Modesto Manifesto

The rule has become increasingly popular on Wall Street, and more generally, in American finance, in the wake of the late-2010s #MeToo movement.[7] Many male (and more rarely female) bankers, financial advisors, and financial service professionals have adhered to the rule in order to avoid the appearance of sexual impropriety.[8] According to a 2019 LinkedIn report, 30 per cent of corporate superiors (of both male and female genders) felt uncomfortable mentoring female colleagues.[20] Female workers are considered by some to be "an unknown risk" to banks, akin to market, liquidity, contract, and user risks. According to a December 2018 Bloomberg study, financial professionals often refuse to eat dinners alone with female colleagues and clients, sit apart from them on flights, book rooms on different hotel floors, and avoid meeting them one-on-one, particularly in private rooms.[21] Private meetings with senior members are typically conducted "with the door left wide open".[21] This rule has been identified as a factor in the lower levels of women in finance.[22] The Economist criticized and praised the rule's spread across Wall Street in 2018. It has allowed the workplace to become "all the most transparent" the paper said, adding that it was "[men], rather than the women, who were creating all the risk."[8]

Worries about exaggerated, mischaracterized, incorrect, inaccurate, or misleading recollections of interactions with females are said to fuel some of the rule's popularity on Wall Street.[23] In response to the #MeToo movement, Wall Street developed a "culture of walking on eggshells" around women on Wall Street due to its belief in the highly subjective nature of sexual harassment and assault.[21][24] The practice has been critiqued by corporate and human resources lawyers for potentially being gender discrimination. However, it is difficult to prove that the rule is actually being applied as most of financial services is project -, client-, and account-based. The Guardian reported that in August 2019, "27 per cent of men avoided one-on-one meetings with female co-workers, 21 per cent of men said they would be reluctant to hire women for a job that would require close interaction, and 19 per cent of men would be reluctant to hire an attractive woman."[25] The same study also found that women were more reluctant to hire attractive women in jobs that required close interaction.[25] MarketWatch reported in June 2019 that nearly 60 per cent of men were uncomfortable being alone with their female colleagues.[26]

The rule has been criticized for viewing women as potential objects of lust, as well as restricting opportunities for women to network with any male colleagues who happen to implement this rule.[15][27] When applied to workplace dinners or meetings in the United States, it could result in illegal labor discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[28][29][30] American pastor Tracey Bianchi says that one result is that "women are marginalized and cut out of opportunities to network, share their ideas, and advance in the organization."[31] Bianchi also says that the rule conflicts with the practice of Jesus himself, who spent time alone with the Samaritan woman at the well.[31] American pastor Ty Grigg says that the rule (assuming all American pastors implemented it) has not been "effective at curbing infidelity". He says that the rule "has framed relating with the opposite sex with fear", and that this leads to a diminished mutual respect, which in turn creates "the kind of environment where inappropriate relating is more likely to occur".[32] Others, though, suggest that unfaithful pastors must have failed to implement the rule.[33] Messianic Jewish author Michael L. Brown says that critics of the rule have misunderstood the purposes of the rule. He says that the rule prevents third parties from suspecting that an illicit romantic relationship exists (avoiding the appearance of evil). It also protects against any future accusations should the other party become embittered and seek to attack the innocent boss. Finally, it does protect both parties from developing natural attractions and potentially falling into adultery.[34]

According to a 2017 poll conducted by the Morning Consult for the New York Times, 53 per cent of women and 45 per cent of men believe that it would be inappropriate to have dinner alone with someone of the opposite sex who is not their spouse, compared to 35 per cent of women and 43 per cent of men who would consider it appropriate.[35]

• Appearance of impropriety
• "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion"
• Islam and gender segregation
• Yichud