When I was in my early 20s, I thought highschool students looked like little kids.
When I was 30, I thought people in their early 20s looked like little kids.
Now I’m almost 40, and people who are just turning 30 look very young to me (maybe I wouldn’t go so far as to call them “little kids”).
This crime wasn’t against a child, but I’d bet heavily it was against someone who Moore thought would be vulnerable because of their young age. It’s the same behaviour, just with one fewer criminal charge associated with it.
It’s cut and dry from my point of view. Alabama voters consider pedophiles to be better people than democrats. While these Moore allegations are mostly new to the national discussion, they sound like old news to the people of Alabama.
Certainly to some people in Alabama. We’ll see how many on election day. But your point is taken - somewhere in Roy Moore’s hometown there is a person who looked at a ballot and said, “Roy Moore? That DA who was banned from the mall for creeping on teenage girls?!? Oh well, can’t vote Democrat, so I guess it’s him.”
I hate to be seen as defending Mike Pence, because I don’t care for him, but I guess now his insistence that he never be alone with a woman who isn’t his wife, doesn’t seem so crazy.
My father, a rural pastor, had the same rule. He wouldn’t even give a teen girl a ride home after church without someone else along. Better safe than sorry.
Nah, it’s that cultural attitude, that men are pigs and that women are temptresses that are the PROBLEM here, I’d argue. If someone doesn’t think of another person (or a particular group of people) as anything other than there for their physical gratification, then they’ll act accordingly. Men who respect women as PEOPLE tend to not assault women.
I’m sure he wasn’t. But it still begs the question, why didn’t he trust himself in a car with a teen girl, then? The appearance? Temptation? the young woman coming onto him? Can you explain his rationalization to me, if that wasn’t it?
I’m not trying to accuse your father of anything, BTW or trying to attack him. I am curious why he held this view, when his job was to minister to all of his congregants, including young women. Since pastors don’t just talk about god, but often help people with personal problems, did he refuse to help young women who came to discuss those sorts of either spiritual or practical life problems?
I’m saying that the attitude that not being alone with women you aren’t married too is also about enforcing patriarchal views of women, our bodies, and men’s supposed inability to control themselves.
He trusted himself just fine. But the presence of a third party made it more difficult for the woman/girl to come on to him, or claim later that he assaulted her.
It’s a good question about him ministering to young women. I don’t know the answer, Maybe he referred such ministering to his wife or a deacon’s wife. Maybe he would minister with his wife present. Maybe he met with them in a closed-door office with a glass window open. Maybe something else.
I don’t hold the same view as he; I’ve been alone with many women not my wife (when I was single, you understand). But I didn’t have to worry about my reputation or my career.
When men start with the premise that being alone with a woman is risking their reputation or career but being alone with a man isn’t then they’ll conduct their business accordingly, resulting in a system that lets men build professional relationships that are off limits to women.
If I offered one-on-one office hours with my male students but not my female students which ones do you think would be more likely to succeed?
Okay, but why would he assume this would happen? Does he think that young women aren’t in control of their actions? It seems it goes back to appearances, too? Am I wrong on that? I’d say it’s still based on a very patriarchal notions of men and women’s fundamental relationships that are entirely uneven.
But if he felt that was the best option for him, given his role, I can totally understand, even if I don’t agree with it. I do still think it’s patriarchal thinking, honestly.
I’m not telling you how to conduct your business. Different people are in different situations. I do know of other pastors who wouldn’t meet in private with women. I can’t condemn them for that simply because your situation is different.
I don’t know if women in our society are put at a major social and professional disadvantage if pastors refuse to meet with them alone, but I do know that they are put at a disadvantage when powerful business and political leaders refuse to meet with them alone. That’s where the real problem with the “Pence Rule” comes into play.
I’ll take your word for it, since I have no experience in this area. I imagine that “alone” can mean different things, though. And if a powerful political leader meets with a woman “alone”, HE can be at a disadvantage. Or if he meets with a man “alone”, I suppose, although perhaps the risk is greater in one situation than another.
