Yeah, this particular type of touch, where a man puts his hand on a woman’s wrist, seems skeevy to me.
A light tap on the shoulder to get the attention of somebody in front of you is one thing, although even then I’d be prepared to apologize for so tapping if the tappee seemed to object to it.
But putting your hand on the wrist of somebody you’re sitting next to is gratuitous, and reads as a gesture of control, like gentling a skittish horse. And since heterosexual handholding or hand-stroking is coded as a romantic caress, a man gently touching a woman’s wrist also comes across as a romantically or sexually possessive gesture, which… just, ewww.
Fist bumps, shoulder taps, etc., can come across differently in different circumstances. But AFAICT there is nothing about this particular instance of co-worker-touching that isn’t spraying the message “Let me just quiet this dear overexcited little woman down, folks” all over the place. Irrespective of the wrist-stroker’s actual intention, that just seems patronizing and creepy.
I tend to agree, Kimstu. I also think touching SKIN is really different than touching clothes. For most of my co-workers, I would be comfortable tapping them on their shoulder if they were blocking my way or something. But I wouldn’t tap a bare shoulder if someone was in a sleeveless top.
So much of this is just about being sensitive to people’s cues and recognizing that it is their right to set their boundaries where they wish, without needing to defend or explain themselves.
In Left Hand of Dorkness’s situation, I suspect that women are generally pretty good at reading others and sensing when and where it’s OK to casually touch a colleague in a close-knit group. Yes, some men are, too, and some women are not. But because so many people either
• can’t sense when, where, and what kind of touch is OK
• resent any such restrictions and find other ways to touch people, particularly women, in a condescending, paternalitic, or inappropriate way
all-out bans are often necessary.
There’s touching the wrist and then there’s touching the wrist. It can be done in a way that’s subtly paternalistic or sexualized, or it can be done in an impersonal way. The difference is subtle, so much so that some people are going to roll their eyes reading that and say “Oh, my God! Really? People are way too sensitive!”" Those people lack the ability to understand these subtle differences and are the very reason such broad bans are necessary. That’s not an accusation; just a fact.
And LHOD, I don’t have an elem kid now, but my son’s second grade teacher gave her students a choice as they filed out of the classroom each day: a hug, a handshake, a high five, or just a verbal good-bye. Some kids chose no contact one day and a hug the next. Some never wanted physical contact. Some always did. The kids had total say, no pressures. I thought it was great, and so did my son.
No. It’s not something I’d say, but it’s neither sexist nor homophobic to only want to be touched in a certain way by the same or the opposite sex (or an anime covered in mint jello singing the Oscar Mayer Weiner theme). This is what we call ‘being human’.
I’m curious about those who feel strongly that a woman (or anyone being touched at work in a way that makes them uncomfortable) should confront the toucher first before going to HR. Surely if the touching in question were so obviously benign that the parties could have worked it out themselves, HR will take that into consideration instead of just firing the guy. Unless of course there’s a history, because he makes a habit of touching the new girl in a way that makes her uncomfortable, but that isn’t overtly sexual, so he has some plausible deniability… If everyone reports everything, HR will know whether this is one guy bothering a bunch of women who all get along fine with all the other men, or one woman who complains a lot about everyone, or some other dynamic. But if the new girls never report the touchy dude because they don’t want to make waves their first week on the job, he could get away with doing this to a lot of women by just moving on to the next one as soon as his current victim gets ready to stand up for herself.
They should start by reporting it to their supervisor, unless the toucher is said supervisor. If their supervisor doesn’t take action, or if the toucher is the supervisor then they should go to HR. It might actually be best to do both…talk to the supervisor, then go and see HR. Also…write it up, immediately. Note down the time and what happened in a text file or email or whatever, but get it down.
No one should have to put up with this crap…ever. And no one should be afraid to come forward if something was said or done that makes them uncomfortable.
You appear not to have noticed your assumption that his standing next to your tripod was an invasion of your space; or, for that matter, your assumption that there was an imperative reason for tapping him, rather than just speaking to him. You said that you did speak to him, so there can’t have been any inherent reason for not speaking.
All of us have back-of-the-head assumptions. Realizing which ones we’re making, and that others may not have the same ones, is a good idea. You’re assuming that it’s inherently fine to unexpectedly touch a stranger.
