Growing up this was an issue for me. On the reservation, pretty much nation wide from what ive seen, natives shake with no grip. More of a hand hold than a shake. And then on the other side of the river people try to crush each others hands.
Not really what the conversation was about right now sorry but I saw the op picture and it resonated that in me.
They should adapt to western cultural rules, in which men and women have seperate legally enforced dress codes that are commonly accepted and agreed on wait I mean uh
Something that I feel is continuously being ignored/overlooked is:
[*]She still made a respectful greeting acknowledging the Prince
[*]She still fully interacted with the Prince
[*]Not all respectful greetings necessitate physical contact and are highly socially/ culturally dependent
In fact, physically touching the Queen of England is considered a violation of Protocol and a cultural faux pas. She didn't refuse to acknowledge or interact with the Prince because he is a man, nor was she precluded from fully being involved in the event on the basis of the genders of everyone involved. She did not want to have a physical interaction with him because she considers it too familiar for a man other than her husband/ family. That belief is not inherently harmful, nor does it necessarily suggest other, actually inherently harmful beliefs or actions are present. They may well be, but such a claim would require far more evidence to be substantiated.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is saying you should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
Something that I feel is continuously being ignored/overlooked is:
[*]She still made a respectful greeting acknowledging the Prince
[*]She still fully interacted with the Prince
[*]Not all respectful greetings necessitate physical contact and are highly socially/ culturally dependent
In fact, physically touching the Queen of England is considered a violation of Protocol and a cultural faux pas. She didn't refuse to acknowledge or interact with the Prince because he is a man, nor was she precluded from fully being involved in the event on the basis of the genders of everyone involved. She did not want to have a physical interaction with him because she considers it too familiar for a man other than her husband/ family. That belief is not inherently harmful, nor does it necessarily suggest other, actually inherently harmful beliefs or actions are present. They may well be, but such a claim would require far more evidence to be substantiated.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is saying you should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
Respect is a cultural and societal construct.
Edited for harshness. Apologies.
TehSpectre on
+1
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
An extremely white, predominantly Christian country is seeing a moderate increase in the population of people who are neither white nor Christian.
This is terrifying to people who have difficulty adapting to minor changes, and they’re responding by making a huge fuss over silly things like “OMG she didn’t want to shake the Prince’s hand! I’m going to faint!”
Pretending that the lady is sexist is quite frankly a cynical appropriation of social justice rhetoric.
I agree, but would you have the same response if it was a Princess and a male member of the mosque. This being the easiest case to criticize doesn't rob it of value to interrogate our beliefs and values against.
As long as he’s courteous about it (i.e. not shrinking away in disgust at the feeemale) I’d be fine with it. But in my experience women are less likely to initiate physical contact without asking first anyway.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
They should adapt to western cultural rules, in which men and women have seperate legally enforced dress codes that are commonly accepted and agreed on wait I mean uh
Also, those are things that feminists actively oppose here, too.
Hey! You just identified exactly what you're doing in this thread!
Huh? Could you show me where I used Whataboutism and explain how it's Whataboutism please?
You are accusing Feral (and a lot of forumers) of defending bigotry and sexism and therefore being hypocrites. The intersectionality of the situation means the argument is far more complicated than that, and most people are acknowledging this.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is saying you should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
RESPECT IS A CULTURAL CONSTRUCT
Yes, but if you choose to engage in it, which a person who shakes hands with some people but not others based on gender or race, you're doing so in a biased way.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is saying you should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
The implicit assumption here seems to be that a handshake is the only respectful greeting that can be made and all other greetings are, by their very nature, less respectful by dint of not physically touching the recipient. That assumption is wrong.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is saying you should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
The implicit assumption here seems to be that a handshake is the only respectful greeting that can be made and all other greetings are, by their very nature, less respectful by dint of not physically touching the recipient. That assumption is wrong.
No. The assumption is that reserving a different gesture for a different gender, because you're religion dictates the degree of socialization you can have with a gender, has an implicit weight of bias.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is sayingEveryonyou should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
RESPECT IS A CULTURAL CONSTRUCT
Yes, but if you choose to engage in it, which a person who shakes hands with some people but not others based on gender or race, you're doing so in a biased way.
If a culture respects men and women equally, but have different greetings, etc why is it your right to determine what is and isn't allowed?
Much like morality, respect is a nebulous concept that means something different to every individual.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is saying you should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
The implicit assumption here seems to be that a handshake is the only respectful greeting that can be made and all other greetings are, by their very nature, less respectful by dint of not physically touching the recipient. That assumption is wrong.
No. The assumption is that reserving a different gesture for a different gender, because you're religion dictates the degree of socialization you can have with a gender, has an implicit weight of bias.
