Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Feminists Dive for Fainting Couches After Gubernatorial Candidate Invokes Pence Rule on Female Journalist

Feminists Dive for Fainting Couches After Gubernatorial Candidate Invokes Pence Rule on Female Journalist

There’s definitely sexism at play in this story – but it’s not coming from the candidate.

https://youtu.be/rGCa7AfUIfo

If it’s a day ending in “y,” you can rest assured that perpetually outraged feminists are going to find something “offensive” in order to rally their troops. This week has been no exception.

The latest outrage du jour comes from news reports out of Mississippi where a Republican gubernatorial candidate is facing backlash after telling a female journalist that she could only interview him in his truck as he made campaign stops if another man was present.

The Associated Press reports:

A Republican candidate for Mississippi governor says he would not let a woman journalist follow him while campaigning unless she was accompanied by a male colleague.

Larrison Campbell with the online publication Mississippi Today wrote that she requested to “shadow” Robert Foster to report about his campaign before the Aug. 6 primary, and his campaign director told her Foster wouldn’t ride in a vehicle alone with her because people could insinuate Foster and Campbell are having an affair.

Foster said Wednesday that he won’t be alone with any woman other than his wife, even while working or campaigning, because of the possible public perception that he was doing something to hurt his marriage. He said being alone with a man is no problem.

Campbell wrote a lengthy Twitter thread complaining about how Foster “sexualized” her in order to reject her interview request.

What Foster said he invoked with Campbell is the “Billy Graham rule.”  Since 2017, this has also been known as the “Mike Pence rule”:

The rule, named for the vice president, made headlines after a reference was spotted in a Washington Post profile of his wife, Karen Pence. “In 2002, Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.”

Campbell and Foster were both interviewed on CNN’s “New Day” program by co-host John Berman Thursday. Note at around the 2:06 mark, Berman snidely says to Foster, “You said it was a precaution. Is it that you didn’t trust Larrison or you didn’t trust yourself? I’m confused.” Campbell laughs at the question before Foster responds to it:

I was impressed with the way Foster handled himself in the interview even as Campbell injected red herrings and the usual feminist nonsense into the discussion. The way Berman handled the interview segment was another matter, however, and I let him know it:

For the record, I should note that I am giving both Foster and Campbell the benefit of the doubt with regards to their motivations. I’m assuming there’s no other reason that Foster denied Campbell the shadow interview and that Campbell is not raising the roof on this issue for any reason other than perceived sexism. Should it turn out that there’s something else at play here, it shouldn’t detract from the overall points I want to make because this issue goes beyond Campbell and Foster.

One thing to note from the interview is that Campbell suggested in so many words that one of the things she felt made this unfair and sexist was her sense that Foster was putting the onus on her to provide the male chaperone when the stipulation for one was his and not hers.

Had she been listening for the entire interview, she would have heard Foster say earlier in the segment that he couldn’t provide a male campaign worker to go along on the ride because his was a small campaign with limited resources. He noted he and his campaign manager often had to work separately to cover the state and meet with potential voters.

Predictably, a chorus of feminist voices have started screeching speaking in Campbell’s defense. Among them is Jezebel‘s Esther Wang:

Turns out Husband-Son Mike Pence is not the only man who is extremely afraid of being overcome by lust and temptation if he is in the mere presence of another woman without his Mother-Wife by his side (or more accurately, ten paces behind him). Joining Pence in living his life by this rule is one Robert Foster, a Republican (natch) state representative in Mississippi who is now running for governor.

[…]

Sure, dude, because all women are just dying to accuse men of sexual assault, because it’s so great for our careers and for our reputations.

Washington Post style columnist Monica Hesse was just dripping with loathing and condescension in her screed on the issue:

But rules like these don’t honor your wife. They just presume that your marriage vows are so flimsy that you can’t be trusted to uphold them unless a babysitter monitors you. It’s rather like a thief sanctimoniously announcing that he brings a parole officer every time he goes to the bank to make sure he doesn’t rob it. Good for you, dude, for knowing your own limitations — but it doesn’t make you better than the rest of us, who manage to regularly not steal things even when we’re completely alone.

[…]

The most harmful aspect of the Graham/Pence rule is this: It keeps women out of the room. It says that men can forward their careers via mentoring sessions, golf games and brainstorming lunches, but women cannot. Are we to gather that, because of this rule, Foster would also never employ a female chief of staff, attorney or accountant and never visit a female doctor, dentist or physical therapist, since all of those roles would necessitate occasional alone time?

Even 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) dramatically weighed in to condemn Foster:

Did you catch the common premises all of Campbell’s defenders are operating from? They’re suggesting that 1) Foster worries that he won’t be able to control himself around another woman and 2) he’s doing this on purpose because he wants to hold women back.

