'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?

"the motivation of the person accused of discrimination is the deciding factor. "

You've answered my last point there, Elton.

I've never shaken the hand of a Muslim man, mind you, I can't remember the last time I shook the hand of anyone. I can't say this would bother me.

chester

Not promoting a woman because she's female isn't better than promoting a man because he's male, is it?

Same concept in regards to the lack of action.

Chester - how far would you go to defend cultural practices? Presumably you don't think the practice in some cultures of taking young girls to undergo FGM is acceptable, for example, or the binding of young girls' feet in China just a few generations ago. But you do seem to think not shaking hands with a woman purely because she is a woman acceptable, and indeed that it's prejudiced to object to anyone not wanting to do so.

So - given that those are examples from polar ends of the spectrum - where do you draw the line of "acceptable because of culture"?

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.

But he is not legally allowed to sexually discriminate on the basis that it makes him more money. A company would be legally entitled to refuse business with him if he just refused to shake women's hands and wouldn't take the alternative of shaking nobody's hands. Because he would be refusing a reasonable adjustment to prevent sex discrimination. If he refused to shake anybody's hand and the company refused to do business with him then the company would be breaking the law as they would be refusing to accept a reasonable adjustment which accommodated both viewpoints.

Elton

I don't think that's entirely true, the law would take a view of course, but it must be judged on a case by case basis?

Because otherwise it would be possible to claim protected status for any behaviour that could be even indirectly linked to religion. (Witness Christian baker's being fined for refusing to serve homosexuals despite claiming it is part of their religion)

There would surely be a test of whether or not the action in question is actually a requirement, or just a 'nice to have'.

PatriarchyPersonified There's no need for a central authority to dish out rules, we have the Quran and sunnah. People can do what they like but Islam teaches that hijab is mandatory and we shouldn't touch non- mahrams.
Elton I'm sorry but I don't really understand your point, are saying that by law we have to touch members of the opposite sex?

Elton

I agree that shaking nobodys hand would be a reasonable alternative.

Stateless, I think the point Elton makes is that he could take the reasonable alternative of shaking nobody's hand.

So no, by these lights and by law we do not have to touch members of the opposite sex. Or the same sex, for that matter.

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.

Nope. Because a woman can request that she be treated equitably by him not shaking anybody's hand rather than excluding her. So 'forcing' anybody to touch someone is irrelevant.

So then it becomes an issue of there being any religious rule which says you MUST touch men while not touching women. There is no such rule so then religious discrimination becomes irrelevant (as asking someone not to do something which their religion does not require them to do is not discrimination) and sexual discrimination becomes the key point.

By your own logic the absence of an action which might be considered offensive is preferable to the presence of one which is. So the absence of handshakes to men should be preferable to the presence of handshakes just for men.

Elton I'm sorry but I don't really understand your point, are saying that by law we have to touch members of the opposite sex?

No. But we cannot refuse to touch members of one sex but not the other. Because that is discrimination. We have the choice of touching both sexes or neither. Because there is no Muslim religious requirement that men must be touched. Therefore they have to treat the sexes equally and touch neither.

Re Mike Pence refusing to dine alone with female colleagues - he is free to do as he wishes. And in this post-Weinstein world, it seems like an eminently sensible approach.

Well sensible only if you have a runaway penis you can't control (although that does seem to be a common problem). Are you really saying the response to rapey men is women should be chaperoned like in the 19th century?

A lot of business is done in Washington - and many other places - over dinner/meetings in the evening etc. A female colleague will therefore have significantly less access to Pence because of his rule. His correct approach should be to refuse to dine alone with anyone - male or female.

Ok I get it, thank you.

Can someone tell me why it's actually offensive for a member of opposite sex to not want to touch you? Your saying it's sexist and misogynistic but I don't see how it can be when women do it too.

Statelessprincess

I have to disagree. A lot of things are haram in the Quran that are not taken seriously at all by most Muslims.

Smoking, gambling, charging interest, tattoos, dancing, toys in the shape of people etc being just some off the top of my head.

Do you really want to claim that everything the Quran states as a religious requirement is something that is viewed as such by all Muslims to the point where it should be a protected characteristic of the religion?

If so then you might feel more at home in the Islamic State.

Or do you take the more moderate view that the Quran and Sunnahs should be interpreted in light of modern society? In which case we can't view wearing a Hijab, or refusing to touch woman as a protected characteristic.

Stateless - because they are making that decision based purely on what sex you are.

And then allowing that decision to override polite social and cultural norms in this country.

StatelessPrincess

It's offensive in western culture to refuse to shake hands with someone if you have shown you are quite happy to shake hands with other members of the same group.

I’d put in a complaint about him. Rude and offensive

“Declining to shake anybody's hand would be the epitome of multiculturalism”

The epitome of multiculturalism is to eradicate the cultural practice of handshaking?

I agree the client in question should refuse to shake anyone’s hand rather than discriminate, but I think it would be even better if he’d just shake everyone’s hands whilst in western countries, and bow to everyone in Japan etc.

And the segregation of women, by moslems, will NOT change. It will only get worse.

A Muslim man is not allowed to shake hands with a woman without a barrier, such as gloves.

Orthodox Jews use Deuteronomy 22:13 as a scriptural prohibition against any pleasurable contact between a man and woman (other than those who are married or close relatives). This includes hugging and kissing. Shaking hands is a bit of gray area since different situations come up and it is not always considered "pleasurable, physical contact." As a result, the custom among most Orthodox Jews is not to shake hands with the opposite gender.

It would be great to just bow. From afar. I think of the other person's hygiene at that bit at church when you have to offer each other the sign of peace. Shaking hands. They suspended it during the swine flu. newsflash, people carry germs other than swine flu .

Great Morgan but have you read the thread

The epitome of multiculturalism is to eradicate the cultural practice of handshaking?

Yes. Because when assessing whether handshaking or not sexually discriminating is the more important western norm to respect, we can see that there is a legal requirement not to sexually discriminate but no legal requirement to shake hands. So not sexually discriminating is the dominant social norm and therefore the one that should be prioritised.

it would be even better if he’d just shake everyone’s hands whilst in western countries.

But in a multicultural society that is just as bad as only shaking men's hands. Because it's refusing to accept a reasonable adjustment which can accommodate both.

The whole point of multiculturalism is mutual respect and accommodation for one another's cultures. It's not a case of one culture winning over another.

Its not an adjustment when it’s exclusive of another protected group or divisive