Could you please substantiate how a different greeting gesture, which is still fully and respectfully acknowledging the other party, lessens the degree of socialization occurring? Because, again, from what I can tell she fully participated in the event.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is saying you should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
The implicit assumption here seems to be that a handshake is the only respectful greeting that can be made and all other greetings are, by their very nature, less respectful by dint of not physically touching the recipient. That assumption is wrong.
No. The assumption is that reserving a different gesture for a different gender, because you're religion dictates the degree of socialization you can have with a gender, has an implicit weight of bias.
If I only brofist men and only high-five women, which is more respectful?
Who am I being sexist towards?
This is not a strawman. These are two non-handshake interactions between different genders. They both mean "good job". As long as each gender gets respect in their own if different way, how is it wrong?
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is saying you should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
RESPECT IS A CULTURAL CONSTRUCT
Yes, but if you choose to engage in it, which a person who shakes hands with some people but not others based on gender or race, you're doing so in a biased way.
I have about half a dozen different greetings that I use based on the cultural expectations of the social group I am in.
And it is mostly split along racial and gendered lines. I make fun of the hongi, but that's just because my first experience with it was I didn't know what was going on and the dude that initiated it was a lot stronger than me and had a death grip. Subsequent times it was fine because I knew what to expect.
At work it's a little more tricky since that's a forced social interaction with it's own rules.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
Feral pointed out earlier that there's a difference between what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of having the legal right, no one will restrain or stop you, etc., versus what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of being able to do it free from criticism and without any consequences. Absolutely no one has said that people aren't allowed to decline to be touched in the sense that someone ought to grab them and hold them down, but they have said that when a person declines to be touched for certain specific reasons they might be open to criticism or, in employment contexts, sanctions.
Furthermore, I am aware of no philosophical defenses of bodily autonomy which imply that its exercise should be absolutely immune to criticism. For instance, in an important American case affirming the right to bodily autonomy, McFall v Shrimp, the court ruled that Shrimp could not be compelled to make a life-saving marrow donation to his sick cousin McFall, on the grounds of his bodily autonomy. Nonetheless, in that same opinion the judge called Shrimp's behavior contemptible.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
Feral pointed out earlier that there's a difference between what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of having the legal right, no one will restrain or stop you, etc., versus what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of being able to do it free from criticism and without any consequences. Absolutely no one has said that people aren't allowed to decline to be touched in the sense that someone ought to grab them and hold them down, but they have said that when a person declines to be touched for certain specific reasons they might be open to criticism or, in employment contexts, sanctions.
Furthermore, I am aware of no philosophical defenses of bodily autonomy which imply that its exercise should be absolutely immune to criticism. For instance, in an important American case affirming the right to bodily autonomy, McFall v Shrimp, the court ruled that Shrimp could not be compelled to make a life-saving marrow donation to his sick cousin McFall, on the grounds of his bodily autonomy. Nonetheless, in that same opinion the judge called Shrimp's behavior contemptible.
As long as both parties get an equal if different greeting, how is that a problem except for the nebulous "one shows more respect than the other" argument that is pervasive in this thread.
TehSpectre on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It strikes me that there is zero reason to care about this specific incident. The Prince was acting as a cultural ambassador which is a special social role involving accommodating whatever 'host' culture and putting on your best show of respect. It was appropriate for him to honor her request to greet in a manner more appropriate to her cultural background, and, if he had done better homework, he would not have been surprised.
Nonetheless, I think that the general issue of religious and cultural accommodation, particularly around gender, is interesting and practically important. It comes up in the medical context also, where there are important questions about when and how you should honor patient requests to be seen/treated by only certain kinds of providers, or providers to only provide certain kinds of procedures (guess which the big one is; but also, assisted dying). The status quo in existing institutions is extremely asymmetrical with respect to race and gender--requests to be seen by a white doctor and requests to be seen by a male doctor are treated very differently. It's interesting to think about what justifies this. Handshaking in the workplace seems interesting to think about, to me, even if this original case with the prince is not interesting.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
Feral pointed out earlier that there's a difference between what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of having the legal right, no one will restrain or stop you, etc., versus what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of being able to do it free from criticism and without any consequences. Absolutely no one has said that people aren't allowed to decline to be touched in the sense that someone ought to grab them and hold them down, but they have said that when a person declines to be touched for certain specific reasons they might be open to criticism or, in employment contexts, sanctions.