It might in fact have backfired. Some people will jump if unexpectedly touched; which could have caused the tripod to get knocked over.
This is indeed entirely normal behaviour among some groups of people. And, given that you’re a tight-knit group in which everyone’s in agreement about it, there isn’t any problem.
One of the other market vendors is clearly used to this. She routinely tries to hold my arm or tap on me when talking (which we do fairly often.) I’ve asked her not to; sometimes she remembers, sometimes she doesn’t. When she does it, I back away from her, and then she remembers and apologizes. She’s in poor health, dealing with a family member who’s in even poorer health, and does try to apologize; I cut her some slack. I also often pre-emptively try to stay on the other side of the table from her.
But it is not normal behavior in most work contexts I’ve been in.
WTF?
Because I’m different than you are you think you’re entitled to declare that there’s something wrong with me?
– and even if there were: that wouldn’t entitle you to handle me against my will.
I would much rather the teacher do 4): Move into my line of view and then stand there and wait; possibly holding up one finger to indicate that only one moment’s time is required.
I’ll then notice that they’re waiting, and will be able to decide when, as you say, is a good pause point to give them attention, possibly holding up a finger of my own to acknowledge – or to hold up more fingers in return, to indicate that I’d be right with them but not quite that fast.
The shoulder touch would interrupt my thought even more than a verbal interruption; so if the line of sight technique wouldn’t work, then I’d prefer the verbal one. If the people in question routinely work together, it should be possible to sort out between them who prefers which technique; but simply assuming that a shoulder touch is the least intrusive strikes me as a bad idea.
Yes, of course it has. Since long before we were humans.
For most of forever, of course, it was, most of the time, between people who knew each other well.
It’s also often been between a person who has far more choice in the matter and one who has less. For much of human history, a subordinate who didn’t want to be touched by a superior generally had no choice in the matter.
And it is, indeed, still a part of normal communication. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that people should never, in any context, touch each other. What’s being said is that in most (not all) work contexts touch should not be assumed; and in social contexts, unless the toucher knows from previous interactions with the individual that touch is fine, the approach should be made in such a fashion as to allow rejection. That doesn’t need to be verbal. Want to hug somebody at a party, or a co-worker found weeping in the bathroom? Move partly toward them with your arms held out, and notice whether they’re coming into the hug, or backing off, or holding out one hand.
We can’t have rules based on the outliers. If you are unusually sensitive to something – simple touches, the smell of popcorn, the sound of someone breathing or eating – your hypersensitivity can’t be the basis for societal rules.
However, there are some general guidelines that I think make sense.
In any situation in which it is difficult to communicate with speech, perhaps because an airplane is flying low overhead, or a train is approaching, or someone is speaking at the lectern or a movie is being shown and it would be rude to others to make noise – a simple touch to get someone’s attention should be considered acceptable for simple situations, like – watch out for my tripod, or move your head out of the way of my view, or you dropped your wallet/phone, or there’s food on your face, or watch out, the service cart is coming through.
However, beyond that limited situation, touching should be avoided in the workplace without prior consent or a level of intimacy beyond mere workplace colleagues. So, you don’t touch someone to get them to stop talking, especially if it’s a man doing it to a woman, especially because it’s one of the ways that male dominance has historically been enforced in workplaces.
You might offer to shake hands, but you don’t grab someone’s hand to force a shake, or you don’t hug someone without their prior consent. And so on …
It’s not that you can’t manage to communicate the same things without touching someone most of the time, it’s rather : why would you want to communicate without touching? Why would it be preferable not to touch every time touching can be avoided?
It is this idea that shows a switch in attitudes. It might seems completely obvious to you that it’s better this way, but touching used to be a perfectly normal part of interactions, and people used not to feel there was any reason to avoid touching even if they could. And not to feel that they had to wonder about the hidden reasons or implications of being touched because being touched was normal.
That participates of the same evolution. If it’s perfectly normal to be touched, you have no reason to wonder why you’re being touched. And even if the person touching is in fact secretly attracted to you, it still doesn’t matter because he doesn’t do anything abnormal or that others don’t do.
