![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
About this "Billy Graham Rule"
Back in the news after Robert Foster, a Republican state representative in Mississippi who is running for governor, refused to accept a ride-along from a female reporter, but would be fine with a ride-along from a male reporter, on grounds that Foster never goes anywhere alone with a woman who isn't his wife. (NY Times story here) This is because he values his relationship with his wife and doesn't want to be accused of having an extramarital affaire. V.P. Mike Pence had previously said he followed the same rule, attributed originally to Billy Graham.
I don't know whether Foster (or Pence) is in the habit of asking his male colleagues whether they're gay before agreeing to be alone with them. I imagine not, and that he might be a little creeped out by knowing that he was alone in the presence of a gay guy, but not actually worried because he knows he's not gay, so he knows nothing sexual is going to happen, and he doesn't expect anybody to accuse him of being gay because that's just so implausible.
Which implies that somebody accusing him of cheating on his wife is less implausible. Which doesn't speak well for his marriage.
But never mind that. It's particularly ironic because the particular female reporter who requested a ride-along was herself happily married to another woman. So nothing sexual is going to happen unless either (a) the reporter is actually bi and OK with cheating on her wife and sufficiently seductive or dominant to overcome Foster's defenses, or (b) Foster initiates it against the reporter's wishes. The former implies that somebody accusing him of being seducible or rapeable is less implausible than somebody accusing him of being gay; the latter implies that somebody accusing him of rape is less implausible than somebody accusing him of being gay. Neither of which speaks well for him or his marriage.
On the other hand...
When I was a postdoc teaching a beginning programming class (c. 25 years ago), I had a very distraught student come to my office hours, worried that she couldn't do the work and on the verge of tears. There were a few of her classmates outside in the hall, so to save her embarrassment I closed the office door. The next day my mentor told me never to do that, as it would open me up to charges of sexually harassing my students, particularly if the student in question is looking for an extension or grade change or something and is miffed at not getting it. I don't think my mentor explicitly said it, but there was a clearly implied "especially if the student is female".
There was good reason for the warning: the professor-student relationship involves a power imbalance, in which just about the only power the student has over the professor is the power to charge some kind of misconduct that could ruin the professor's career. The same warning might reasonably have been given to a male supervisor in any job about his female supervisees, for the same reason. And it's not primarily because anybody claimed women were more likely than men to make false accusations (although that's historically been a thing too), but simply because people's minds don't jump as readily to the possibility of sex when the superior and inferior in the imbalanced power relationship are of the same gender, or when the superior is female and the inferior male. Powerful men having sex with less-powerful women is a familiar trope in our society; the reverse scenario and same-sex scenarios are less familiar and spring to mind less readily.
Hence the "Billy Graham rule", which was considered justifiable because if a man was alone with a woman, people would naturally suspect them of having sex, and which didn't pose a practical problem because almost all the people a guy needed to do business with one-on-one were male anyway.
The latter hasn't been true for decades, which makes the "Billy Graham rule" a serious impediment for professional women, depriving them of the opportunity to go for a ride in the car, or to the bar, or meet one-on-one in a closed-door office, with the boss or the Governor or some man in a position of power, all networking opportunities that they would have if only their anatomy were different. The rule is clearly indefensible and sexist. And yet, many powerful men will say in the #MeToo era, more necessary than ever to avoid accusations of sexual harassment.
Fortunately, society is providing a remedy by making homosexuality more normal and less unthinkable, so the former should become no longer true either: if you would be worried about how it looks to be alone with a woman who isn't your wife, you should be equally worried about how it looks to be alone with a man who isn't your husband. If that means people in positions of power don't go anywhere alone with any of their inferiors, at least it's fair. If it means, instead, that people in positions of power develop and guard reputations for not sexually harassing their inferiors even when alone with them, and for not cheating on their spouses, that's a win too.
I don't know whether Foster (or Pence) is in the habit of asking his male colleagues whether they're gay before agreeing to be alone with them. I imagine not, and that he might be a little creeped out by knowing that he was alone in the presence of a gay guy, but not actually worried because he knows he's not gay, so he knows nothing sexual is going to happen, and he doesn't expect anybody to accuse him of being gay because that's just so implausible.
Which implies that somebody accusing him of cheating on his wife is less implausible. Which doesn't speak well for his marriage.
But never mind that. It's particularly ironic because the particular female reporter who requested a ride-along was herself happily married to another woman. So nothing sexual is going to happen unless either (a) the reporter is actually bi and OK with cheating on her wife and sufficiently seductive or dominant to overcome Foster's defenses, or (b) Foster initiates it against the reporter's wishes. The former implies that somebody accusing him of being seducible or rapeable is less implausible than somebody accusing him of being gay; the latter implies that somebody accusing him of rape is less implausible than somebody accusing him of being gay. Neither of which speaks well for him or his marriage.
On the other hand...
When I was a postdoc teaching a beginning programming class (c. 25 years ago), I had a very distraught student come to my office hours, worried that she couldn't do the work and on the verge of tears. There were a few of her classmates outside in the hall, so to save her embarrassment I closed the office door. The next day my mentor told me never to do that, as it would open me up to charges of sexually harassing my students, particularly if the student in question is looking for an extension or grade change or something and is miffed at not getting it. I don't think my mentor explicitly said it, but there was a clearly implied "especially if the student is female".
There was good reason for the warning: the professor-student relationship involves a power imbalance, in which just about the only power the student has over the professor is the power to charge some kind of misconduct that could ruin the professor's career. The same warning might reasonably have been given to a male supervisor in any job about his female supervisees, for the same reason. And it's not primarily because anybody claimed women were more likely than men to make false accusations (although that's historically been a thing too), but simply because people's minds don't jump as readily to the possibility of sex when the superior and inferior in the imbalanced power relationship are of the same gender, or when the superior is female and the inferior male. Powerful men having sex with less-powerful women is a familiar trope in our society; the reverse scenario and same-sex scenarios are less familiar and spring to mind less readily.
Hence the "Billy Graham rule", which was considered justifiable because if a man was alone with a woman, people would naturally suspect them of having sex, and which didn't pose a practical problem because almost all the people a guy needed to do business with one-on-one were male anyway.
The latter hasn't been true for decades, which makes the "Billy Graham rule" a serious impediment for professional women, depriving them of the opportunity to go for a ride in the car, or to the bar, or meet one-on-one in a closed-door office, with the boss or the Governor or some man in a position of power, all networking opportunities that they would have if only their anatomy were different. The rule is clearly indefensible and sexist. And yet, many powerful men will say in the #MeToo era, more necessary than ever to avoid accusations of sexual harassment.
Fortunately, society is providing a remedy by making homosexuality more normal and less unthinkable, so the former should become no longer true either: if you would be worried about how it looks to be alone with a woman who isn't your wife, you should be equally worried about how it looks to be alone with a man who isn't your husband. If that means people in positions of power don't go anywhere alone with any of their inferiors, at least it's fair. If it means, instead, that people in positions of power develop and guard reputations for not sexually harassing their inferiors even when alone with them, and for not cheating on their spouses, that's a win too.