Furthermore, I am aware of no philosophical defenses of bodily autonomy which imply that its exercise should be absolutely immune to criticism. For instance, in an important American case affirming the right to bodily autonomy, McFall v Shrimp, the court ruled that Shrimp could not be compelled to make a life-saving marrow donation to his sick cousin McFall, on the grounds of his bodily autonomy. Nonetheless, in that same opinion the judge called Shrimp's behavior contemptible.
As long as both parties get an equal if different greeting, how is that a problem except for the nebulous "one shows more respect than the other" argument that is pervasive in this thread.
I'd imagine that the thought is that the greetings are not, in fact, equal, because a woman who a man refuses to touch knows that the reason he refuses to touch her is because he harbors certain beliefs she thinks are sexist. Then the way that he touches a man and doesn't touch a woman implies something about women that she finds objectionable. It is like a woman might think that "Mr. Jones" and "Missus Jones" do not get to count as separate but equal ways of greeting Jones and his wife, because they encode the sexist belief that a man's identity is his own but a woman's identity is to be understood in relation to the man to whom she is married.
I don't know that I actually accept this line of thought, for the record. But it seems familiar enough from other contexts.
It literally boggles my mind we're talking about who should be allowed to physically touch who and why in here.
Feral pointed out earlier that there's a difference between what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of having the legal right, no one will restrain or stop you, etc., versus what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of being able to do it free from criticism and without any consequences. Absolutely no one has said that people aren't allowed to decline to be touched in the sense that someone ought to grab them and hold them down, but they have said that when a person declines to be touched for certain specific reasons they might be open to criticism or, in employment contexts, sanctions.
Furthermore, I am aware of no philosophical defenses of bodily autonomy which imply that its exercise should be absolutely immune to criticism. For instance, in an important American case affirming the right to bodily autonomy, McFall v Shrimp, the court ruled that Shrimp could not be compelled to make a life-saving marrow donation to his sick cousin McFall, on the grounds of his bodily autonomy. Nonetheless, in that same opinion the judge called Shrimp's behavior contemptible.
As long as both parties get an equal if different greeting, how is that a problem except for the nebulous "one shows more respect than the other" argument that is pervasive in this thread.
I'd imagine that the thought is that the greetings are not, in fact, equal, because a woman who a man refuses to touch knows that the reason he refuses to touch her is because he harbors certain beliefs she thinks are sexist. Then the way that he touches a man and doesn't touch a woman implies something about women that she finds objectionable. It is like a woman might think that "Mr. Jones" and "Missus Jones" do not get to count as separate but equal ways of greeting Jones and his wife, because they encode the sexist belief that a man's identity is his own but a woman's identity is to be understood in relation to the man to whom she is married.
I don't know that I actually accept this line of thought, for the record. But it seems familiar enough from other contexts.
People's sexism/bigotry always has a reason, if asked; that doesn't make it right or valid.
It strikes me that there is zero reason to care about this specific incident. The Prince was acting as a cultural ambassador which is a special social role involving accommodating whatever 'host' culture and putting on your best show of respect. It was appropriate for him to honor her request to greet in a manner more appropriate to her cultural background, and, if he had done better homework, he would not have been surprised.
Nonetheless, I think that the general issue of religious and cultural accommodation, particularly around gender, is interesting and practically important. It comes up in the medical context also, where there are important questions about when and how you should honor patient requests to be seen/treated by only certain kinds of providers, or providers to only provide certain kinds of procedures (guess which the big one is; but also, assisted dying). The status quo in existing institutions is extremely asymmetrical with respect to race and gender--requests to be seen by a white doctor and requests to be seen by a male doctor are treated very differently. It's interesting to think about what justifies this. Handshaking in the workplace seems interesting to think about, to me, even if this original case with the prince is not interesting.
To my mind this is where the principle of reasonable accommodation comes into play. And while the question of what is reasonable is itself rather murky and grey, requesting different greetings (again, so long as everything else occurs in a respectful manner and does not suggest a pattern or practice of discriminatory behavior in pay, promotions, opportunity, &c. along gender lines) strikes me as pretty harmless.
That will not always be the case. For instance, Pence's following of the 'Billy Graham Rule' is in fact unreasonable, harmful, and discriminatory in terms of opportunities afforded to staff on the basis of gender. That should not be sanctioned.
Note: This is not directed at MrMister, but the heavens.
Why is her hand over the heart gesture less respectful than a goddamn handshake?
The morality police are out in full force determining what is acceptable and what isn't today. One culture's version of respect =/= another's.
I'm pretty sure the basis of this is due to the woman's religious beliefs and not due to her choosing to greet genders differently.
Different doesn't have to be a negative.
The answer, I think, is that the belief (that women shouldn't be allowed to touch men) is what is sexist, the actions themselves are not, but the actions convey the idea of the belief.
