'I don't shake women's hands'

[canary1]

In a work setting today, a client was seen by four colleagues, 2 male, 2 female. The client shook hands with the two male colleagues at the end, and when I held my hand out in expectation, this is what he said. I know many muslims and never ran into this before, though this is his reason. I'm disgusted at such overt sexism dressed up as religion. I can't say that's just his beliefs any more than I can excuse any other overt discriminatory behaviour. How is this regarded as an acceptable way to behave?

Actually, shaking hands IS the cultural norm in business circles in this country; not shaking hands is NOT the norm.

No, the primary cultural norm in this country currently is not to discriminate on the basis of sex.

That's why there are laws against sex discrimination in this country and no law regarding shaking hands. The fact that sex discrimination has a legal standing where as hand shaking doesn't clearly shows that the priority lies with sex discrimination and not hand shaking.

One of our primary norms is also that we don't discriminate on the basis of religion. This is also enshrined in law. Offering a reasonable alternative (not shaking anybody's hand) is perfectly reasonable and comes well within those laws because it both respects those rights whilst also avoiding discrimination against women. Muslims are legally protected from discrimination based on the choice not to shake the hand's with anybody but only to force them to shake hands with everybody to gain business, get a service or keep a job would put them in a position where they were forced to choose between those things and their religious requirements. But offering the alternative of not shaking anybody's hands means a reasonable alternative have been offered and a refusal to take it means that sex discrimination becomes the key factor as an alternative has been refused.

These things are law and clearly both trump the shaking hands law.

Besides, if you're happy enough to cast aside the shaking hands law for women, why does it suddenly become so important for men despite their being no religious requirement to do so?

And anyway, norms/common cultural practices are not enshrined in law, I'm afraid.. Not sexually discriminating is very much enshrined in law.

It's his preference NOT to shake your hand versus YOUR preference that he shakes your hand as well as those of your male colleagues. Given that your preference involves enforcing unwanted physical contact on someone, his preference wins.

No. As I have been very clear, my preference is that he shakes hands with nobody. Then both his religious scruples and women's rights not to be discriminated against are respected. Nobody has to 'win', both preferences can be very much mutually respected.

I note that no one has replied to my calling out all the anti-multiculturalism rife in this thread.

Actually you have made the most anti-multicultural post on this thread. The essence of multiculturalism is acknowledging that we live in a society of many different cultures and showing mutual respect and trying to reach accommodations which mean everybody has their rights respected. Declining to shake anybody's hand would be the epitome of multiculturalism as it shows both the ability to adhere to religious rules whilst also showing respect for the value of equality for the sexes held by westerners.

In fact, your statement that one set of values has to 'win' over another is exactly the opposite of what multiculturalism means.

Side OK although I'd take issue with no one having the "right" to touch me except my nearest and dearest.
But if a woman extends her hand to you then she is affording you the right to touch her. She has bodily autonomy.
Dh does not have the "right" to kiss me, but we do kiss.

there is no requirement to not touch women.
wearing a Hijab is encouraged within Islam, but not mandatory

According to who exactly, you? All of the main madhabs and the vast majority of scholars disagree with you.

"Believe what you like but don't you dare try to impose your beliefs on others by treating them as less worthy."

What ridiculous grandstanding. This man was not 'imposing his beliefs' on anyone. Neither was he treating anyone as 'less worthy'.

Does no one else see the irony in all the many women on this thread insisting that a strange man should touch them, against his will, so that their feelings aren't hurt?

Chester possibly. Ask on the feminist boards if you're really interested, they're pretty good on discrimination laws.

What some posters seem to be missing is that you can condemn a bigoted idea/ practice within a religion without condemning the whole thing. Just as you can have complete respect for the man in the OP & his right to a freedom of religion, but still condemn his actions as bigoted. The reason there is such a divide in this country is that topics like this aren’t up for discussion, which draws people to think in a ‘them v us’ way.
Those saying being treated equal doesn’t mean being treated the same, well it does & it bloody well should. I have the right to not have my genitals be of any influence is how I am treated, except in medical circumstances.
MrPan you can go shove your sexist ideas back in the 1800s.

Chester I repeat no one is insisting he should have touched them.

No ones suggesting that Chester. Everyone’s suggesting he doesn’t touch anyone so he doesn’t have to discriminate against a woman based on the fact she is, a woman.

But if his reason is" because I don't have the right to touch her", then it's no longer valid.

