Gaylene, as is usually the case, I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, it appears that society (perhaps societieS, as this is an issue worldwide) is not yet as enlightened regarding categories. Categories as opposed to individuals dominate conflicts and wars, political agendas, as well as the minds of most people. It tends to be human nature to place a person into as many boxes as possible upon first meeting them, perhaps not even as a matter of judgement, just as a matter of defining and differentiating. Indeed, this is part of the reason, I believe, that so many people take such issue with the LGBTQ, transgendered, gender-queer, gender-neutral communities. They refuse to be defined by society's boxes, and many people find that frightening and threatening, despite it having no impact on them whatsoever.
I look forward to a day when people define each other as individuals instead of categories, but I believe it is a long way off.
chewyspaghetti: I also agree that I think this is often done to prevent allegations of impropriety as much as anything else, but that presents a whole new set of concerns. Why would it be presumed that a woman would claim something that was not true? Why would a man feel he needed to defend himself from the allegations of a woman and not another man? Again, why is there the preexisting assumption that a man and a woman cannot be alone together without something going amiss (a non-professional relationship forming, a sexual attraction developing, unwanted advances occurring, untrue allegations being made, etc.)?
And rachy, although I haven't referenced "The Billy Graham Rule" often, I have heard of it, and I never really thought more deeply about the implications of such a guideline. It never occurred to me the deeper issues it could perpetuate and how that could be a problem for a company, an administration, a system and a society. I posted the article because it was eye-opening to me, though it appears that others have considered these things far more deeply than I had previously.
