Is it ok for spouse to go to lunch with co-worker of opposite sex?(Inspired by RIDISN

[luvsJack]

I fully agree with you there, with the caevat that no peron's rules for their relationship should allow htem to discriminate with coworkers----that they must own that their rules might not be feasible in certain work enviornments and therefore should not work in such enviornments so that they are not hampering others in usch work places form getting their job done, or being promoted as readily, etc

Well, I would guess that if any of us were in that type of situation, we may have to re-evaluate the way we do things or just change them. None of the four of us have that problem so it works fine.

My younger son and his wife are fine with both having lunch, dinner, nights out or whatever with anyone. They spend time together and time with friends of the opposite sex all the time. It works for them.

Now dd and her bf are trying to find their way in their relationship. They are in a very male dominated business part time. All of dd's training and mentoring has come from men. And there is a LOT of cheating going on in this world they are in. But they are finding their way. She tends to make sure her brother or best friend can be with her if her bf is not. She is careful how she acts and what she does in the locker room. Its not about her cheating or being tempted to cheat, its making sure that the rest know she isn't available. (and yes in this particular instance, that is very necessary)

 

[morgan98]

But that was my whole point-clearly they're not making a declaration about no because I'm a woman. But if every time I say "hey let's grab a coffee/lunch and talk about xyz" and they always decline or find somebody else to bring along but go out to lunch with Joe by himself I'm going to wonder what's going on. Somebody saying "anything work related can be done in the office" would be odd to me too.

It's not as sly and discreet as some people here think it is.

It's very common for two people to chat about something work related in a slightly social setting-it's also common for that to be one on one.

Yes, or let's say you do have to travel out of town with a member of the opposite sex. I guess you would expect your spouse to eat alone instead of eat with the co-worker.

I deal with information that is very confidential in my job. Not confidential from a client information perspective, but rather company strategy, executive compensation, new markets, etc. stuff most co-workers should not and do not know about. While it does not happen often, sometimes going to lunch one and one is the way some of this is shared and discussed. Think of it as a business meeting with food.

How about a working lunch? What if you and an opposite sex coworker ordered a sandwich into a closed door conference room?

***This is not directed at any particular poster. I am just thinking of scenarios that can and do happen. These opportunities arise very casually, and it would be very strange for me to tell these men that I work with that I could not go to lunch with them to continue our discussion, or order in a sandwich.

ETA: My direct boss travels all the time and is often out of the office. A couple of times a month he will tell me that we will meet in the small conference room and his assistant will provide lunch. I have no idea how I would extract myself from that interaction without telling him that my husband and I agreed that we cannot have one on one meals with co-workers. That would impact the impression others would have of me and my professionalism.

 

[DopeyDame]

For what it's worth, I do hear what you're saying.

I think what's making this debate so very heated is because of all the social and cultural baggage that comes packaged with what should - in a perfect world - be just a personal, private, consensual choice between a couple of people. You're absolutely right - it's not a hardship or a hindrance, when it's just you and your partner and no one else is impacted.

But there's an important cultural context in which this debate is taking place. We're less than a generation removed from the "Boys Club", when women could not advance in their careers, because they were denied the social networking opportunities and mentoring that men had available to them. Even now, women who try to make inroads into traditionally male environments (ie, truckers) are often harassed and isolated.

We live in a world where certain countries have even codified this morality into law. Where if an employer wishes to hire a woman, he is legally obliged to provide a separate work environment and break room. Supporters of this kind of segregation are found in both genders. The women aren't comfortable socializing with men, and appreciate the accommodations made for them. Men feel they're making reasonable efforts to accommodate women in the workplace. Both feel it is immoral for the genders to mix. It is a matter of faith, culture, ethics, modesty and propriety.

I had one woman tell me that she felt protected and valued and cherished. That she never had to worry about sexually harassed, or even left destitute (since her husband was legally obligated to provide for her). If she broke the law, her husband would be held accountable, as a parent is held accountable for a wayward child. She described woman as a "protected class of people". I had a man explain to me that the women of his culture are different from Western women. They're not as strong or as independent. They're more emotional and delicate and precious, and therefore need protection in a way that Western women don't.