Foster has repeatedly said that he doesn’t want to give the appearance of impropriety and didn’t want to be in a situation that could be turned into a “he said, she said” moment later. He didn’t say it was an issue of not trusting Campbell—in fact, he likely knows Campbell is a lesbian based on prior interviews and interactions they’ve had. He also didn’t suggest he felt he would be tempted by Campbell.

Foster’s position is a reasonable position that an increasing number of men are taking in the era of #MeToo.

Sadly, Wang in particular doesn’t seem to think that women ever level false accusations against men or that something as simple as a hug or other type of endearment could be innocently or willfully misconstrued or embellished. Perhaps she hasn’t paid much attention to the news recently.

As to the suggestion by Hesse that this “keeps women out of the room,” I’ve got two words for that, and the first one is “bull.” You can use your imagination for the other one. Foster said during the CNN segment that he’d be willing to do an interview in his office with her with the door open as long as someone else was also nearby in the building. So Campbell has not been forbidden from interviewing Foster. Foster has simply said that his religious beliefs don’t allow him to operate on her terms.

That goes for work situations, too. Men and women who work together in an office setting don’t have to have a one-on-one lunch or dinner meeting to discuss work issues. They can make other arrangements that don’t compromise the faith values of one or the other.

This is not rocket science.

Foster’s rules may seem antiquated, but again, this is the direction men are headed in the #MeToo era. It’s a “better to be safe than sorry” approach.

The real story here is not Foster’s rules; it’s the reverse sexism and religious bigotry. Notice how Hesse and Wang are implicitly saying that Foster should sacrifice his Christian values for Campbell’s professional ambitions when in reality this doesn’t have to be an all or nothing scenario. Alternative interview arrangements could be made, but Campbell won’t go along with them.

On the other hand, Campbell’s defenders would not raise one single eyebrow if Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said her Islamic faith forbade her from being interviewed by a male journalist without another woman present. Her views would be respected and admired without question.

But it’s different for Foster. Why? Because he’s a Christian and because he’s a man. It’s that simple.

Campbell and her defenders have turned this into something it’s not. That’s unfortunate, but it’s what we’ve come to expect these days from feminists whose default response to a man saying something they disagree with is “sexism!

[Featured image via YouTube]

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Having been falsely accused myself, I don’t blame him…

No male Republican candidate for any office should be dumb enough to allow himself to be alone with an opposition volunteer (or reporter, but I repeat myself) at any time.

Allow me to project a hypothetical: Let us suppose Foster allowed this reporter to tag along by herself for a day, then several days later released a completely false story about being pawed over and groped repeatedly during the entire trip. How could Foster defend himself? (without secretly recording the whole 24 hours, of course).

Then after the election, the new (D) governor hires the woman as a press secretary for a nice, comfortable, reliable salary. Quid-pro-quo.

    rabidfox in reply to georgfelis. | July 13, 2019 at 6:24 pm

    Just look at the crap accusation that was raised against Trump just recently. Fortunately, there was a video of what really happened and the woman was exposed as an opportunist.

johnnycab23513 | July 13, 2019 at 12:35 pm

All one has to do is look at the false accusations leveled at Republican appointees to public positions by females to see that this is not only a great idea, but a necessity when dealing with the evil communist democrat party!

The only proper answer to when someone says, “So you’re saying that…” is to look them in the eye and say, “Bless your heart, but you must have me confused with someone else. I never said, hinted, or implied that.”

And then shut up. The ball is in their court.

    artichoke in reply to jack burton. | July 14, 2019 at 6:25 pm

    I like it. Otherwise you’ll get into a long defensive chain of trying to prove you’re not saying it, what you’re actually saying, etc., at no cost to them.

Perhaps she is not aware of the elevated risk forced by #MeToo #HerToo #SheProgressed toxic climate change and diversity (i.e. color judgment) progression in a Pro-Choice (selective, opportunistic, politically congruent) quasi-religious (“ethical”) liberal (i.e. divergent) establishment. Thanks to all the male, female, and other juvenile delinquents.

#metoo

Gosh golly darn, whoda thunk there would be unintended consequences to #metoo.

Of course, the day is young, and the next move is to have a male reporter accuse him of being groped.

amatuerwrangler | July 13, 2019 at 1:26 pm

Whether based on religious convictions or merely good sense, this is the only safe approach available. No one-to-one, unwitnessed interactions between male and female. It has been demonstrated that this can leave one vulnerable to false accusations. Only an idiot would risk it in this day and age.

danvillemom | July 13, 2019 at 2:07 pm

As a retired high level female married engineer I totally agree with Mr. Foster…I traveled with men all the time when I was working. I would not think to do it now…why put my male co-workers in a position that could be potentially misunderstood.

Feminists Dive…

“Muff diving,” so to speak.

Or is that now more forbidden speech?

