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.
I would say that in workplace situations it should be a requirement of those in power to give equal opportunity to all employees. If the end result of any of your beliefs, means that women for example, are less likely to be able to get face-time with you and thus be promoted by you, then you must either put aside your beliefs or find some way to make sure they do not lead to biased outcomes.
edit - to put it another way, if your beliefs make it harder for some employees to do their job, then you must make extra accommodation to remove that bias and return all employees to an equal standing.
Jebus314 on
"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.
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.
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity – (and,) verily, Allah is aware of all that they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity
Sure, there's more problematic stuff in the The Qur'an, but the stuff about men/women touching is about both of their purity.
The enforcement of purity standards, across ALL religions, has been an enforcement of removal of bodily autonomy and oppression. This isn't a new concept.
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.
The point of the analogy was that the action doesn't matter, just what it represents. The action is just a symbol that lets everyone know what my belief is. In that sense it makes sense to attack that symbol as a way of disagreeing with my underlying belief. Even if the action, taken out of context, would not itself have any negative connotations.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
The enforcement of purity standards, across ALL religions, has been an enforcement of removal of bodily autonomy and oppression. This isn't a new concept.
Which makes this, at best, a paternalistic intervention in which minorities still have less bodily autonomy, but for their own good or something.
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.
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity – (and,) verily, Allah is aware of all that they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity
Sure, there's more problematic stuff in the The Qur'an, but the stuff about men/women touching is about both of their purity.
I will grant you that I am extremely poorly versed on islamic beliefs. You could 100% be right that the underlying belief here is totally not sexist, I don't really feel comfortable making a judgement either way.
But I guess my point is just that if the underlying reasoning was sexist, than the action which represents that idea (in this case handshakes vs no handshake representing the goal of maintaining purity or whatever) is still worthy of criticism. Even if the action taken out of context would be totally fine.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
The enforcement of purity standards, across ALL religions, has been an enforcement of removal of bodily autonomy and oppression. This isn't a new concept.
Which makes this, at best, a paternalistic intervention in which minorities still have less bodily autonomy, but for their own good or something.
I mean, the person in question could decide they don't want to shake anyone's hand, instead of just not shaking males hands. That seems like it wouldn't really impinge on their bodily autonomy.
"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.
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.
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity – (and,) verily, Allah is aware of all that they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity
Sure, there's more problematic stuff in the The Qur'an, but the stuff about men/women touching is about both of their purity.
I will grant you that I am extremely poorly versed on islamic beliefs. You could 100% be right that the underlying belief here is totally not sexist, I don't really feel comfortable making a judgement either way.
But I guess my point is just that if the underlying reasoning was sexist, than the action which represents that idea (in this case handshakes vs no handshake representing the goal of maintaining purity or whatever) is still worthy of criticism. Even if the action taken out of context would be totally fine.
Is it only worth criticism through the lens of western culture?
I mean, I quoted The Qur'an passage about men preserving their own purity and the women preserving their own purity.
There are power dynamic and other problematic issues with Islam, but the no physical contact thing is equal for both genders.
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.
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity – (and,) verily, Allah is aware of all that they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity
Sure, there's more problematic stuff in the The Qur'an, but the stuff about men/women touching is about both of their purity.
I will grant you that I am extremely poorly versed on islamic beliefs. You could 100% be right that the underlying belief here is totally not sexist, I don't really feel comfortable making a judgement either way.
But I guess my point is just that if the underlying reasoning was sexist, than the action which represents that idea (in this case handshakes vs no handshake representing the goal of maintaining purity or whatever) is still worthy of criticism. Even if the action taken out of context would be totally fine.
Is it only worth criticism through the lens of western culture?
I'm not sure what you're asking. I have no idea if the underlying belief here should be considered sexist or not. I was just trying to point out that the not shaking of the hand was more of a symbol than a sexist act itself. So to judge whether or not it should be criticized we would have to judge the reasoning for the choice, rather than just judging the action itself. And as discussed, I have no idea if the reasoning was sexist or not. I can't say I really even know what the reasoning is. I just made up the purity thing because it sounds like something I've heard before when talking about sexist religious beliefs.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
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.
emphasis mine.
"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.
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.
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity – (and,) verily, Allah is aware of all that they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity
Sure, there's more problematic stuff in the The Qur'an, but the stuff about men/women touching is about both of their purity.