If you truly value something and want it to last, you must protect it and cherish it and keep it safe from the elements, right?

On both sides of this argument, people are hearing both subtext, and text-text:

"My husband respects me (more than yours respects you)." "I value my marriage (you don't)." "I'm dedicated to protecting and preserving my marriage (you aren't)." "You may think you'd never cheat, but anyone can slip given the right opportunity." "Why even take that risk?" "I'm more moral than thou art."

"Your marriage is weak." "You don't trust your partner." "You don't trust yourself." "You must be totally obsessed with sex."

It's no wonder people are getting offended with each other!

If the two of you have decided to structure your lives so that you don't spend any unnecessary amount of time in the company of the opposite gender, and if you choose not to have intimate friendships with any others (I'm assuming this includes your friendships with other women?), then that should absolutely be your right. And if it makes you both happy, wonderful!

But, where it becomes problematic for me is when too many other people decide that your way is the right way to do things. Or even worse, the only way to do things. Because that's what leads to a gender-segregated society. It's the reason why women are still harassed and treated like sex objects when they step outside of their expected roles. Or else politely isolated, avoided, and regarded as "unicorns", with all the associated consequences for their careers. "Women just don't make good executives. We hire plenty of them, but they never advance. Now, this young man, he reminds me of me when I was his age! Plus, he's a member of my golf club." And yes, many people today are content living in that sort of world, but I'm not, and I'd hate to see us slipping back into it.

Sometimes our decisions are symbolic of more than we intend. And I'm saying this as a woman who both worked in the military and later quit her job and stayed home to keep house and raise our children. I've had a lot of time to think about the significance of my choices in a broader cultural context.

Beautifully stated.

 

[Nancyg56]

This whole discussion has me shaking my head. On top of the whole trusting your spouse thing, the thought that you can't trust yourself is mind boggling. To avoid temptation you don't put yourself in a position to be tempted? Do people really think that little of themselves?
I know I won't cheat, ever. It takes a certain kind of person who would, I have never been that type of person and I never will be. Yes I do know that, yes I am saying "never". Things don't just happen, you make a conscious choice to be unfaithful. Things beyond your control just happen, but not things within it. If you think you have to control the situation so you don't cheat you've got some issues going on.

It took me a while to chime in on this, but here goes.

I agree with you. I work in an office that is all women with the exception of my boss, but have male clients .A few weeks ago I left the office with one because I needed to be added to his business accounts as the signer. I guess two of my colleagues were positive this was going to result in some sort of disaster at worst and to best was disrespectful to my husband. I discussed this with him and after he stopped laughing, he just shook his head.

I don't care what anyone else does, but I do have lunch with male colleagues and friends and my husband has done so as well. For him it is often dinner with our neighbor and the girls when I am on vacation, as she is kind enough to invite him for meals in my absence. The day that one of us cannot manage to control some sort of attraction that might crop up is the day we are done. I have been married for 25 years, and it is not a secret that there have been women who thought that they could come between my very handsome husband and me. They tried and they failed, but had they succeeded they could have him. At that point he would be useless to me. If I ever was at a point when I was going to renege on my vows, I would respect myself and my husband enough to end our marriage, but honestly lunch with a coworker is not going to make that an occurrence.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

Yes, or let's say you do have to travel out of town with a member of the opposite sex. I guess you would expect your spouse to eat alone instead of eat with the co-worker.

I deal with information that is very confidential in my job. Not confidential from a client information perspective, but rather company strategy, executive compensation, new markets, etc. stuff most co-workers should not and do not know about. While it does not happen often, sometimes going to lunch one and one is the way some of this is shared and discussed. Think of it as a business meeting with food.

How about a working lunch? What if you and an opposite sex coworker ordered a sandwich into a closed door conference room?

***This is not directed at any particular poster. I am just thinking of scenarios that can and do happen. These opportunities arise very casually and it would be very strange for me to tell these men that I work with that I could not go to lunch with them to continue our discussion, or order in a sandwich.

This is pretty much spot on!