Suppose I want to fire two people. Person A I fire through an email. Person B I fire with a letter to their house. The actions are different but totally fine. Nothing wrong. Until I tell you I only fired Person B because they were a woman. And then I mention that I have a policy of firing women whenever I can, because women are lazy workers, and that I will always send a letter to fire a woman and send an email to fire a man.
I would rightly be labeled a sexist, and to some extent the symbolism of firing men and woman in different ways is a symbol of my sexism. It's not in and of itself sexist. but it symbolizes my underlying sexist beliefs.
My analogy fails at this point because forcing me to use the same method of firing someone doesn't really address the underlying issue, where forcing someone to treat men and women equally when it comes to touch, does to some extent force them to change their thinking about what should and should not be ok for a woman to do (in this case touching a man who doesn't own her/is part of her family).
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Note: This is not directed at MrMister, but the heavens.
Why is her hand over the heart gesture less respectful than a goddamn handshake?
The morality police are out in full force determining what is acceptable and what isn't today. One culture's version of respect =/= another's.
I'm pretty sure the basis of this is due to the woman's religious beliefs and not due to her choosing to greet genders differently.
Different doesn't have to be a negative.
The answer, I think, is that the belief (that women shouldn't be allowed to touch men) is what is sexist, the actions themselves are not, but the actions convey the idea of the belief.
Suppose I want to fire two people. Person A I fire through an email. Person B I fire with a letter to their house. The actions are different but totally fine. Nothing wrong. Until I tell you I only fired Person B because they were a woman. And then I mention that I have a policy of firing women whenever I can, because women are lazy workers, and that I will always send a letter to fire a woman and send an email to fire a man.
I would rightly be labeled a sexist, and to some extent the symbolism of firing men and woman in different ways is a symbol of my sexism. It's not in and of itself sexist. but it symbolizes my underlying sexist beliefs.
My analogy fails at this point because forcing me to use the same method of firing someone doesn't really address the underlying issue, where forcing someone to treat men and women equally when it comes to touch, does to some extent force them to change their thinking about what should and should not be ok for a woman to do (in this case touching a man who doesn't own her/is part of her family).
I was under the impression men could also not touch women.
That seems like an equal power dynamic in social interactions such as handshakes.
It strikes me that there is zero reason to care about this specific incident. The Prince was acting as a cultural ambassador which is a special social role involving accommodating whatever 'host' culture and putting on your best show of respect. It was appropriate for him to honor her request to greet in a manner more appropriate to her cultural background, and, if he had done better homework, he would not have been surprised.
Nonetheless, I think that the general issue of religious and cultural accommodation, particularly around gender, is interesting and practically important. It comes up in the medical context also, where there are important questions about when and how you should honor patient requests to be seen/treated by only certain kinds of providers, or providers to only provide certain kinds of procedures (guess which the big one is; but also, assisted dying). The status quo in existing institutions is extremely asymmetrical with respect to race and gender--requests to be seen by a white doctor and requests to be seen by a male doctor are treated very differently. It's interesting to think about what justifies this. Handshaking in the workplace seems interesting to think about, to me, even if this original case with the prince is not interesting.
In the medical context I think the idea is that there is an expected and accepted difference in interactions based on gender, because sexual attraction is usually gender based and perfectly ok. So preferring a doctor who you are not sexually attracted to or is not sexually attracted to you seems reasonable, as there is nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to a specific gender and it can and does change the nature of the interaction. We simply use gender as a short hand for sexual attraction because asking if your doctor is sexually attracted to people like you would be requiring the doctor to have to give more information than should be expected from them.
Racism on the other hand is never an expected or accepted differentiator. So while you may also feel like interactions with someone of your same race are different from interactions with someone of a different race, that is not something that we wish to condone or foster. So if we have those feelings, we force ourselves and others to pretend like they doesn't exist, so that someday they actually might not.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It strikes me that there is zero reason to care about this specific incident. The Prince was acting as a cultural ambassador which is a special social role involving accommodating whatever 'host' culture and putting on your best show of respect. It was appropriate for him to honor her request to greet in a manner more appropriate to her cultural background, and, if he had done better homework, he would not have been surprised.
Nonetheless, I think that the general issue of religious and cultural accommodation, particularly around gender, is interesting and practically important. It comes up in the medical context also, where there are important questions about when and how you should honor patient requests to be seen/treated by only certain kinds of providers, or providers to only provide certain kinds of procedures (guess which the big one is; but also, assisted dying). The status quo in existing institutions is extremely asymmetrical with respect to race and gender--requests to be seen by a white doctor and requests to be seen by a male doctor are treated very differently. It's interesting to think about what justifies this. Handshaking in the workplace seems interesting to think about, to me, even if this original case with the prince is not interesting.