I will grant you that I am extremely poorly versed on islamic beliefs. You could 100% be right that the underlying belief here is totally not sexist, I don't really feel comfortable making a judgement either way.
But I guess my point is just that if the underlying reasoning was sexist, than the action which represents that idea (in this case handshakes vs no handshake representing the goal of maintaining purity or whatever) is still worthy of criticism. Even if the action taken out of context would be totally fine.
Is it only worth criticism through the lens of western culture?
I'm not sure what you're asking. I have no idea if the underlying belief here should be considered sexist or not. I was just trying to point out that the not shaking of the hand was more of a symbol than a sexist act itself. So to judge whether or not it should be criticized we would have to judge the reasoning for the choice, rather than just judging the action itself. And as discussed, I have no idea if the reasoning was sexist or not. I can't say I really even know what the reasoning is. I just made up the purity thing because it sounds like something I've heard before when talking about sexist religious beliefs.
People not understanding Islam is the problem.
Your vague ideas about "the purity thing" is because of the lens.
You're seeing what the west has chosen to show you - right or wrong.
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.
emphasis mine.
The judge's opinion.
Without getting into the details of a recent legal thing I went through, the judge found me not guilty and then proceeded to berate and shame me about attempting suicide.
Excuse me if I believe a judge's opinion means fuckall outside of their legal ruling.
People are open to criticism for anything they do; that doesn't make a good argument.
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.
The point of the analogy was that the action doesn't matter, just what it represents. The action is just a symbol that lets everyone know what my belief is. In that sense it makes sense to attack that symbol as a way of disagreeing with my underlying belief. Even if the action, taken out of context, would not itself have any negative connotations.
And I disagree that considering a greeting involving touch to be too familiar when it involves the opposite gender to inherently be the result of an underlying belief in superiority/inferiority among genders. It may well be the case, but that kind of a significant claim is going to need more support. That she was fully able to participate in the rest of the event seems to offer support against.
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.
I think it's harmful and discriminatory because of the inherent nature of working most jobs (and particularly at the highest levels of government) which necessitates spending time with colleagues in a variety of settings beyond your control and with little notice to which applying that rule will have a disproportionate impact on women being able to occupy roles that they are capable of.
I don't consider having to pay the full salary and benefits of a minder (and in his case Classification) in order to facilitate an equal work environment for subordinates to be a reasonable accommodation. A full time assistant for a disabled person is, to my mind, categorically different. It is also something that does not apply to all positions, because it can be an unreasonable expectation for a role that inherently requires ___ conditions.
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.
emphasis mine.
It's a hand shake.
We do not judge handshakes, life-saving procedures, emergencies, or blowjobs by the same metrics.
This was a handshake. I don't care how gross her reason is for a hand shake.
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.
I think it's harmful and discriminatory because of the inherent nature of working most jobs (and particularly at the highest levels of government) which necessitates spending time with colleagues in a variety of settings beyond your control and with little notice to which applying that rule will have a disproportionate impact on women being able to occupy roles that they are capable of.
I don't consider having to pay the full salary and benefits of a minder (and in his case Classification) in order to facilitate an equal work environment for subordinates to be a reasonable accommodation. A full time assistant for a disabled person is, to my mind, categorically different. It is also something that does not apply to all positions, because it can be an unreasonable expectation for a role that inherently requires ___ conditions.
I'm ambivalent. There are instances where a chaperone is appropriate for highly sensitive operations. Also, people should be allowed not to shake hands with whomever.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
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.
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity – (and,) verily, Allah is aware of all that they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity
Sure, there's more problematic stuff in the The Qur'an, but the stuff about men/women touching is about both of their purity.
I will grant you that I am extremely poorly versed on islamic beliefs. You could 100% be right that the underlying belief here is totally not sexist, I don't really feel comfortable making a judgement either way.
But I guess my point is just that if the underlying reasoning was sexist, than the action which represents that idea (in this case handshakes vs no handshake representing the goal of maintaining purity or whatever) is still worthy of criticism. Even if the action taken out of context would be totally fine.
Is it only worth criticism through the lens of western culture?
I'm not sure what you're asking. I have no idea if the underlying belief here should be considered sexist or not. I was just trying to point out that the not shaking of the hand was more of a symbol than a sexist act itself. So to judge whether or not it should be criticized we would have to judge the reasoning for the choice, rather than just judging the action itself. And as discussed, I have no idea if the reasoning was sexist or not. I can't say I really even know what the reasoning is. I just made up the purity thing because it sounds like something I've heard before when talking about sexist religious beliefs.
