How much different is a camera as compared to a chaperone of the reporter's choosing? Aside from the camera being dispassionate and unable to intervene if needed? Actually, both would probably be a good idea, but in all cases, no matter the gender identity or sexual orientation of either party.

It's kind of like my idea for police interactions with the public on police calls. It seems that cameras aren't enough, so maybe a civil rights lawyer should be witness to all interactions.

I bet he's in the closet so this works as a twofold distraction. He'll let a man shadow him without issue while everyone is focussed on his statement because he's out getting shadowed (that's what the kids are calling it these days).

This reminds me of the comedy sketch that VP Pence cannot even have a bottle of Mrs. Butterworths maple syrup on the table unless he is with his wife/mother. (The temptation must be strong in this one up there, too)

I watched the interview yesterday and I have to say that your analysis of the situation is about what I came up with watching it. The host and the reporter brought up the gay angle because he said that it would be OK for a male reporter to ride with him. The reporter was taken aback but was pretty aggressive in her stance but I understand how she would feel. After watching the interview it just seemed staged on his part and I felt that he was playing to his base just like Pence does on the same issue.

Absolutely possible!

As opposed to the entire history of the world when women were accused of being crazy or lying for saying they were assaulted? Men are so very fragile they can't just learn to protect their reputation by not being a slimeball in general? Women have been forced to protect every aspect of our reputation for all of history, and are still presumed guilty if someone accuses us of something like adultery. Learn to watch your image like we have to, speak to women like they're fully formed humans, and keep your hands to yourself. Not that difficult. Being shadowed everywhere does nothing but limits a womans opportunities. See saudi arabia.

Specter of false allegations? Really? Its super simple gentleman. Keep your hands to yourself. Do not proposition and sexually harass women and you'll be fine. Powerful White men are not tge victim here y'all.

@CommonHuman I wish it was as simple as all that. But we don't live in a perfect world where people are honest when lying would ruin someone's life [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

@OpposingOpposum I wish it was as simple as all that. But we don't live in a perfect world where people are honest when lying would ruin someone's life [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

@Kafirah That was kind of my point. Women have been putting up with baseless accusations, and the least that happened to us was loss of reputation, and it wasn't uncommon for us to lose our lives instead. All you can do is what we have been doing for eons, do everything you can to protect your reputation because if you do get a false allegation, a spotless reputation will be your only thin defense.
On top of that, rape allegations, sexual harassment, assault allegations, all have a much much smaller incidence of false accusations than other crimes. Because all women know, the moment they open their mouths and point a finger, there will be a wave of judgment, hatred, and cruelty that will dog them. Possibly for the rest of their lives.

@CommonHuman Of course. However, that same healthy paranoia that is felt by every woman everywhere, every single minute of every day is not exclusive to women. 2-10% of men falsely accused definitely feel it too, and since several cases have been made public, despite being no where near the majority of real incidents, their high profile nature has made a lot of men wary that they too might become victims of not committing a crime also.To be honest, this new paranoia is a good thing for everyone involved as it will mean men finally have to take their security, that has been a granted since time immemorial, into account and plan their day accordingly, much in the same way that women have had to do since the beginning of time.

@Kafirah There is no good reason for a man to act like this. None. Can't handle it? Don't seek prominence or a position of authority. Simple.

@CommonHuman Fear, paranoia, due diligence, irrationality, guilt, damage control, showboating, misogyny, sarcasm... there are several reasons for him to act that way... whether or not they are good/acceptable reasons is neither here nor there.

@Kafirah The reason to act this way is actually the point. It is another way to separate women out as the 'other' thus limiting them both socially and professionally.

@CommonHuman That may be one of the effects. But I don't see it as the only motivation.

@Kafirah Clarification. I didn't say it was the motivation, but to not deal with the motivation leads to this rather large effect. It is the main effect, yet again the fragile men among you are ensuring that women pay the price for some men's lack of self control or some men's own lack of self awareness. Take the burden upon yourself, instead of forcing women to compensate for yet another thing.

@CommonHuman Personally, I think if he is doing this due to a vow he made to his wife, he should bring her along. Problem solved. Unless he's making that shit up and blaming his wife for his misogyny, in which case she should do her own interview and set the record straight. Either way, the burden of supplying the chaperone should be on those making the demands. On the other hand, like any public figure, they have caveats and quid pro quos that must be met in exchange for their time. The reporter wants some of his time... he has set his caveats (ridiculous as they may be and for whatever valid or invalid reasons he sees fit), and if the reporter's parent company wants his time and the interview, they have no choice but to either accept the caveats or refuse them... beyond that, all they can do is complain and spread the word. In the end, it's all about perception, and he may have shot himself in the foot. Point of contention-- you used the word "you" twice in what could be misread as you were referring to me instead of the "universal you" infinitive... was that intentional? In other words, were you lumping me in with men in general? Because I'm not a man...

@Kafirah yes, a small percentage of sex assault accusations are false. So is a small percentage of robbery and assault and burglary accusations, etc. and yet people want to focus on the only one that allows them to mistreat and downright dehumanize one half of humanity. Fuck that.

@FreethoughtKaty I completely agree. And, as with most things, it's a doubled edged sword that cuts both ways.

@Kafirah not really. Not only are women historically and in present day subjected to extraordinary abuse in society, when they come forward, with a real accusation or a false one. But even when we know it’s true, men are rarely held to account. How often are rapists prosecuted, for example? This is an issue that harms sex crime victims. There is no “two sides” to this issue.

@Kafirah And how many men sitting in government -at this very moment- have been credibly accused of sex abuse? Screw the bullshit about “both sides”. Leave that ridiculous argument for the creationists.

@FreethoughtKaty There are indeed two sides to the issue, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. There's her side, which I agree with, that he is a misogynist who is unfairly preventing her from doing her job... and there is his side, that he has set forth stipulations that he feels are necessary to maintain trust in his marriage and keep his nose clean, however unnecessary they may be.

FYI, Men get raped too, by both men and women, and they don't report it for many of the same reasons as women. Again, Two sides.

No one, especially me, a transwoman feminist, is saying that women haven't been shit on by men since the beginning of time for everything under the Sun simply because they are women. Also, again, I completely agree that male rapists are rarely held accountable for their horrific crimes, nor are they given sentences, when they are prosecuted, that even come close to being what they should.

That being said, just because you refuse to see that this particular issue has more factors to it than just misogyny does not mean I will cow tow and back down from the reality of my logically-crafted, rational, and factual argument because of your straw man false equivalency arguments or because you said so. WTF is with you fellow ladies not seeing that I agree with you that the gubernatorial asshat is in the wrong and that he is a misogynist and it is in effect keeping a woman from doing her job based solely on the fact that she is female??? But, just because I can see that doesn't mean I can't see the other side of the issue too. Seems like you are the narrow-minded one who refuses to look at conflicting evidence because it doesn't fit with your confirmationally biased worldview. Ignoring all the facts automatically puts you at a disadvantage in an argument. And if you are going to attack my argument by calling it ridiculous, be brave and/or thorough enough to back it up with reasons and/or data. Otherwise, leave the circular reasoning to the Christians.

@FreethoughtKaty Also, have we conveniently forgotten that the whole topic at hand is this politician doing what he thinks he needs to do to not be accused of any sexual misconduct, and is not a rapist (as far as we know), nor has he been accused of rape (as far as we know), and is therefore only guilty of being a misogynist asshat and nothing more? And, as far as he is concerned, he is trying to make sure that those allegations are as close to an impossibility as he can manage. The rest of your argument has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is at the very least extraneous.