To my mind this is where the principle of reasonable accommodation comes into play. And while the question of what is reasonable is itself rather murky and grey, requesting different greetings (again, so long as everything else occurs in a respectful manner and does not suggest a pattern or practice of discriminatory behavior in pay, promotions, opportunity, &c. along gender lines) strikes me as pretty harmless.
That will not always be the case. For instance, Pence's following of the 'Billy Graham Rule' is in fact unreasonable, harmful, and discriminatory in terms of opportunities afforded to staff on the basis of gender. That should not be sanctioned.
I am curious whether you think that it's a matter of fact about Pence that the he follows the Billy Graham rule is unreasonable, harmful, and discriminatory (because Pence sucks), or whether you think more strongly that there is no possible way for anyone to reasonably follow or reasonably be accommodated in following that rule.
I mean, one way to follow the rule would just be to specifically have a person whose job it was to follow you around so that you're never alone with an opposite gendered person. We have people whose job it is to full time assist people with disabilities in completing their work duties, and we think that's a reasonable accommodation in that context. But then again disability accommodation and religious accommodations also differ in potentially salient ways.
"Im uncomfortable being touched by men" as bigotry is real galaxy brain tbh
Aren't you imposing your own rationale and ethics to someone else's actions in this case?
Like this isn't some death of the author with themes in a movie, we can examine people's motivations and find them problematic when applied to their actions.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It strikes me that there is zero reason to care about this specific incident. The Prince was acting as a cultural ambassador which is a special social role involving accommodating whatever 'host' culture and putting on your best show of respect. It was appropriate for him to honor her request to greet in a manner more appropriate to her cultural background, and, if he had done better homework, he would not have been surprised.
Nonetheless, I think that the general issue of religious and cultural accommodation, particularly around gender, is interesting and practically important. It comes up in the medical context also, where there are important questions about when and how you should honor patient requests to be seen/treated by only certain kinds of providers, or providers to only provide certain kinds of procedures (guess which the big one is; but also, assisted dying). The status quo in existing institutions is extremely asymmetrical with respect to race and gender--requests to be seen by a white doctor and requests to be seen by a male doctor are treated very differently. It's interesting to think about what justifies this. Handshaking in the workplace seems interesting to think about, to me, even if this original case with the prince is not interesting.
To my mind this is where the principle of reasonable accommodation comes into play. And while the question of what is reasonable is itself rather murky and grey, requesting different greetings (again, so long as everything else occurs in a respectful manner and does not suggest a pattern or practice of discriminatory behavior in pay, promotions, opportunity, &c. along gender lines) strikes me as pretty harmless.
That will not always be the case. For instance, Pence's following of the 'Billy Graham Rule' is in fact unreasonable, harmful, and discriminatory in terms of opportunities afforded to staff on the basis of gender. That should not be sanctioned.
I am curious whether you think that it's a matter of fact about Pence that the he follows the Billy Graham rule is unreasonable, harmful, and discriminatory (because Pence sucks), or whether you think more strongly that there is no possible way for anyone to reasonably follow or reasonably be accommodated in following that rule.
I mean, one way to follow the rule would just be to specifically have a person whose job it was to follow you around so that you're never alone with an opposite gendered person. We have people whose job it is to full time assist people with disabilities in completing their work duties, and we think that's a reasonable accommodation in that context. But then again disability accommodation and religious accommodations also differ in potentially salient ways.
Billy Graham (and Mike Pence) want to thrust their religious norms onto other people through donation to and working towards legislation.
"Im uncomfortable being touched by men" as bigotry is real galaxy brain tbh
Aren't you imposing your own rationale and ethics to someone else's actions in this case?
Like this isn't some death of the author with themes in a movie, we can examine people's motivations and find them problematic when applied to their actions.
Men can touch men.
Women can touch women.
They cannot touch eacother.
How is that not equal? It's no "Touch whoever" but both genders are represented equally.
Note: This is not directed at MrMister, but the heavens.
Why is her hand over the heart gesture less respectful than a goddamn handshake?
The morality police are out in full force determining what is acceptable and what isn't today. One culture's version of respect =/= another's.
I'm pretty sure the basis of this is due to the woman's religious beliefs and not due to her choosing to greet genders differently.
Different doesn't have to be a negative.
The answer, I think, is that the belief (that women shouldn't be allowed to touch men) is what is sexist, the actions themselves are not, but the actions convey the idea of the belief.
Suppose I want to fire two people. Person A I fire through an email. Person B I fire with a letter to their house. The actions are different but totally fine. Nothing wrong. Until I tell you I only fired Person B because they were a woman. And then I mention that I have a policy of firing women whenever I can, because women are lazy workers, and that I will always send a letter to fire a woman and send an email to fire a man.