People not understanding Islam is the problem.
Your vague ideas about "the purity thing" is because of the lens.
You're seeing what the west has chosen to show you - right or wrong.
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.
The point of the analogy was that the action doesn't matter, just what it represents. The action is just a symbol that lets everyone know what my belief is. In that sense it makes sense to attack that symbol as a way of disagreeing with my underlying belief. Even if the action, taken out of context, would not itself have any negative connotations.
And I disagree that considering a greeting involving touch to be too familiar when it involves the opposite gender to inherently be the result of an underlying belief in superiority/inferiority among genders. It may well be the case, but that kind of a significant claim is going to need more support. That she was fully able to participate in the rest of the event seems to offer support against.
I'm just responding to both of these at the same time because my point is kind of the same.
I have made no judgement on this particular case. I was simply disagreeing with the assessment that there could be no sexism behind the act of shaking hands vs holding a hand over your heart, simply because the gestures could be considered equal forms of salutation. There still could be sexism in the driving beliefs, which would still make the acts themselves worthy of criticism.
If the point was instead that the underlying belief (that men and woman who aren't related shouldn't touch) is not sexist, than I have no objection, as I don't really know.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
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.
emphasis mine.
It's a hand shake.
We do not judge handshakes, life-saving procedures, emergencies, or blowjobs by the same metrics.
This was a handshake. I don't care how gross her reason is for a hand shake.
I would agree that it's probably best to spend our energies on more significant issues. That doesn't really say anything at all about whether or not the reasoning behind the decision to not shake hands was a good or bad one.
Which is to say that just because an offense is small doesn't mean it should be dismissed as not offensive. Even if we all agree it's probably for the best to just ignore it and focus on bigger issues.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
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.
I think it's harmful and discriminatory because of the inherent nature of working most jobs (and particularly at the highest levels of government) which necessitates spending time with colleagues in a variety of settings beyond your control and with little notice to which applying that rule will have a disproportionate impact on women being able to occupy roles that they are capable of.
I don't consider having to pay the full salary and benefits of a minder (and in his case Classification) in order to facilitate an equal work environment for subordinates to be a reasonable accommodation. A full time assistant for a disabled person is, to my mind, categorically different. It is also something that does not apply to all positions, because it can be an unreasonable expectation for a role that inherently requires ___ conditions.
I'm ambivalent. There are instances where a chaperone is appropriate for highly sensitive operations. Also, people should be allowed not to shake hands with whomever.
Except the instances for following the 'Billy Graham Rule' are...whenever your work might come up. At the highest levels that is every waking moment, and some sleeping ones as well. Needing a sexual assault chaperone on call just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
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.
I think it's harmful and discriminatory because of the inherent nature of working most jobs (and particularly at the highest levels of government) which necessitates spending time with colleagues in a variety of settings beyond your control and with little notice to which applying that rule will have a disproportionate impact on women being able to occupy roles that they are capable of.
I don't consider having to pay the full salary and benefits of a minder (and in his case Classification) in order to facilitate an equal work environment for subordinates to be a reasonable accommodation. A full time assistant for a disabled person is, to my mind, categorically different. It is also something that does not apply to all positions, because it can be an unreasonable expectation for a role that inherently requires ___ conditions.
I'm ambivalent. There are instances where a chaperone is appropriate for highly sensitive operations. Also, people should be allowed not to shake hands with whomever.
Except the instances for following the 'Billy Graham Rule' are...whenever your work might come up. At the highest levels that is every waking moment, and some sleeping ones as well. Needing a sexual assault chaperone on call just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
It's novel, but bits and pieces of this concept are perfectly ordinary once you take a couple parts away. A chaperone on call for almost every waking moment and some sleeping ones is basically a bodyguard. If chaperones for sensitive matters involving the risk of sexual assault are accepted and chaperones for basically all matters involving the risk of assault in general are accepted, then it's hard for me to obviously reject this concept. Does it work when you flip the genders? Does it work when you flip the power structure? Does it work when you flip the ideology of the protected person? Does it work when you flip the intent of the action? Does it work when you flip to race or religion or class or whatever? It's really easy to break the concept.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
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.
emphasis mine.