The whole chaperone thing doesn't work in many of these situations, which I don't think I necessarily got across well.

If Joe should have the info then it would be "hey, let's all grab a coffee and talk about xyz" but if I ask somebody and they go find Joe for a male buddy and the info is not for Joe or even worse, I need to have the conversation without Joe it makes things weird.

I have problems with a lot of blanket rules since life has so many gray areas.

And for those saying it's all discreet and nobody even notices we don't eat or whatever with the opposite sex-I'd honestly rather hear "I can't be alone with a woman" then casually getting Joe to go along all the time. Don't get me wrong, I'm going to make my own personal judgements about that but at least it will preserve the working relationship instead some passive runaround that's likely to cause friction.

 

[firefly_ris]

Yes, or let's say you do have to travel out of town with a member of the opposite sex. I guess you would expect your spouse to eat alone instead of eat with the co-worker.

Good point... I forgot about that part of it -- I freelance on the side so I often meet up with my clients at a lunch to discuss business because there is no office for that. Just about all of my freelance clients are male. That's just how it is. We do a lot of meetings on the phone, and discuss a lot of stuff via email as well, but sometimes there is just no more efficient substitute than meeting face to face.

My husband works for a municipal auditing firm. He himself is the COO and HR administrator so he doesn't have to do any traveling, but all of the staff auditors do travel to clients at least a few times a year. They usually travel in pairs of 2, sometimes 3, and yes many times it's a male/female pairing. That's just how it is.

 

[ronandannette]

For what it's worth, I do hear what you're saying.

I think what's making this debate so very heated is because of all the social and cultural baggage that comes packaged with what should - in a perfect world - be just a personal, private, consensual choice between a couple of people. You're absolutely right - it's not a hardship or a hindrance, when it's just you and your partner and no one else is impacted.

But there's an important cultural context in which this debate is taking place. We're less than a generation removed from the "Boys Club", when women could not advance in their careers, because they were denied the social networking opportunities and mentoring that men had available to them. Even now, women who try to make inroads into traditionally male environments (ie, truckers) are often harassed and isolated.

We live in a world where certain countries have even codified this morality into law. Where if an employer wishes to hire a woman, he is legally obliged to provide a separate work environment and break room. Supporters of this kind of segregation are found in both genders. The women aren't comfortable socializing with men, and appreciate the accommodations made for them. Men feel they're making reasonable efforts to accommodate women in the workplace. Both feel it is immoral for the genders to mix. It is a matter of faith, culture, ethics, modesty and propriety.

I had one woman tell me that she felt protected and valued and cherished. That she never had to worry about sexually harassed, or even left destitute (since her husband was legally obligated to provide for her). If she broke the law, her husband would be held accountable, as a parent is held accountable for a wayward child. She described woman as a "protected class of people". I had a man explain to me that the women of his culture are different from Western women. They're not as strong or as independent. They're more emotional and delicate and precious, and therefore need protection in a way that Western women don't.

If you truly value something and want it to last, you must protect it and cherish it and keep it safe from the elements, right?

On both sides of this argument, people are hearing both subtext, and text-text:

"My husband respects me (more than yours respects you)." "I value my marriage (you don't)." "I'm dedicated to protecting and preserving my marriage (you aren't)." "You may think you'd never cheat, but anyone can slip given the right opportunity." "Why even take that risk?" "I'm more moral than thou art."

"Your marriage is weak." "You don't trust your partner." "You don't trust yourself." "You must be totally obsessed with sex."

It's no wonder people are getting offended with each other!

If the two of you have decided to structure your lives so that you don't spend any unnecessary amount of time in the company of the opposite gender, and if you choose not to have intimate friendships with any others (I'm assuming this includes your friendships with other women?), then that should absolutely be your right. And if it makes you both happy, wonderful!

But, where it becomes problematic for me is when too many other people decide that your way is the right way to do things. Or even worse, the only way to do things. Because that's what leads to a gender-segregated society. It's the reason why women are still harassed and treated like sex objects when they step outside of their expected roles. Or else politely isolated, avoided, and regarded as "unicorns", with all the associated consequences for their careers. "Women just don't make good executives. We hire plenty of them, but they never advance. Now, this young man, he reminds me of me when I was his age! Plus, he's a member of my golf club." And yes, many people today are content living in that sort of world, but I'm not, and I'd hate to see us slipping back into it.