His position is simply good common sense to prevent the biased lying hacks, such as the one’s quoted, from manufacturing superficially plausible lies to try to harm his reputation.

Whether it is or isn’t, who gives a lick?

Close The Fed | July 13, 2019 at 2:56 pm

Well, didn’t Trump have to release footage this week of him pecking a woman on the cheek, because she sued claiming he more or less manhandled her?

The video shows them both in a large group of people, and no one bats an eye about the interactions.

Crazy. Don’t be alone with the woman, and treat them as though they have bubonic plague and don’t so much as touch them.

I’m female and the melodramatic emotional women are making life bad for the rest of us.

Esther Wang

Your surname, Esther.

Please consider me triggered.

Her own actions prove that he made the right call.

She wants to “shadow” him? Sounds like a stalker.

From Campbell’s spin on Foster’s position we know she’s no reporter; she’s a writer of lurid fiction. So obviously, Foster’s caution is justified.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who thought of the Kavanaugh hearings in connection with this. After watching that, anyone trying to claim they don’t understand why a man would refuse to be one-on-one with a lady in private has to be lying (IMHO).

Although in that case, even having a second person who also denied the charges did no good, because Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were both presumed (by many people) to be lying to protect themselves. And THAT is another good reason why Foster asked Campbell to provide the second person to accompany them.

Beware, LI people, Trigger Alert!

These idiot women should read some of Adam Smith, and learn the law of unintended consequences, namely the “perverse unanticipated effects of legislation and regulation…”

Given what ‘feminists’ have wrought, what man (other than a democrat perv) would risk one of a pscyho like anita hill, christine ford, etc trying to cash-in?

Feminism has cast women OUT, not in. How so many women still follow these unhappy wretches into emotional hell may be explained by too many soccer balls to the head.

She just can’t get it thru her Thick skull as to why!

A question and an observation:

1. Why is any Republican candidate giving an interview to CNN? It is the same as sending a campaign contribution to the Democrat Party.
2. The blowup over Kavanaugh proved that you don’t have to have ever met a certain woman to be accused of raping her.

NavyMustang | July 13, 2019 at 6:20 pm

Worked for a Navy officer back in the 80s who never, ever had a meeting with a woman without a witness present.

Still didn’t prevent a petty officer from going to every single IG she could think of to accuse him of coming on to her, etc., etc., etc.

The Navy IG, DOD IG, Congressionals. You name it.

The only thing that saved him was never being alone with her.

texansamurai | July 13, 2019 at 7:03 pm

never been sued myself though have been called as a witness several times over the course of my career–in a couple of them, the guys were guilty and gave my testimony as such–the others were clearly shakedown attempts and were dismissed/thrown out altogether–my personal policy(had numerous female employees/subordinates and a few female colleagues)was very similar to pence’s

nothing wrong with being careful and if that happens to upset a few ladies, so be it

She’s really mad that her power is being removed. She wants to be able to insinuate things and have the men humbled before her hoping she won’t do that to them. Instead, she’s being invited to bring a second reporter whom she could not say is colluding with him because he’s her colleague. This would be a true power balancer, and she’s not used to doing her job under such non-advantaged conditions.

There was also a question in the interview about a female office-holder and whether she could refuse to be alone with a male.

Sure. Absolutely, that would be fine.

inspectorudy | July 14, 2019 at 2:56 am

This is absurd. Back in the eighties when my kids were very young, I had a rule that I would pick up the baby sitter but my wife had to take her home. That was because a neighbor had been accused of “Improper” actions with his underage baby sitter. He was never charged but had that horrible accusation hanging over his head for ever. That was back when there was no “Me too” movement. Look at what happened to Kavanaugh from an absurd claim from over 20 years ago. Molly Hemingway is coming out with a new book that tells all about the “We must believe her” Ballsy-Ford’s time during her early years. One of her friends said if she had only one beer it must have been at the start of the party!

SCJ Kavanaugh wasn’t even in the house and he was accused of raping someone 30 years ago and it was taken as credible by the Leftist media and the Dems. Trump was accused of touching a woman’s knee while flying coach 40 years ago and that was held up by the press as a reason he wasn’t qualified to be president. This guy could reach for the radio in his truck and she would call it an advance ending his run.
.
Did you ever notice that modern office buildings have only offices with glass doors and/or walls or no walls at all?

This is stupid. No one gets in my truck that I don’t want in my truck. In fact even my wife rarely gets in my truck. The correct answer is if you want an interview we will find a time and place agreeable to both. You want to “shadow” me? Not going to happen. I wouldn’t vote for this guy because he’s an idiot.

    artichoke in reply to Obie1. | July 14, 2019 at 6:26 pm

    The other candidates were allowing it, and for someone who is not in the lead, almost any publicity is better than no publicity. So I don’t think he was an idiot.

We need to start calling this the Schwimmer Rule.