It's a hand shake.
We do not judge handshakes, life-saving procedures, emergencies, or blowjobs by the same metrics.
This was a handshake. I don't care how gross her reason is for a hand shake.
I would agree that it's probably best to spend our energies on more significant issues. That doesn't really say anything at all about whether or not the reasoning behind the decision to not shake hands was a good or bad one.
Which is to say that just because an offense is small doesn't mean it should be dismissed as not offensive. Even if we all agree it's probably for the best to just ignore it and focus on bigger issues.
Religious beliefs and world culture is full of stuff that's pretty horrible. Hell, even a handshake is based around "oh hey I am totally not gonna stab you, tooootally" sentiment.
This really isn't much worse than people wandering around with a symbol of a horrible execution device around their necks.
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.
emphasis mine.
It's a hand shake.
We do not judge handshakes, life-saving procedures, emergencies, or blowjobs by the same metrics.
This was a handshake. I don't care how gross her reason is for a hand shake.
I would agree that it's probably best to spend our energies on more significant issues. That doesn't really say anything at all about whether or not the reasoning behind the decision to not shake hands was a good or bad one.
Which is to say that just because an offense is small doesn't mean it should be dismissed as not offensive. Even if we all agree it's probably for the best to just ignore it and focus on bigger issues.
Religious beliefs and world culture is full of stuff that's pretty horrible. Hell, even a handshake is based around "oh hey I am totally not gonna stab you, tooootally" sentiment.
This really isn't much worse than people wandering around with a symbol of a horrible execution device around their necks.
This comparison made me realize how it is different:
What is the underlying meaning behind wearing the symbol of a torture device? What does wearing the torture device say about the people who do so? What does it mean to them?
What is the underlying meaning behind not being allowed to touch a member of the opposite sex? What does not touching a member of the opposite sex say about the people who do so? What does it mean to them?
The intention is different.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
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.
I think it's harmful and discriminatory because of the inherent nature of working most jobs (and particularly at the highest levels of government) which necessitates spending time with colleagues in a variety of settings beyond your control and with little notice to which applying that rule will have a disproportionate impact on women being able to occupy roles that they are capable of.
I don't consider having to pay the full salary and benefits of a minder (and in his case Classification) in order to facilitate an equal work environment for subordinates to be a reasonable accommodation. A full time assistant for a disabled person is, to my mind, categorically different. It is also something that does not apply to all positions, because it can be an unreasonable expectation for a role that inherently requires ___ conditions.
I'm ambivalent. There are instances where a chaperone is appropriate for highly sensitive operations. Also, people should be allowed not to shake hands with whomever.
Except the instances for following the 'Billy Graham Rule' are...whenever your work might come up. At the highest levels that is every waking moment, and some sleeping ones as well. Needing a sexual assault chaperone on call just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
It's novel, but bits and pieces of this concept are perfectly ordinary once you take a couple parts away. A chaperone on call for almost every waking moment and some sleeping ones is basically a bodyguard. If chaperones for sensitive matters involving the risk of sexual assault are accepted and chaperones for basically all matters involving the risk of assault in general are accepted, then it's hard for me to obviously reject this concept. Does it work when you flip the genders? Does it work when you flip the power structure? Does it work when you flip the ideology of the protected person? Does it work when you flip the intent of the action? Does it work when you flip to race or religion or class or whatever? It's really easy to break the concept.
Except a bodyguard is performing an actual role in their position. If they are spending their attention on making sure you don't get #metoo'ed then they are not actually being a bodyguard.
Also, how far down the org chart does it continue to be reasonable for a sexual harassment minder to be attached to the hip of someone? Senior Executives? Middle Management? Line Workers? I'm literally the only male in my department for the Chicago office (and most of my colleagues in other offices are also women) If I wasn't able to walk down the hall and pop in on my boss to straighten something out in the catalog or with vendors and had to schedule everything hours in advance to have a third party male present...I'd be massively less productive. Hell, there would have to be someone constantly in my fishbowl doing nothing but making sure they are there with my female coworker in the next cube who I'd have to coordinate bathroom breaks with.
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.
I think it's harmful and discriminatory because of the inherent nature of working most jobs (and particularly at the highest levels of government) which necessitates spending time with colleagues in a variety of settings beyond your control and with little notice to which applying that rule will have a disproportionate impact on women being able to occupy roles that they are capable of.
