Befuddled by some media commentary
People out there are writing some pretty crazy stuff these days.
Take an attack on Vice President Mike Pence for a comment he made 15 years ago. He reportedly said that eating dinner alone with any female other than his wife was a no-no.
A Washington Post columnist reported the statement, and some political ideologues went nuts. Even as far away as Canada, a pundit called Pence’s position “sexist” and part of a “rape culture” (whatever that means).
Even in my wildest imagination, I can’t picture the vice president as a rapist (an undertaker maybe, but not a rapist).
To top it off, an attorney whose legal logic may have come from a galaxy far, far away, called the VP’s viewpoint “illegal,” and stated it could harm women’s opportunities for employment. As to what kind of employment opportunities transpire over an intimate candlelight dinner, he really wasn’t specific.
But first, I am curious as to how a quote from 2002 made it to a large metropolitan newspaper in 2017. There must be people deep in the bowels of Washington, working night and day on old laptops, trying to find dirt on politicians they’d like to see put in chains on Devil’s Island (or at least have their foreheads burned with cigarettes).
But if this is the best “dirt” they can muster from thousands of hours of research and the recharging old firesparking lithium batteries, then our vice president must be a pretty squeaky-clean guy.
Secondly, I don’t know about you and your spouse, but if I were having dinner alone with another woman, I would never hear the end of it. I can imagine it going something like this:
(Cut to wavy lines, music from “The Twilight Zone” and then a focused picture of our downstairs hallway at 2 a.m.)
Me: “But Honey, it was strictly for business purposes.”
Wife: “Yeah? What kind of business?’
Me: “Well, she approached me with a proposition.”
Wife: “What kind of proposition?”
Me: “At first, I really wasn’t sure, but I didn’t want to sound like a sexist and one who was trying to quash her opportunities for employment. I had to meet with her or else I could have been perceived as a right-wing, deplorable rube.”
Wife: “You still haven’t told me what the proposition was.”
Me: “It was about a mutually beneficial contract where she would offer a service in exchange for money. I was really excited about it!”
Wife: “Well you can just take your proposition and go elsewhere! Your things will be on the street tomorrow morning!”
So that’s how it would go in my household. After 39 years of marriage, the show would be over — finished, kaput. She’d get the house and the cars, while I ‘d get exactly one “My Pillow” and an old Army cot.
And the sad part of this whole tale is, I would be a completely innocent victim of circumstances. The real story would be that I was meeting with one of those female “we listen” car salespeople you see on TV — only to surprise my now would-be former wife with a new Cadillac for her birthday. The saleswoman would have invited me for dinner to present the idea, close the deal, arrange for delivery and say, “Thank you for your business.”
But the chance to explain would never be heard.
That’s because we poor husbands are all perceived as potential sexists and rapists just because of the biological fact that we were born with more testosterone. Certainly, this is a condition beyond our control and an example of unsung victimization rarely reported in the media. Even the gift of a new Cadillac might not overcome such overwhelming gender bias.
My advice to all the husbands out there is to stick with the vice president’s wise plan. Don’t do dinner alone with the opposite sex. If you want your marriage to last, it’s far better to be called names by a few kooks with computers than to sleep on an old Army cot under a freeway overpass somewhere — along with other poor souls who may have made the same mistake as well.