I would rightly be labeled a sexist, and to some extent the symbolism of firing men and woman in different ways is a symbol of my sexism. It's not in and of itself sexist. but it symbolizes my underlying sexist beliefs.
My analogy fails at this point because forcing me to use the same method of firing someone doesn't really address the underlying issue, where forcing someone to treat men and women equally when it comes to touch, does to some extent force them to change their thinking about what should and should not be ok for a woman to do (in this case touching a man who doesn't own her/is part of her family).
I was under the impression men could also not touch women.
That seems like an equal power dynamic in social interactions such as handshakes.
I mean, it's not so much about the power dynamic as it is the reasoning. If the reasoning is still sexist, namely something along the lines of women must remain pure until they are given to their husband, then it doesn't matter if in execution both women and men are restricted from touching the other sex, because the reason is still a codification of the belief that a woman's body isn't her own.
Which brings back around the idea of a woman who doesn't shake hands with men because of prior abuse. The end affect (non equal greetings) could be exactly the same. Literally indistinguishable. But because the reasoning is different, we might consider one to be sexist and the other to be fine.
In practice, I must say, it is probably far easier to try and attack the beliefs head on, rather than wage a war of symbolism for these types of situations that are otherwise extremely mundane.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
"Im uncomfortable being touched by men" as bigotry is real galaxy brain tbh
Aren't you imposing your own rationale and ethics to someone else's actions in this case?
Like this isn't some death of the author with themes in a movie, we can examine people's motivations and find them problematic when applied to their actions.
Men can touch men.
Women can touch women.
They cannot touch eacother.
How is that not equal? It's no "Touch whoever" but both genders are represented equally.
If I go for a handshake and someone declines (which has happened) I just apologize and ask them what they prefer.
In an operating room setting, it's really common for a simple nod or wave to greet someone so you don't break sterile technique and it works out fine. I'd say that in the workplace, employers should actually discourage handshakes for personal health and recognition of boundaries.
Donald Trump is an example of assault by handshake and I would probably have a violent reaction if he yanked my shoulder around like that, as it dislocates easily. No one should have to risk a Donald handshake so it's best no one handshakes.
Note: This is not directed at MrMister, but the heavens.
Why is her hand over the heart gesture less respectful than a goddamn handshake?
The morality police are out in full force determining what is acceptable and what isn't today. One culture's version of respect =/= another's.
I'm pretty sure the basis of this is due to the woman's religious beliefs and not due to her choosing to greet genders differently.
Different doesn't have to be a negative.
The answer, I think, is that the belief (that women shouldn't be allowed to touch men) is what is sexist, the actions themselves are not, but the actions convey the idea of the belief.
Suppose I want to fire two people. Person A I fire through an email. Person B I fire with a letter to their house. The actions are different but totally fine. Nothing wrong. Until I tell you I only fired Person B because they were a woman. And then I mention that I have a policy of firing women whenever I can, because women are lazy workers, and that I will always send a letter to fire a woman and send an email to fire a man.
I would rightly be labeled a sexist, and to some extent the symbolism of firing men and woman in different ways is a symbol of my sexism. It's not in and of itself sexist. but it symbolizes my underlying sexist beliefs.
My analogy fails at this point because forcing me to use the same method of firing someone doesn't really address the underlying issue, where forcing someone to treat men and women equally when it comes to touch, does to some extent force them to change their thinking about what should and should not be ok for a woman to do (in this case touching a man who doesn't own her/is part of her family).
The bolded does not inherently follow from anything else up until that point, and makes everything inherently different solely on its own basis. If subsequent acts demonstrate a belief in inferiority/ superiority along gender lines that is just cause to fire someone. Different preferences for greetings along gender lines does not inherently suggest that to be the case.
I can't even really come up with a better approach for your analogy. Maybe only using Conference Room 11 to fire male employees and Conference Room 12 to fire female employees because of some numerology thing? But letting people go due to the same metrics.
Posts
Not really what the conversation was about right now sorry but I saw the op picture and it resonated that in me.
Huh? Could you show me where I used Whataboutism and explain how it's Whataboutism please?
[*]She still made a respectful greeting acknowledging the Prince
[*]She still fully interacted with the Prince
[*]Not all respectful greetings necessitate physical contact and are highly socially/ culturally dependent
In fact, physically touching the Queen of England is considered a violation of Protocol and a cultural faux pas. She didn't refuse to acknowledge or interact with the Prince because he is a man, nor was she precluded from fully being involved in the event on the basis of the genders of everyone involved. She did not want to have a physical interaction with him because she considers it too familiar for a man other than her husband/ family. That belief is not inherently harmful, nor does it necessarily suggest other, actually inherently harmful beliefs or actions are present. They may well be, but such a claim would require far more evidence to be substantiated.