I don't consider having to pay the full salary and benefits of a minder (and in his case Classification) in order to facilitate an equal work environment for subordinates to be a reasonable accommodation. A full time assistant for a disabled person is, to my mind, categorically different. It is also something that does not apply to all positions, because it can be an unreasonable expectation for a role that inherently requires ___ conditions.
I'm ambivalent. There are instances where a chaperone is appropriate for highly sensitive operations. Also, people should be allowed not to shake hands with whomever.
Except the instances for following the 'Billy Graham Rule' are...whenever your work might come up. At the highest levels that is every waking moment, and some sleeping ones as well. Needing a sexual assault chaperone on call just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
It's novel, but bits and pieces of this concept are perfectly ordinary once you take a couple parts away. A chaperone on call for almost every waking moment and some sleeping ones is basically a bodyguard. If chaperones for sensitive matters involving the risk of sexual assault are accepted and chaperones for basically all matters involving the risk of assault in general are accepted, then it's hard for me to obviously reject this concept. Does it work when you flip the genders? Does it work when you flip the power structure? Does it work when you flip the ideology of the protected person? Does it work when you flip the intent of the action? Does it work when you flip to race or religion or class or whatever? It's really easy to break the concept.
Except a bodyguard is performing an actual role in their position. If they are spending their attention on making sure you don't get #metoo'ed then they are not actually being a bodyguard.
Also, how far down the org chart does it continue to be reasonable for a sexual harassment minder to be attached to the hip of someone? Senior Executives? Middle Management? Line Workers? I'm literally the only male in my department for the Chicago office (and most of my colleagues in other offices are also women) If I wasn't able to walk down the hall and pop in on my boss to straighten something out in the catalog or with vendors and had to schedule everything hours in advance to have a third party male present...I'd be massively less productive. Hell, there would have to be someone constantly in my fishbowl doing nothing but making sure they are there with my female coworker in the next cube who I'd have to coordinate bathroom breaks with.
It's a luxury, like having a G5
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I left the woman back at the river. Why are you still carrying her?
I actually want to come back to this because it really is the whole of the situation:
A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her cross to the other side.
The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.
Then, without a word, the older monk picked up the woman, carried her across the river, placed her gently on the other side, and carried on his journey.
The younger monk couldn’t believe what had just happened. After rejoining his companion, he was speechless, and an hour passed without a word between them.
Two more hours passed, then three, finally the younger monk could contain himself any longer, and blurted out “As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”
The older monk looked at him and replied, “Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”
The point of that koan, though, is that there are multiple interpretations (as is often the point of koans) so even though there are interesting parallels (especially the prohibition against touching somebody of a different gender), I don't think it provides an obvious insight into this question.
Also, Buddhism has some sexist as fuck skeletons in it's closet so as much as I love Zen Buddhism, saying it's fine without interrogating that is a bit glib. And interrogating it is outside of the scope of this thread.
Besides, we all know that Zoroastrianism is the best religion.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
"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.
I mean, it's religion
that the rules are applied to men and women equally, as written, is not a given by any means
The point of that koan, though, is that there are multiple interpretations (as is often the point of koans) so even though there are interesting parallels (especially the prohibition against touching somebody of a different gender), I don't think it provides an obvious insight into this question.
Also, Buddhism has some sexist as fuck skeletons in it's closet so as much as I love Zen Buddhism, saying it's fine without interrogating that is a bit glib. And interrogating it is outside of the scope of this thread.
Besides, we all know that Zoroastrianism is the best religion.
I would argue all of the meanings apply to this discussion.
I feel like no one has addressed the issue of what greetings should be used in places where two very different cultures meet. Are there any general rules or guidelines?
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
"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.
I mean, it's religion
that the rules are applied to men and women equally, as written, is not a given by any means
All religions have good practitioners and shitty practitioners.
I know tons of chill/accepting Christians as well as seeing monstrous ones on tv. People interpret the scriptures how they want to. It's never just black & white.
I feel like no one has addressed the issue of what greetings should be used in places where two very different cultures meet. Are there any general rules or guidelines?
One party generally concedes to the others beliefs or they both greet eachother in a manner the other would accept.
There are many types of different greetings in every culture and we already chooose the one that suits the person in the most respectful manner in any given social encounter.
TehSpectre on
+4
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered 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.
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.