Sometimes our decisions are symbolic of more than we intend. And I'm saying this as a woman who both worked in the military and later quit her job and stayed home to keep house and raise our children. I've had a lot of time to think about the significance of my choices in a broader cultural context.

OK - y'all win. I'm going to invite one of my Techs out for drinks after work tonight and maybe DH can ask his boss if she wants to catch a movie with him this weekend - that should resolve the complex sociological and ideological issues you've raised, right? Is that the response you're driving at? Sorry, Magpie - I'm being flippant. But seriously, I'm becoming a little bewildered at why you are so adamantly reiterating your opinion again and again. I'm not offended by anything you or anybody else has said, but very few posters are asking each other legitimate questions at this point - just looking to further their own rhetoric. I disagree with much of what you've said. You and I are clearly light-years apart in terms of world-view, but that shouldn't stop us from living quietly and at peace with each other.

 

[ronandannette]

This is pretty much spot on!

The whole chaperone thing doesn't work in many of these situations, which I don't think I necessarily got across well.

If Joe should have the info then it would be "hey, let's all grab a coffee and talk about xyz" but if I ask somebody and they go find Joe for a male buddy and the info is not for Joe or even worse, I need to have the conversation without Joe it makes things weird.

I have problems with a lot of blanket rules since life has so many gray areas.

And for those saying it's all discreet and nobody even notices we don't eat or whatever with the opposite sex-I'd honestly rather hear "I can't be alone with a woman" then casually getting Joe to go along all the time. Don't get me wrong, I'm going to make my own personal judgements about that but at least it will preserve the working relationship instead some passive runaround that's likely to cause friction.

I guess it's only natural that you're filtering everything I've said through your own specific situation and then asking "what if this, or what about that". But please understand - your work situation sounds VERY unlike mine and DH's. The scenarios you're imposing on us just simply DO NOT apply.

 

[Magpie]

OK - y'all win. I'm going to invite one of my Techs out for drinks after work tonight and maybe DH can ask his boss if she wants to catch a movie with him this weekend - that should resolve the complex sociological and ideological issues you've raised, right? Is that the response you're driving at? Sorry, Magpie - I'm being flippant. But seriously, I'm becoming a little bewildered at why you are so adamantly reiterating your opinion again and again. I'm not offended by anything you or anybody else has said, but very few posters are asking each other legitimate questions at this point - just looking to further their own rhetoric. I disagree with much of what you've said. You and I are clearly light-years apart in terms of world-view, but that shouldn't stop us from living quietly and at peace with each other.

I agree, completely!

 

[NFLDERS]

I agree, completely!

AND, I would now like to take this lull as an opportunity to thank kimblebee for this thread resurrection. It has been truly insight full.

 

[ronandannette]

My only question to you is, do you avoid having lunch alone with any coworker? Or do you go out with those of hte same gender and not those of opposite? Beucase therein would lie the problem (if there is one)

{{sigh}} No, I don't specifically avoid having lunch alone with female co-workers, but I can't honestly remember the last time I actually did it. And I strongly disagree that it's a problem of any kind. Once again, I conduct all work-related discussions and activity, AT MY WORKPLACE, whether it be with men or women, superiors or subordinates. I have no need to do otherwise.

I apologize for confusing you with some of the other posters. Regarding the bolded, if you can keep things polite, congenial, comfortable, and professional when you're in an office for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, why can't you do so in a lunch setting for 1-2 hours? I'm not trying to be snarky, that just seems to defy logic.

I could, I certainly could and so could my DH. But there's ABSOLUTELY no need, either personally or professionally for us to do so. None. I've tried a number of different times to explain that neither of us are in jobs where we need to conduct business in a social setting. And if we need to go get something to eat and take a break during the day, there's literally no reason why a few of us can't all go, which is what we do. Why, oh why does it seem like such a completely implausible set of circumstances to some of you? I'm not trying to be snarky back to anybody else either here, Sam.