That's because we're not. Literally no one is saying you should be forced to shake hands.
People are only arguing that you shouldn't be able to treat people with different tiers of respect gestures in order to indicate that you have a different level of respect for them based on their gender, race, etc.
If you just refuse to shake hands with people, go for it. There's plenty of greetings from a variety of cultures.
Edited for harshness. Apologies.
As long as he’s courteous about it (i.e. not shrinking away in disgust at the feeemale) I’d be fine with it. But in my experience women are less likely to initiate physical contact without asking first anyway.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yes, but if you choose to engage in it, which a person who shakes hands with some people but not others based on gender or race, you're doing so in a biased way.
The implicit assumption here seems to be that a handshake is the only respectful greeting that can be made and all other greetings are, by their very nature, less respectful by dint of not physically touching the recipient. That assumption is wrong.
This is dumb.
No. The assumption is that reserving a different gesture for a different gender, because you're religion dictates the degree of socialization you can have with a gender, has an implicit weight of bias.
Much like morality, respect is a nebulous concept that means something different to every individual.
Could you please substantiate how a different greeting gesture, which is still fully and respectfully acknowledging the other party, lessens the degree of socialization occurring? Because, again, from what I can tell she fully participated in the event.
Who am I being sexist towards?
This is not a strawman. These are two non-handshake interactions between different genders. They both mean "good job". As long as each gender gets respect in their own if different way, how is it wrong?
I have about half a dozen different greetings that I use based on the cultural expectations of the social group I am in.
And it is mostly split along racial and gendered lines. I make fun of the hongi, but that's just because my first experience with it was I didn't know what was going on and the dude that initiated it was a lot stronger than me and had a death grip. Subsequent times it was fine because I knew what to expect.
At work it's a little more tricky since that's a forced social interaction with it's own rules.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Feral pointed out earlier that there's a difference between what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of having the legal right, no one will restrain or stop you, etc., versus what you're "allowed to do" in the sense of being able to do it free from criticism and without any consequences. Absolutely no one has said that people aren't allowed to decline to be touched in the sense that someone ought to grab them and hold them down, but they have said that when a person declines to be touched for certain specific reasons they might be open to criticism or, in employment contexts, sanctions.
Furthermore, I am aware of no philosophical defenses of bodily autonomy which imply that its exercise should be absolutely immune to criticism. For instance, in an important American case affirming the right to bodily autonomy, McFall v Shrimp, the court ruled that Shrimp could not be compelled to make a life-saving marrow donation to his sick cousin McFall, on the grounds of his bodily autonomy. Nonetheless, in that same opinion the judge called Shrimp's behavior contemptible.
Nonetheless, I think that the general issue of religious and cultural accommodation, particularly around gender, is interesting and practically important. It comes up in the medical context also, where there are important questions about when and how you should honor patient requests to be seen/treated by only certain kinds of providers, or providers to only provide certain kinds of procedures (guess which the big one is; but also, assisted dying). The status quo in existing institutions is extremely asymmetrical with respect to race and gender--requests to be seen by a white doctor and requests to be seen by a male doctor are treated very differently. It's interesting to think about what justifies this. Handshaking in the workplace seems interesting to think about, to me, even if this original case with the prince is not interesting.
Why is her hand over the heart gesture less respectful than a goddamn handshake?
The morality police are out in full force determining what is acceptable and what isn't today. One culture's version of respect =/= another's.
I'm pretty sure the basis of this is due to the woman's religious beliefs and not due to her choosing to greet genders differently.
Different doesn't have to be a negative.
I'd imagine that the thought is that the greetings are not, in fact, equal, because a woman who a man refuses to touch knows that the reason he refuses to touch her is because he harbors certain beliefs she thinks are sexist. Then the way that he touches a man and doesn't touch a woman implies something about women that she finds objectionable. It is like a woman might think that "Mr. Jones" and "Missus Jones" do not get to count as separate but equal ways of greeting Jones and his wife, because they encode the sexist belief that a man's identity is his own but a woman's identity is to be understood in relation to the man to whom she is married.
I don't know that I actually accept this line of thought, for the record. But it seems familiar enough from other contexts.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We agree on all parts.
To my mind this is where the principle of reasonable accommodation comes into play. And while the question of what is reasonable is itself rather murky and grey, requesting different greetings (again, so long as everything else occurs in a respectful manner and does not suggest a pattern or practice of discriminatory behavior in pay, promotions, opportunity, &c. along gender lines) strikes me as pretty harmless.