In the medical context the issue is the primary goal being to do what is best for the patient, and the intimate nature of doctor/patient interaction. This is why such requests are not honoured in other context like job interviews or loan applications or whatever, despite sexual attraction presumably also affecting those interactions. Also why requests, within reason, are granted even if there is little possibility of the issue being about sexual attraction. It is often specifically about gender, not orientation.
It's true that gender preference is more accepted in society in general, but in the medical context what happens is that the desire to combat sexism is often outweighed by the duty to provide care. It may be seen as more somewhat more reasonable, but it is accommodated even when not considered reasonable in itself. We'd never honour a request to talk to a male manager for a meeting, because there is no duty to care in that context.
+2
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
I'm a germaphobe and I haaaaaaaaaaate shaking hands.
Posts
I would say that in workplace situations it should be a requirement of those in power to give equal opportunity to all employees. If the end result of any of your beliefs, means that women for example, are less likely to be able to get face-time with you and thus be promoted by you, then you must either put aside your beliefs or find some way to make sure they do not lead to biased outcomes.
edit - to put it another way, if your beliefs make it harder for some employees to do their job, then you must make extra accommodation to remove that bias and return all employees to an equal standing.
Sure, there's more problematic stuff in the The Qur'an, but the stuff about men/women touching is about both of their purity.
The point of the analogy was that the action doesn't matter, just what it represents. The action is just a symbol that lets everyone know what my belief is. In that sense it makes sense to attack that symbol as a way of disagreeing with my underlying belief. Even if the action, taken out of context, would not itself have any negative connotations.
Which makes this, at best, a paternalistic intervention in which minorities still have less bodily autonomy, but for their own good or something.
I will grant you that I am extremely poorly versed on islamic beliefs. You could 100% be right that the underlying belief here is totally not sexist, I don't really feel comfortable making a judgement either way.
But I guess my point is just that if the underlying reasoning was sexist, than the action which represents that idea (in this case handshakes vs no handshake representing the goal of maintaining purity or whatever) is still worthy of criticism. Even if the action taken out of context would be totally fine.
I mean, the person in question could decide they don't want to shake anyone's hand, instead of just not shaking males hands. That seems like it wouldn't really impinge on their bodily autonomy.
I mean, I quoted The Qur'an passage about men preserving their own purity and the women preserving their own purity.
There are power dynamic and other problematic issues with Islam, but the no physical contact thing is equal for both genders.
I'm not sure what you're asking. I have no idea if the underlying belief here should be considered sexist or not. I was just trying to point out that the not shaking of the hand was more of a symbol than a sexist act itself. So to judge whether or not it should be criticized we would have to judge the reasoning for the choice, rather than just judging the action itself. And as discussed, I have no idea if the reasoning was sexist or not. I can't say I really even know what the reasoning is. I just made up the purity thing because it sounds like something I've heard before when talking about sexist religious beliefs.
I feel like this was addressed by MrMister's post:
emphasis mine.
Your vague ideas about "the purity thing" is because of the lens.
You're seeing what the west has chosen to show you - right or wrong.
Without getting into the details of a recent legal thing I went through, the judge found me not guilty and then proceeded to berate and shame me about attempting suicide.
Excuse me if I believe a judge's opinion means fuckall outside of their legal ruling.
People are open to criticism for anything they do; that doesn't make a good argument.
And I disagree that considering a greeting involving touch to be too familiar when it involves the opposite gender to inherently be the result of an underlying belief in superiority/inferiority among genders. It may well be the case, but that kind of a significant claim is going to need more support. That she was fully able to participate in the rest of the event seems to offer support against.
I think it's harmful and discriminatory because of the inherent nature of working most jobs (and particularly at the highest levels of government) which necessitates spending time with colleagues in a variety of settings beyond your control and with little notice to which applying that rule will have a disproportionate impact on women being able to occupy roles that they are capable of.
I don't consider having to pay the full salary and benefits of a minder (and in his case Classification) in order to facilitate an equal work environment for subordinates to be a reasonable accommodation. A full time assistant for a disabled person is, to my mind, categorically different. It is also something that does not apply to all positions, because it can be an unreasonable expectation for a role that inherently requires ___ conditions.
It's a hand shake.
We do not judge handshakes, life-saving procedures, emergencies, or blowjobs by the same metrics.
This was a handshake. I don't care how gross her reason is for a hand shake.
