no one-on-one interactions for you.

    • #47
  18. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    James Golden (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Yet to read any reaction from administration critics Schwarzenegger, McCain, and George Will.

    I haven’t either. But National Review did have at least 4-5 pieces on it, perhaps more (I lost count), all of which defended Pence.

    Well I was just being facetious given their marital mishaps.

    • #48
  19. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    James Golden (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):
    Actually in a business situation I invoked this policy a long time before I was a couple. The problem is that people gossip. If you go eat with a person of the opposite sex (not in groups) gossip will occur. It does not matter if there is anything to the gossip or not. It will hurt reputations, both male and female. That gossip may get back to significant others and harm those relationships, because people like to do that sort of thing. The gossip will get to coworkers and management, both will question your judgement or try to use said gossip against you. It is just safer to avoid a one on one, male – female dynamic in a work situation. If you are doing a meal that involves opposite sexs then just ask a few other people along or bow out. It really is not difficult to do.

    Yes, but…

    In the modern world, does this mean that no one should ever have lunch or coffee with just one other person ever? Meaning no more one-on-one interactions at all.

    (I’m mostly being facetious.)

    Actually groups of 4 or more are safest.  It is best to maintain at least 2 females in the group.  Still there is risk but all risk can not be avoided.

    • #49
  20. James Golden Inactive
    James Golden
    @JGolden

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    James Golden (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Yet to read any reaction from administration critics Schwarzenegger, McCain, and George Will.

    I haven’t either. But National Review did have at least 4-5 pieces on it, perhaps more (I lost count), all of which defended Pence.

    Well I was just being facetious given their marital mishaps.

    Sorry, didn’t know about that.

    • #50
  21. Arthur Beare Member
    Arthur Beare
    @ArthurBeare

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    . . . in Western cultures where chaperoning is still normal.

    Uh, Midge, Which western cultures might these be?  Certainly not the USA in recent memory.

    • #51
  22. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Arthur Beare (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    . . . in Western cultures where chaperoning is still normal.

    Uh, Midge, Which western cultures might these be? Certainly not the USA in recent memory.

    Certainly not the USA in recent memory – and not even in Tocqueville’s day, really, at least according to him. Although in Tocqueville’s day, France was like this.

    Certain portions of Central and South America evidently retain vestiges of chaperone culture, though. (See also machismo/caballerismo/mariansmo.) Men are supposed to protect women’s sexual honor, but also be more sexually experienced than women – doing both means navigating social cues to locate the women who apparently don’t care about their honor the way good girls are supposed to (cues American girls may apparently send without realizing it unless they’re cautioned).

    The Spanish teachers I had in high school remarked it was still normal for girls from nice families to have dueñas (chaperones) within their lifetimes, though it varies by region, and in many place the custom has been dead a long while now. Even when it’s no longer normal, though, the more recently it’s been normal, the more likely a young woman’s willingness to be alone with a guy without shyness may be misconstrued.

    • #52
  23. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    Hahahahahahaha!!  Too effing funny!  The Left went crazy  about Trump’s pussy comment–and now they’re upset by THIS?

    Are the Lefty Progs prudes?  Or are they prurient, after all?

    Can we all get real, just for one brief shining moment?

    Heterosexual attraction is what makes the world go ’round.

    • #53
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    Heterosexual attraction is what makes the world go ’round.

    I think we’re supposed to be in a state of Victorian denial about that.

    • #54
  25. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Kozak (View Comment):

    V the K: I mean, if you’re a woman of the left, consider your dating pool is made up of men in the model of Bill Clinton. Anthony Weiner. Elliot Spitzer. Al “Release the Chakras” Gore. John Edwards. Chris “Waitress Sandwich” Dodd. Ted Kennedy. Gary Hart. Jesse Jackson. former NY Gov. David Paterson. Gary Condit. Jim McGreevey. Gavin Newsom.

    That’s Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy.

    • #55
  26. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    If a man does or says or thinks or feels something, anything, in the middle of the forest and there is no woman there to perceive it … Is he still a vile, oppressive, misogynistic rapist?

    • #56
  27. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    If a man does or says or thinks or feels something, anything, exists in the middle of the forest and there is no woman there to perceive it … Is he still a vile, oppressive, misogynistic rapist?

    [Edited for brevity.]

    • #57
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    If a man does or says or thinks or feels something, anything, exists in the middle of the forest and there is no woman there to perceive it … Is he still a vile, oppressive, misogynistic rapist?

    [Edited for brevity.]

    And the answer is: If he has gone somewhere off by himself to avoid doing his part to bring down the patriarchy, then he is a vile, oppressive, misogynist rapist.

    • #58
  29. Admiral janeway Inactive
    Admiral janeway
    @Admiral janeway

    In Islam a man can not sit next to a woman who is not his wife.

    • #59
  30. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    You guys and gals should hang your heads in shame, each and every one of you (except Douglas who posted the faux Volkswagen ad).

    The heteronormativity you all display is sickening.

    For Shame.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.