I am genuinely asking - not trying to be snarky or dismissive - can you help us understand why adding food or drink into the mix makes this different? I'm having a hard time following how being alone in an office *all* day with someone is OK, but running to the cafeteria together is somehow more intimate.
Because all my lunches with coworkers (some for business reasons, most just because we're both hungry and heading to the cafeteria or chipotle at the same time) are "polite, congenial, comfortable, and professional"

For the record, I don't have to share an office and I never will. My saying that I'd be OK with it is more based on the fact that I'd do whatever I needed to do to perform my job duties and if it came right down to it, I would certainly take business lunches/dinners if required. But I don't (and neither does my DH) choose to spend social time with other men/women. Taking it out to the level of ridiculousness, yes, I would probably be fine with walking in the same direction at the same time. But that's NOT our experience. It doesn't happen like that for us. All the specific "what if'ing" in the world won't change our position on this general issue.

 

[CarolAnn856]

OK - y'all win. I'm going to invite one of my Techs out for drinks after work tonight and maybe DH can ask his boss if she wants to catch a movie with him this weekend - that should resolve the complex sociological and ideological issues you've raised, right? Is that the response you're driving at? Sorry, Magpie - I'm being flippant. But seriously, I'm becoming a little bewildered at why you are so adamantly reiterating your opinion again and again. I'm not offended by anything you or anybody else has said, but very few posters are asking each other legitimate questions at this point - just looking to further their own rhetoric. I disagree with much of what you've said. You and I are clearly light-years apart in terms of world-view, but that shouldn't stop us from living quietly and at peace with each other.

The discussion started and has remained mostly focused on work-related lunches and is not centered on your, or any one person's, work experience. As the discussion has progressed, new thoughts come to people and are shared with the group. The posters highlighting scenarios that happen frequently - working lunches, off-site meetings with clients, etc. - pose legitimate questions. I appreciate that you are not offended; and I don't think anyone who disagrees with your stance is offended, either. But we see a real problem with this kind of practice in the modern workplace, one that could easily hinder one's career, no matter what "side" one is on.

 

[ronandannette]

The discussion started and has remained mostly focused on work-related lunches and is not centered on your, or any one person's, work experience. As the discussion has progressed, new thoughts come to people and are shared with the group. The posters highlighting scenarios that happen frequently - working lunches, off-site meetings with clients, etc. - pose legitimate questions. I appreciate that you are not offended; and I don't think anyone who disagrees with your stance is offended, either. But we see a real problem with this kind of practice in the modern workplace, one that could easily hinder one's career, no matter what "side" one is on.

You're right. And given that my work situation seems quite different from many others, it's not really too productive for me to keep trying to satisfy questions that are really apples-to-oranges, I guess.

 

[luvsJack]

The discussion started and has remained mostly focused on work-related lunches and is not centered on your, or any one person's, work experience. As the discussion has progressed, new thoughts come to people and are shared with the group. The posters highlighting scenarios that happen frequently - working lunches, off-site meetings with clients, etc. - pose legitimate questions. I appreciate that you are not offended; and I don't think anyone who disagrees with your stance is offended, either. But we see a real problem with this kind of practice in the modern workplace, one that could easily hinder one's career, no matter what "side" one is on.

It may be a problem in some work places and if that is the case, certainly the couple would have to decide what works for them. But obviously in many work places its a non issue. I don't know about the pp, but its hard for me to say "well, in that case I would do x,y,z." Because I don't know, I don't have those scenarios.

But I would just about bet any of you that if a person in those scenarios have the same type of agreement or whatever in their marriage, they have figured out a way to make it work. I haven't had to and perhaps ronandannette hasn't had to, but someone somewhere has and their coworkers probably don't even realize it. After all the VP of the US has made it work, has he not?

 

[pryncess527]

After all the VP of the US has made it work, has he not?