I'm ambivalent. There are instances where a chaperone is appropriate for highly sensitive operations. Also, people should be allowed not to shake hands with whomever.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm just responding to both of these at the same time because my point is kind of the same.
I have made no judgement on this particular case. I was simply disagreeing with the assessment that there could be no sexism behind the act of shaking hands vs holding a hand over your heart, simply because the gestures could be considered equal forms of salutation. There still could be sexism in the driving beliefs, which would still make the acts themselves worthy of criticism.
If the point was instead that the underlying belief (that men and woman who aren't related shouldn't touch) is not sexist, than I have no objection, as I don't really know.
I would agree that it's probably best to spend our energies on more significant issues. That doesn't really say anything at all about whether or not the reasoning behind the decision to not shake hands was a good or bad one.
Which is to say that just because an offense is small doesn't mean it should be dismissed as not offensive. Even if we all agree it's probably for the best to just ignore it and focus on bigger issues.
Except the instances for following the 'Billy Graham Rule' are...whenever your work might come up. At the highest levels that is every waking moment, and some sleeping ones as well. Needing a sexual assault chaperone on call just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
It's novel, but bits and pieces of this concept are perfectly ordinary once you take a couple parts away. A chaperone on call for almost every waking moment and some sleeping ones is basically a bodyguard. If chaperones for sensitive matters involving the risk of sexual assault are accepted and chaperones for basically all matters involving the risk of assault in general are accepted, then it's hard for me to obviously reject this concept. Does it work when you flip the genders? Does it work when you flip the power structure? Does it work when you flip the ideology of the protected person? Does it work when you flip the intent of the action? Does it work when you flip to race or religion or class or whatever? It's really easy to break the concept.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Religious beliefs and world culture is full of stuff that's pretty horrible. Hell, even a handshake is based around "oh hey I am totally not gonna stab you, tooootally" sentiment.
This really isn't much worse than people wandering around with a symbol of a horrible execution device around their necks.
This comparison made me realize how it is different:
What is the underlying meaning behind wearing the symbol of a torture device? What does wearing the torture device say about the people who do so? What does it mean to them?
What is the underlying meaning behind not being allowed to touch a member of the opposite sex? What does not touching a member of the opposite sex say about the people who do so? What does it mean to them?
The intention is different.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Except a bodyguard is performing an actual role in their position. If they are spending their attention on making sure you don't get #metoo'ed then they are not actually being a bodyguard.
Also, how far down the org chart does it continue to be reasonable for a sexual harassment minder to be attached to the hip of someone? Senior Executives? Middle Management? Line Workers? I'm literally the only male in my department for the Chicago office (and most of my colleagues in other offices are also women) If I wasn't able to walk down the hall and pop in on my boss to straighten something out in the catalog or with vendors and had to schedule everything hours in advance to have a third party male present...I'd be massively less productive. Hell, there would have to be someone constantly in my fishbowl doing nothing but making sure they are there with my female coworker in the next cube who I'd have to coordinate bathroom breaks with.
It's a luxury, like having a G5
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I actually want to come back to this because it really is the whole of the situation:
Also, Buddhism has some sexist as fuck skeletons in it's closet so as much as I love Zen Buddhism, saying it's fine without interrogating that is a bit glib. And interrogating it is outside of the scope of this thread.
Besides, we all know that Zoroastrianism is the best religion.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I mean, it's religion
that the rules are applied to men and women equally, as written, is not a given by any means
I would argue all of the meanings apply to this discussion.
I know tons of chill/accepting Christians as well as seeing monstrous ones on tv. People interpret the scriptures how they want to. It's never just black & white.
What's the point here?
There are many types of different greetings in every culture and we already chooose the one that suits the person in the most respectful manner in any given social encounter.
In the medical context the issue is the primary goal being to do what is best for the patient, and the intimate nature of doctor/patient interaction. This is why such requests are not honoured in other context like job interviews or loan applications or whatever, despite sexual attraction presumably also affecting those interactions. Also why requests, within reason, are granted even if there is little possibility of the issue being about sexual attraction. It is often specifically about gender, not orientation.
It's true that gender preference is more accepted in society in general, but in the medical context what happens is that the desire to combat sexism is often outweighed by the duty to provide care. It may be seen as more somewhat more reasonable, but it is accommodated even when not considered reasonable in itself. We'd never honour a request to talk to a male manager for a meeting, because there is no duty to care in that context.