To give an example : it’s currently perfectly normal for a man to talk to a woman, say about the weather or their last vacations. It might be that the reason why this man talks to her is because he’s attracted to her and wants to get into her pants. But the reason why he talks to her is immaterial : he does nothing offensive anyway, and nothing that others don’t do. Nobody will demand not to be talked to just in case someone talking to them might have something more in mind.
That’s I think where the switch is obvious. At this point in time, touching has become sufficiently “abnormal” for people to wonder why people touch you (as you thinking about exerting control) and what motivations they have (are they attracted) and to think that it is relevant in deciding whether touching is acceptable or not, to feel that this is a legitimate concern, and to have difficulties accepting the idea that in a society where casual touching is an accepted and normal behavior, there’s no more reason to scrutinize the secret motives for touching anymore than there’s a reason in our current society to scrutinize the secret motives someone might have to talk to you or shake your hand. Touching isn’t anymore a normal way of communicating.
I will point out that lightly touching a subordinate on the shoulder or shaking their hand is recommended by the One Minute Manager, a very highly recommended book that is likely on the shelf there in HR.
So there is nothing weird or unprofessional with such.
**HR is not your friend. ** HR may indeed talk to him, but just as likely you will go down as a 'troublemaker" or “problem child”.
Talk to the person first.
Yep, I have seen guys touch other guys in a professional setting, not just handshakes. In fact after I got done doing a solid job as a contractor, the Male CEO gave me a hug*. Men have put their hand on my shoulder to indicate solidarity or caring.
Well, I personally don’t like being touched because touching people is a weird and foreign behavior that people I know don’t engage in. Persons who do touch people can thus be reasonably presumed to be invading alien beings intent on world domination. Pod people, the lot of you.
From my perspective … Yipee!! I’ve never liked being touched in casual conversations. Even as a kid I didn’t like it when a teacher would touch me in that situation. It felt creepy and controlling even if it was in a positive situation. I don’t care what the motivations were, I didn’t want it. And I don’t like it in the workplace because there’s always the issue of what happens if I pull back, say something, indicate I don’t like it. What will the other person think and what repercussions can happen. I also have to think about avoiding that person, don’t sit next to them, move away, etc. so they don’t have the opportunity. Typing it here makes it sound worse than it is, but it’s something I don’t like so I avoid those people and prefer it not be in the workplace at all.
I’m reminded of that picture of Bush giving Merkel a surprise shoulder massage in a meeting where she reacts by throwing her arms up. I’m sure the types like Bush and Biden see nothing wrong with that, but Merkel sure looked uncomfortable.
I’m probably among the outliers in degree of reaction; but there are quite a lot of people who don’t want to be touched in professional situations, or unexpectedly by strangers. I don’t think that was an outlier-only position, even twenty or forty years ago; though I’m sure that it depended on the workplace, and very likely on the particular area.
But I think your guidelines aren’t bad, except that 1) in some cases putting yourself or a hand in the line of view to attract attention will work just as well and be less disruptive and 2) I don’t see why you couldn’t wait for the plane to finish going over before telling me verbally if there’s food on my face; at least, unless the client’s about to walk in the door before the plane’s gone. Your other examples are all things I might not want to wait even briefly before finding out about.
I think the switch in attitudes is less that nobody was bothered by it before, and more that people who are bothered about it are now saying something about it.
And it might have something to do with mixing people up from different areas and different cultures. That mixing has also been common for a long time, but I think it’s more commonly acknowledged now both that there are such differences, and that they aren’t always best dealt with by ‘the way we do it here is the only way that’s normal! so do it our way!’.
I mean different cultures in different areas within the USA, also. I would have been pretty startled, even back say in the 1970’s, to have someone at a business meeting reach over and touch me. I wouldn’t say it never happened; but it certainly wasn’t IME routine. For that matter, though children of course routinely touched each other on the playground and at games (as I presume and hope they still do, though I hope now not if a particular child objects to it), even back in grade school in the 1950’s if a child at the next desk reached over and poked you during class it was likely to be (usually accurately) assumed that the kid was trying to be annoying; close friends sometimes excepted.
I notice that you don’t say the book recommends touching a superior on the shoulder.
So I think if anything that backs the claim that such touch is often meant to be controlling.
Shaking hands, I note, is mutual touch, generally the same in both directions. That puts it in a different category; though there are both cultures, and individuals, who don’t go in for it.