That's questionable. He made it work for him, but many of us might wonder how his choices and policies might have led to the elevation of men over women in his administration, given his freedom to socialize with men -- exactly the concern we are trying to raise. Politics is precisely the kind of field where I can see his choices having a negative impact on highly qualified women around him.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/pences-gender-segregated-dinners/521286/

If this is not an issue for you and your job, wonderful! But that doesn't mean it does not negatively impact others with far different work situations.

 

[CarolAnn856]

You're right. And given that my work situation seems quite different from many others, it's not really too productive for me to keep trying to satisfy questions that are really apples-to-oranges, I guess.

I do think that is a natural tendency for most people, no matter what your position in a discussion. I am genuinely curious, not trying to debate you, but I was wondering what would happen if you or your husband found yourselves in that kind of work environment? Or do you actively avoid pursuing those kinds of jobs? As others have noted, there are many fields and positions where trying to quietly include a third party for lunches, etc. would be basically impossible without raising questions from co-workers or making the execution of work extremely difficult.

ETA: In the interest of fairness, I can describe how I think I would respond if a male colleague said he could not meet me over lunch without a third party. I would certainly respect his decision and not insist upon that kind of meeting if it could be avoided. However, I can't say that it wouldn't have a negative impact on my impression of him, as I think I would feel that he did not see me as a professional equal. And, if I was in business where working lunches and travel were common, I would not feel compelled to vary my work style or schedule in order to suit his personal decision.

 

[CarolAnn856]

After all the VP of the US has made it work, has he not?

I would argue no, not in the larger sense. His actions have raised serious questions about his ethics, his respect for women, and his ability to evaluate others on merit without discriminating based on gender. As much as I would love to continue commenting, though, I realize that I should probably leave it at that.

 

[Magpie]

After all the VP of the US has made it work, has he not?

It may work for him personally, but it almost certainly does not work for the women he's hired. This article from the Atlantic says it better than I can...

*An anonymous survey of female Capitol Hill staffers conducted by National Journal in 2015 found that “several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.” One told the reporter Sarah Mimms that in 12 years working for her previous boss, he “never took a closed door meeting with me. ... This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.”

*Social-science research shows this practice extends beyond politics and into the business world, and it can hold women back from key advancement opportunities. A 2010 Harvard Business Review research report led by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the president of the Center for Work-Life Policy think tank, found that many men avoid being sponsors—workplace advocates—for women “because sponsorship can be misconstrued as sexual interest.”

From: "How Mike Pence's Dudely Dinners Hurt Women". (Not linked, because we're stomping all over the "no politics" rule here and I expect this thread will either get locked soon, or severely pruned.)

As a leader, Pence sets policy. He has the power to normalize male/female interactions in Washingon and help women advance. But instead, he chooses to wall them off and exclude them. This is not something I want to see either encouraged or emulated.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

A situation where the wife doesn't want her husband to eat alone with a woman when they are travelling on business came up the other day and the husband is respecting his wife's feelings. I'd never heard of such in 30 years of work before this and neither had the other women in our department. If he had put forth this restriction when he was interviewing for the job, he might well not have gotten the job, in fact, as we do travel and you WILL most likely be travelling with one other woman, so there is a clear logistical difficulty in his not eating alone with a woman. Fortunately, I don't travel with him, so no skin off my nose. I rather strongly suspect that if he travels with one particular woman in our department quite senior to him, he is eventually going to get told how the cow eats its cabbage. It will be interesting how this plays out.

 

[CarolAnn856]

A situation where the wife doesn't want her husband to eat alone with a woman when they are travelling on business came up the other day and the husband is respecting his wife's feelings. I'd never heard of such in 30 years of work before this and neither had the other women in our department. If he had put forth this restriction when he was interviewing for the job, he might well not have gotten the job, in fact, as we do travel and you WILL most likely be travelling with one other woman, so there is a clear logistical difficulty in his not eating alone with a woman. Fortunately, I don't travel with him, so no skin off my nose. I rather strongly suspect that if he travels with one particular woman in our department quite senior to him, he is eventually going to get told how the cow eats its cabbage. It will be interesting how this plays out.

Just so I understand the situation...a male employee and a female employee are traveling together in a rental car and staying at the same hotel. But, at mealtimes, they cannot sit at the same table in a restaurant?