New York Times botches analysis of its own poll on married men and women

The poll asked 5,300 registered voters whether several activities were appropriate or inappropriate for married people to do with members of the opposite sex who are not their spouses. The idea was to test how many others share Vice President Mike Pence’s caution over spending time alone with women other than his wife. Despite the media mockery that ensued when news of his rule resurfaced, as it turns out, Pence is better aligned with the mainstream than his detractors in the press.

When it came to lunch, dinner, and drinks, in almost every circumstance, more men and women believed it was inappropriate than appropriate for a married person to be alone with a member of the opposite sex other than their spouse.

One activity almost everybody agreed was appropriate? Having a work meeting, which 63 percent of women and 66 percent of men said was appropriate.

Nevertheless, the Times just couldn’t help itself from suggesting the poll sheds light on persistent sexism in the workplace. “The results show the extent to which sex is an implicit part of our interactions,” correspondent Claire Cain Miller wrote. “They also explain in part why women still don’t have the same opportunities as men. They are treated differently not just on the golf course or in the boardroom, but in daily episodes large and small, at work and in their social lives.”

One problem, though. Per the results of its own poll, women were more likely than men to say it’s inappropriate for married women to be alone with a man for lunch, dinner, or drinks. On drinks, for instance, 60 percent of women said it was inappropriate, compared with 48 percent of men. On lunch and dinner, 44 and 53 percent of women said it was inappropriate compared with 36 and 45 percent of men respectively.

It’s also important to remember the specific question that was asked: “Women: Is it appropriate or inappropriate to do the following activities alone with a man who is not your spouse? Men: With a woman who is not your spouse?”

There was nothing in the question about the activities occurring specifically with people from the workplace or in work-related circumstances. Certainly, in many workplaces business lunches, dinners, and drinks can be frequent and important for advancement, but that was not the context of the question in the poll.

There is obviously a difference between being asked whether it is appropriate for a married woman to have dinner with her male colleague and being asked whether it is appropriate for a married woman to have dinner with her generic male acquaintance. Stretching the results to cover that context is not fair to the poll, which only asked about work-specific circumstances when it came to having meetings.

The article goes on to suggest that a fear of harassment from men keeps women from engaging in activities important to their careers. “One reason women stall professionally, research shows, is that people have a tendency to hire, promote and mentor people like themselves,” the article also explained, continuing, “When men avoid solo interactions with women — a catch-up lunch or late night finishing a project — it puts women at a disadvantage.”

Again, the workplace was not the context of most of the questions in this poll. And the results showed women are more likely than men to see extramarital meals and drinks as “inappropriate.” Are women the sexist repressors keeping themselves from important meetings? Feminists may argue that women are more inclined to label those activities inappropriate because they have been subject to more harassment and speculation about their relationships than men, and that’s fine. It’s just that this isn’t what the poll tells us, yet the Times’ analysis ran with that narrative.

Are there no other explanations for women’s more conservative judgment about interacting with the opposite sex?

The biggest rebuttal to the narrative that the poll explains why women “still don’t have the same opportunities as men” is in the poll itself, where large majorities of both sexes actually agreed it was appropriate for married men and women to have work meetings alone with one another. The inclusion of that question in the poll, for what it’s worth, could also confuse respondents who then perceived the questions about lunch, dinner, and drinks as being non-work-related since the one about meetings specified they were work-related.

Don’t forget, the subject of the poll was also only about married people, meaning the results only apply to judgments about men and women in that specific context. That the Times decided to extrapolate the data beyond that demographic, and then squeeze it into the specific context of the workplace. That’s quite a stretch. It seems to betray a strong desire to use the poll as something other than the resounding refutation it is of coastal liberals’ snarky responses to Pence’s prudence.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.