No one is insisting on strange men touching them. Most (sensible) people are suggesting no touching by anyone.

patriarchy

How did they solve this with liabilty / insurance issues in the case of an accident?
(sikhs that don't need to wear a helmet? I obviously support this. However, the idea of being involved in an accident - e.g. when driving my car - and finding out that the person ... killed would have probably survived if they had worn a helmet? I think I'd actually be angry. You know, feeling like they made me deal with the guilt of being involved in their death. Not sure if that makes sense, btw...)

And anyway this is a digression. Interesting as speculating on his motives is, I am only interested in the outcome where men were afforded respect and women weren't. By my perceptions and presumably those of the op too. In British culture a handshake is a mark of respect and to not do it when you do shake the hands of others present is a snub.

Those saying being treated equal doesn’t mean being treated the same, well it does & it bloody well should.

That sounds like different but equal. Which... well, it really wasn't equal. So yes, I tend to agree.

Being equal usually means being treated the same. (although obviously not always.)

It's fucking offensive. I'm sick of women being told they have to put up with various shit treatment because of religion, or men's feelings or some other bullshit reason we're meant to prioritise over our own feelings.

And would not be tolerated if it was directed at any other group based on ethnicity, religion, disability or sexuality. Just women.

Can someone please explain to me why shaking hands with nobody is not a suitable alternative?

I’m suspecting the client probably thinks that refusing to shake hands with all businessMEN when working in Britain, might slightly harm his business relationships and cost him money.

I’m not saying it would always damage relationships, if tactfully done, but there are occasions when it must be extremely awkward, e.g. if there is already an outstretched arm, or if people are mid-conversation the walking and talking and he has to stop the flow.

If he just upsets a smaller number of businessWOMEN he might feel it’s probably not going to cost him as much, and that’s an acceptable price to pay for him keeping to his religious customs.

Yes and the women will put up with it and smile sweetly. And fall over them selves to excuse him.

"Declining to shake anybody's hand would be the epitome of multiculturalism as it shows both the ability to adhere to religious rules whilst also showing respect for the value of equality for the sexes held by westerners."

Fair enough; I don't disagree. That is an alternative norm that could be encouraged through light-touch 'cultural sensitivity training' or some such, but I doubt anyone wants to see it legislated for.

StatelessPrincess

You know full well that there is no single central religious authority within Islam that dishes out the 'rules'

So you are appealing to the majority of scholars, who claim head covering is mandatory. I wonder how many of those scholars come from, or are influenced by, the Arabian peninsula, where female head covering has been a cultural practice long before Mohammad was even born?

There are huge groups of Muslim females all over the world (Turkey/Indonesia etc) who would disagree with you.

The gracious way to deal with this, if he insists, is not to shake anyone's hand, male, female, whatever.

He was a pig.

Wonder whether he'd shake the hand of a trans man or woman

An interesting point - is respect 'in the eye of the beholder', or the recipient? Who sets the rules?

A Muslim man may genuinely believe that he is showing women maximum respect and courtesy by not shaking her hand; the woman may feel that this denotes a lack of respect.

Also, I think the fact that we're talking about the absence of action (a missing handshake), rather than an action/speech is also relevant, in the context of discrimination legislation being applied here. This man hasn't done anything to her; she would like to insist that he does do something. The latter seems more of an imposition than the former, to me.

*StatelessPrincess

Unfortunately not true. If we are viewing religious practices from a protected characteristic legal viewpoint, then there is no requirement to not touch women.*

In the same way that wearing a Hijab is encouraged within Islam, but not mandatory.

This is not true. The law doesn't presume to tell people how they should practice their religion or give a prescriptive list of what can and can't be discriminated against.

Instead, the motivation of the person accused of discrimination is the deciding factor. (This is from the highest court in Europe). So if you ban the hijab as part of a wider ban on religious and political symbols that is fine. But if you're allowing other people to wear crosses, stars of David or the hammer and sickle then you are discriminating against the hijab as a symbol of their religion and this is illegal. All religions have to be treated the same and then it is not discrimination. Ditto treating sexes the same means it is not discrimination when it comes to touching.

It is also discrimination if you refuse to allow a Muslim to use a reasonable alternative like disposable sleeves which allow Muslim nurses to cover their arms whilst also controlling infection. Muslim nurses can't turn down that adjustment and insist on wearing long sleeves either. Ditto refusing the reasonable alternative of shaking nobody's hand rather than shaking everybody's hand.

The rules are actually pretty equitable and are equally applied for both sexual and religious discrimination. All groups should be held to the same rules and reasonable accommodations should be made and accepted.