That will not always be the case. For instance, Pence's following of the 'Billy Graham Rule' is in fact unreasonable, harmful, and discriminatory in terms of opportunities afforded to staff on the basis of gender. That should not be sanctioned.
The answer, I think, is that the belief (that women shouldn't be allowed to touch men) is what is sexist, the actions themselves are not, but the actions convey the idea of the belief.
Suppose I want to fire two people. Person A I fire through an email. Person B I fire with a letter to their house. The actions are different but totally fine. Nothing wrong. Until I tell you I only fired Person B because they were a woman. And then I mention that I have a policy of firing women whenever I can, because women are lazy workers, and that I will always send a letter to fire a woman and send an email to fire a man.
I would rightly be labeled a sexist, and to some extent the symbolism of firing men and woman in different ways is a symbol of my sexism. It's not in and of itself sexist. but it symbolizes my underlying sexist beliefs.
My analogy fails at this point because forcing me to use the same method of firing someone doesn't really address the underlying issue, where forcing someone to treat men and women equally when it comes to touch, does to some extent force them to change their thinking about what should and should not be ok for a woman to do (in this case touching a man who doesn't own her/is part of her family).
That seems like an equal power dynamic in social interactions such as handshakes.
This is a good, short medium article on a muslim woman's perspective in terms of physical contact and how different greetings can be equally respectful.
In the medical context I think the idea is that there is an expected and accepted difference in interactions based on gender, because sexual attraction is usually gender based and perfectly ok. So preferring a doctor who you are not sexually attracted to or is not sexually attracted to you seems reasonable, as there is nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to a specific gender and it can and does change the nature of the interaction. We simply use gender as a short hand for sexual attraction because asking if your doctor is sexually attracted to people like you would be requiring the doctor to have to give more information than should be expected from them.
Racism on the other hand is never an expected or accepted differentiator. So while you may also feel like interactions with someone of your same race are different from interactions with someone of a different race, that is not something that we wish to condone or foster. So if we have those feelings, we force ourselves and others to pretend like they doesn't exist, so that someday they actually might not.
I am curious whether you think that it's a matter of fact about Pence that the he follows the Billy Graham rule is unreasonable, harmful, and discriminatory (because Pence sucks), or whether you think more strongly that there is no possible way for anyone to reasonably follow or reasonably be accommodated in following that rule.
I mean, one way to follow the rule would just be to specifically have a person whose job it was to follow you around so that you're never alone with an opposite gendered person. We have people whose job it is to full time assist people with disabilities in completing their work duties, and we think that's a reasonable accommodation in that context. But then again disability accommodation and religious accommodations also differ in potentially salient ways.
The why doesn't matter.
Aren't you imposing your own rationale and ethics to someone else's actions in this case?
Like this isn't some death of the author with themes in a movie, we can examine people's motivations and find them problematic when applied to their actions.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
That is distinctly not respectful.
Women can touch women.
They cannot touch eacother.
How is that not equal? It's no "Touch whoever" but both genders are represented equally.
I mean, it's not so much about the power dynamic as it is the reasoning. If the reasoning is still sexist, namely something along the lines of women must remain pure until they are given to their husband, then it doesn't matter if in execution both women and men are restricted from touching the other sex, because the reason is still a codification of the belief that a woman's body isn't her own.
Which brings back around the idea of a woman who doesn't shake hands with men because of prior abuse. The end affect (non equal greetings) could be exactly the same. Literally indistinguishable. But because the reasoning is different, we might consider one to be sexist and the other to be fine.
In practice, I must say, it is probably far easier to try and attack the beliefs head on, rather than wage a war of symbolism for these types of situations that are otherwise extremely mundane.
Binary gender, eh.
In an operating room setting, it's really common for a simple nod or wave to greet someone so you don't break sterile technique and it works out fine. I'd say that in the workplace, employers should actually discourage handshakes for personal health and recognition of boundaries.
Donald Trump is an example of assault by handshake and I would probably have a violent reaction if he yanked my shoulder around like that, as it dislocates easily. No one should have to risk a Donald handshake so it's best no one handshakes.
The bolded does not inherently follow from anything else up until that point, and makes everything inherently different solely on its own basis. If subsequent acts demonstrate a belief in inferiority/ superiority along gender lines that is just cause to fire someone. Different preferences for greetings along gender lines does not inherently suggest that to be the case.
I can't even really come up with a better approach for your analogy. Maybe only using Conference Room 11 to fire male employees and Conference Room 12 to fire female employees because of some numerology thing? But letting people go due to the same metrics.