It’s about violation. Extending a hand to a woman you know damn well doesn’t approve of that activity in which your only purpose is to try to intimidate her into touching you is a very public act of humiliation. How does it differ from rape? Maybe the risk of transmitting AIDS is less though there are still a lot of nasty germs that can be transmitted.
So when it’s a friendly gentleman who happens to be ignorant of your customs, then it’s no big deal, right?
Wasn’t it ZPG who considers adoption abusive, or am I confusing her with some other foaming fanatic around here?
Three things.
First, I still don’t see a difference between Smeghead’s paraphrase and what you’ve said, so I don’t think it’s fair for you to ask him to cite your saying that: it looks to me like he’s accurate.
Second, you mentioned knowing that the woman in question doesn’t approve of touching, and that you’re trying to intimidate her. Sure, in that case, the person trying to intimidate is being a jerk. But I would suggest that that’s true the vast minority of the time: the vast majority of the time, the person extending a hand is doing so out of respect, or at least habit. Even if they know that you come from a culture in which shaking hands is frowned on, they might figure cultural assimilation is a reasonable request (“When in Rome”), and expect you to follow the prevailing cultural norms. That’s not the same thing as trying to intimidate you.
Third, are you seriously asking how it’s different from rape? This is the big lunacy in your post, so let’s go through the differences:
-No risk of pregnancy.
-No risk of injury.
-No risk of disease.
-No millions of years of evolution to make it conjure instinctive feelings of revulsion and terror.
-No universal human desire not to have it happen.
-No PTSD following the experience.
-No legal code making it clear that you shouldn’t do this.
That oughtta get us started.
If you want something comparable to the worst-case handshaker, compare it to someone patting a woman on the head and calling her “Sweetie.” It’s humiliating, it’s obnoxious, it’s unwanted touch, of course. But it’s not illegal, and it’s not hugely traumatizing for a sane person, and it’s not remotely comparable to rape.
Edit: Thing number four: I realize that this is about to become yet another “ZPG is a moron when it comes to the subject of handshaking” thread. It could instead be a thread about the real and endemic racism that Roma folk face. Are you sure you want to make it all about handshaking? CHOOSE WISELY!
You’ve got to make sure to inform every single person you come in contact with that you/your child is adopted, so they know to berate and shun you for religious reasons. Not that she personally believes in such things, but it really behooves you to make sure everyone else knows, just not to offend them.
IIRC correctly, no, that would be rape. You’ve been raping all along and didn’t know it. Basically, you are supposed to be aware there are women who don’t want to be handshake-raped and always, always ask permission before holding your hand out.
Can someone post a link to the handshake=rape thread so it doesn’t get rehashed again?
I have to disagree. In the parent child relationship, one person has the legal authority to make decisions for the other person and that makes a huge difference in the dynamic.
I too thought that there was something amiss with a blonde haired, blue eyed girl in the midst of a Roma community and am glad that both my ignorance about Roma phenotypes and cultural norms have been somewhat reduced. However, in response to those defending the unusual method of adoption, I cannot say I have the same sympathies.
It would be a hardship to any poor person looking to give up their child for adoption to the same community. The Roma are no different nor should they expect to be treated differently than anyone in that situation. If Maria’s mother could not afford her, then the solution isn’t to lean on a cultural adoption method and transfer guardianship outside the scope of the authorities. Like it or not, countries have a valid and vested interest in recording births and adoptees. It was wrong for Maria’s mother to ignore that simply because she wanted Roma parents and that should trigger investigations into internal Roma traditions.
The authorities in this case acted with racial callousness in their intent but their actions towards Maria was mostly correct. Once the adoption papers for any of the children were suspect, all the children should have been tested for DNA and their real parents found. That they seemed to have done it only to Maria is a shame, the other children deserve equal dedication and attention.
Yog, it’s possible to agree that the informal adoption should have been formalized, AND to say that the correct solution isn’t to remove the girl from the only parents she knows.
In what may be a first in the long history of the boards, my cite is located in the sentence immediately following the request for a cite:
It makes a huge difference in the inter-relationship dynamic, sure. But that wasn’t the dynamic I was talking about: I was talking about the dynamic of how we folks outside the relationship regard it.
It wasn’t a permanent removal. I don’t disagree with a policy saying that if an investigation into a possible guardianship is in progress, the child has to be in custody. This is to protect the child, not attack the Roma. Anyone who is being investigated for a child custody case shouldn’t have full and free access to the child in question.
Gentlemen, do not risk behavior that might be offensive to women. That is why they are considered gentlemen, not scum. Gentlemen wait for a woman to extend her hand (i.e. consenting to the behavior).
There is a big difference in adoption and the type of child care arrangements observed in this case robably (I haven’t interviewed these people). The child’s parents placed her with people they knew of the same ethnicity, tribe, and religion (and probably related to her through a web of kinship in the Roma community). I also highly doubt that in their home, Maria addresses the D family (that is a lot easier than spelling it out) as mother and father or considers them such though they may be considered her in-laws depending on the arrangements the families made. Above all else the child is not stripped of her biological family (or her people, culture, language, etc.) who have the option to reclaim her if their financial situation makes it possible.
Yes, just like you are supposed to be aware there are women who don’t want to have sex just because you do, and always, always ask permission before holding your penis out.
Boy do I have apologizing to do around the neighborhood. Ask permission before displaying penis. Got it.
I’m going to need a cite that there are women who don’t want have sex when I do.
Okay, let’s make this about your craziness, not about racism against the Roma. YOU HAVE CHOSEN POORLY!
Every decent person–male or female–tries not to cause offense. But every decent person also weighs the risks of causing offense.
There are plenty of men out there who expect to shake hands. But when men are shaking hands with other men, both of them can’t wait for the other one to put a hand out first. Someone has to do so. So men extend their hand to other men. They do this even knowing that there are a tiny minority of men out there who dislike shaking hands: they figure the onus for that is on the shake-phobic man. With me so far? Extending a hand to another man is not rapelike.
There are plenty of women out there who expect you to treat them the same as men within a business setting. If they see that I’m extending my hand to men, but not to women, they’ll take offense at my unequal treatment of them. With me so far? IF I DON’T OFFER MY HAND TO THOSE WOMEN, I CAUSE OFFENSE.
But if I do extend my hand to you, I also cause offense.
If I know I’ll cause you offense by offering you my hand, I won’t do it. But if I don’t, I have to weigh the likelihood of causing offense by extending my hand, against the likelihood of causing offense by not extending my hand.
Serious question: which group am I likelier to encounter in most business settings, feminist women, or Roma women who regard an offered hand as tantamount to rape?
If I am trying to avoid offense, my course is clear: offer the damn hand.
If there’s real and genuine reason to think an abduction occurred, then sure. But there was no such reason in this case.
Insert the small sentence, “Do you shake hands, miss (mam, madame, or Ms. _____, etc.)?” before sticking out your hand (and quite a few feminist do not care for men extending their hands unbidden) and you risk offending no one. That’s the way a gentlemen should act.
Most men that I’ve ever met, as well as me, had no idea that extending a hand might be considered offensive to anyone. Was I scum until you educated me, because I’ve extended a hand towards women in the past? Also, what about the women (like most women I’ve ever met) who would be offended if I didn’t extend a hand to shake it upon being introduced (or if I asked if they shake hands)?
It seems like, no matter what I do, some women might be offended… so, running the numbers, I have a much, much lower chance of offending the woman (in this country, at least) by extending a hand upon being introduced. Statistically, this sounds like the smartest option.