It’s kind of like if a woman says yes, you can have sex with me versus you throwing her on the bed and shoving your penis into her vagina.
They are a factor. But the overriding factor is the iron clade belief that no man has the right to touch me without my permission. No exceptions.
That, in and of itself, is an admirable belief. The parts I can’t wrap my head around that merely *extending a hand *is apparently equivalent to throwing a woman down on the bed and forcing your penis into her. The *troubling *part (to me) is that this belief is apparently rooted in real bodily harm and risk of death. That kind of makes the whole bodily autonomy part of it seem a trifle off. You seem to be asserting that you have iron-clad bodily autonomy *unless your husband wants to beat or kill you for shaking hands with someone. *
(emphasis added)
But I’m not trying to touch them, which I agree is inappropriate. I’m offering a handshake, which can be refused. Offering a handshake is in fact erring on the side of caution, since doing as you ask is more likely to cause offense, according to many women I’ve spoken with. I have to go with the numbers, since my biggest goal is to avoid harm or offense, so I’ll go with what most women have instructed me to do.
Perhaps this is not a “Romani” thing. Perhaps it is instead a “nutty abusive husband” thing.
Yes, I still don’t see a difference between the silent, physical standard offer and the verbal question. I honestly don’t see one as being more demanding of compliance than the other; both can be refused with the same words in the same manner.
What the hell? It’s literally nothing like that.
Have you ever considered the notion that it might be time to challenge your cultural mores? They seem to be rooted in some medieval mindset that women are mere chattels of their husbands or other male family members. Really, think about it, her ‘reputation’ would be at risk for shaking hands with a man? Scorned, beaten, or killed? REALLY?
So this isn’t about female empowerment or any such shit? It’s to avoid the misogynistic violence that would eventuate if his ‘woman’ dared to allow herself to be tainted with the boy-germs of another man.
Fuck me dead…
I did not in anyway intend to support the belief that a husband has a right to beat or kill his wife for anything, but rather to emphasis that this problem exists for many women, women of all races, creeds, colors, and social strata, including many that poster may not realize are at risk. I volunteer with abused women. Very few of them over the years have come from my ethnicity which in mostly a testament to how good women’s helping network operate within our community than a lower activation rate. I’ve met women with Ph’ds and women with trust funds that represent more than I will earn in a lifetime that were battered by their spouses. You really shouldn’t presume anything about a person’s situation until you know them well and when in doubt caution is the best policy.
Those situations aren’t based on my cultural mores, but on situations I’ve seen in 25+ years of volunteering with battered women and rape survivors. Most of the women I encountered in those situations were not Roma, many were middle class WASPS, some were even trust fund babies. If the poster in question had encountered them he would have probably stuck his hand out to them and they would have beaten senseless, even though there was nothing “minority” or “ethnic” about them. Anyway the point is when confronted with the situation possibly irk someone or possibly endanger someone’s life, which is the right choice?
Who knew that shaking hands was the gateway to physical abuse and rape?
And again, may I suggest that ‘shaking hands’ has little to do with male violence. It’s not the act of shaking hands that causes those men to beat their wives. In some (I’d imagine) VERY rare cases, the man might use that as an excuse to beat his wife, but it’s just an excuse he’s looking for. And if it wasn’t shaking hands, it’d be not cooking his meal on time, or ironing his shirt correctly.
Your ‘beliefs’ are playing into the very hands of these violent men, and putting the responsibility to end that violence into the hands of the women you profess to protect. You are saying (in effect) “…behave yourselves wimmins and you won’t get bashed or killed…” Is that really the message you want to send?
I was once in an abusive relationship with an insanely jealous man. A handshake never set him off - a hug, on the other hand…Or sometimes nothing at all. I have known other abused women, and none have ever mentioned a handshake as a trigger. Mostly, I would guess, because most Americans do not see handshakes as inherently sexual.
Are these abused women telling you, in so many words, that they were abused because someone in a business setting offered a hand to shake? NOT just there was some physical contact that the guy found out about, or saw, or whatever, but an actual, honest to god handshake?
A handshake can be offered without invading physical space, forcing touching, demanding contact, throwing a tantrum, etc. Since women have overwhelming indicated to me that they are least likely to be offended if I offer a handshake without asking, it seems rather clear that the best course of action to minimize the risk of harming/offending/insulting a woman is to (without invading space, forcing touching, demanding contact, etc.) offer a handshake upon being introduced in business settings. To ask first, or not offer a handshake, greatly increases the risk of offense/insult, according to the overwhelming majority of women I’ve asked and heard from.
I don’t think anyone is picking up on your point. Maybe if you post it 15-20 more times it might start to sink in.
C’mon, ZPG Zealot, we’re only talking about bodily autonomy here and ignoring the other valid concern about handshaking: if a man offers a woman his hand, it’s because he thinks she’s a prostitute.
And if a woman isn’t offended by that, or accepts the handshake, she may very well be one.
Surely then, if a man asks a woman if she shakes hands, he’s effectively saying that he considers it likely enough that she’s a prostitute that it’s worth clarifying? A man putting his hand out first to a woman in front of others is a gesture that damages the woman’s reputation by implying she’s a hooker, yet asking “Do you shake hands?”, which is more or less code for “Are you a hooker?” is ok?
Oh, and let’s not get bogged down in the Romani stuff. ZPG attributes this to her old South upbringing in the first link above.
South of what?
Sanity, apparently.
Thanks, I’m planning on it. You are wise, as always. 
Does no one take classes in comportment in the third grade anymore? If a gentleman is introduced to a lady he makes a nodding bow of respect. IF she proffers her hand, with the back up, he takes it and gives it a slight, no contact fake kiss. If she presents it with her thumb on top, he shakes it gently, with none of that used car salesman enthusiasm. This assumes she is wearing gloves, like a proper lady. If she proffers her naked hand, she is a whore and the gentleman arranges a later meeting.
Does nobody learn how to behave or were you all raised in barns?