Because when he did the same thing it was totally cool and respectful towards women.

KEYoder mentioned the Kavanaugh hearings. I thought of that, too. One of his accusers, a Munro-Leighton, admitted to Grassley’s Senate investigators that she made the whole thing up. Kamala Harris claimed she got a letter from a Jane Doe who claimed Kavanaugh (and another man, by inference Judge) raped her in the back seat of a car in Oceanside, CA.

It turned out Munro-Leighton is a leftist activist. So she sends off a letter claiming to be that Jane Doe. As it also turned out, she had never been to Kali, and had never met Kavanaugh. She said she made her story up because she was angry, wanted attention, and wanted to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

According to the FBI, wanting attention is one of the main reasons women lie about rape. Others are depression/mental problems, sympathy, needing an alibi (if a woman goes out and has a one night stand but she’s already in a relationship she’ll make up a rape story so her boyfriend/fiancee won’t leave her), and of course money. A false rape accusation is a great way to extort money from a man.

For instance, last year a white former Sacred Heart college student in CT falsely accused two black football players of rape. She did have sex with them in a bathroom at an off-campus house party. Then she made up the false rape accusation because there was another guy on campus that she was friends with who she wanted to have something more with. She thought if she claimed to have been raped that would 1) get his attention and 2) his sympathy. Apparently this guy was white, so now convicted false rape accuser Nikki Yovino thought he’d have more sympathy for her if she played up the fact the two football players were black. She really played up that angle.

Of course, it isn’t just white women who will lie about rape. Who can forget Tawana Brawley. She needed an alibi because she had spent time with her boyfriend and was coming home too late and she knew her parents would be angry. She needed an alibi, so she made up a false rape accusation against four white men. And the infamous Chrystal Mangum, the stripper who falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse team of gang raping her at a party.

The DA, Nifong, was up for reelection and really needed the black vote so he did everything he could to railroad the Lacrosse players. There were serious doubts about her credibility, ultimately withholding exculpatory evidence for which he was disbarred. The State’s attorney took over the case and eventually declared all of the accused players entirely innocent.

Mangum us currently serving a 14-18 yr. sentence for a second degree murder she committed in 2013, so yeah she probably shouldn’t have been trusted.

If I got into an argument with a “believe all accusers” leftist I’d simply say, “So, you’re telling me all those black men lynched in the Jim Crow south because a white woman accused them of rape were guilty. That’s what you’re telling me? So they received their just punishment.”

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 14, 2019 at 9:55 pm

    Feminists often toss around a 2% false claim figure.

    The false claim figure actually appears to be much higher according to a study by law school faculty and students at Loyola Marymount University.

    https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2216&context=llr

    “Moreover, commencing in 1989 in cases of rape and rape-murder where there has already been either an arrest or an indict-ment, the FBI has conducted large numbers of DNA tests’9 “to con-firm or exclude the person. In 25 percent of the cases where they canget a result, they excluded the primary suspect.”

    So in this large sample from 1989-2000, in 25% of the cases in which the FBI conducted DNA testing the accused couldn’t possibly have been the perpetrator. His DNA wasn’t even on her. And remember, these were the primary suspects. Weaker cases had already been weeded out.

    Then there are a large number of other cases despite DNA evidence it doesn’t mean a rape occurred. As in the Yovino case. They would have found DNA on her, but she confessed the sex was consensual.

    The Loyola Marymount University Law school study concludes that “[i]It seems clear that the two percent false claim figure, which has pervaded LDF [note: Legal Dominance Feminism] discourse, has no basis in fact. Since this figure is clearly unsupported, there is no justification for shifting the burden of proof or redefining consent in rape crimes in accordance with this figure.”

    The law school study calls the 2% figure a “sociological myth,” an urban legend in other words. And here’s another dirty little secret; nobody actually collects these stats. Probably the best source would be the annual consolidated FBI crime statistics reports. But not every law state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency reports their crime statistics. They’re not required to do so. And of those that do, they may use a variety of terms as there is no standard language to indicate that the police/prosecutors didn’t believe the accuser, such as “unproven” or “unverifiable.” Usually this means they don’t believer her but they don’t have a strong case.

    So nobody knows how many false accusations women make, but they’re not angels. People, both men and women well lie about anything. They’ll lie to the cops about different things. For some reason they put a lot of cops in reserve intel units. So I knew a lot of cops when I was still in the reserves. They told me, men and women both, if a woman called them and accused her soon-to-be ex of domestic abuse or child abuse their default position was she was just angling to get a larger settlement.

    Men rarely lie about sexual assault. When they want to frame someone they will lie about a standard aggravated assault (think Jussie Smollet) or attempted murder.

    But it is a complete myth that women don’t lie about sexual assault or rape. So I never would have been alone with that CNN woman.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend