I was reading today’s Tribune (Tempo) ethics column. A woman was closing a business deal with a real estate agent. She extended her hand to shake his, and he told her that since he’s an orthodox Jew, he can’t touch women. She was torn between her need to respect people’s religion and her inability to reconcile the obvious slap to women in general (and herself in particular).
I think I would have felt the same way, and I’m not quite sure how I would have handled it. How would you have handled this and why? I’d particularly like to hear from our Jewish friends and see if any of them run into this problem. ;j
Simmons: I’m guessing that it’s not that Orthodox Jews can’t “touch women” per se, but that they’re not allowed to touch women who aren’t their wives. (but you knew that )
If I’d been that woman, I would have merely withdrawn my hand with a startled “Oh”, and thought nothing more of it, beyond the following brief thought: "Um, somebody who isn’t allowed by his religion to shake hands with women goes into business as a realtor, a business where “people skills” are preeminent? Wow. Best o’ luck, buddy. :rolleyes: "
I wouldn’t see it as a cosmic “obvious slap to women in general” any more than I would see a female Islamic realtor wearing a hajib as an obvious slap to women in general. Her religion says she wears a head covering; his religion says he won’t shake hands with me. So? << shrug >>
Q. The courteous and competent real estate agent I'd just hired to rent my house shocked
and offended me when, after we signed our contract, he refused to shake my hand, saying
that as an Orthodox Jew he did not touch women. As a feminist, I oppose sex discrimination
of all sorts. However, I also support freedom of religious expression. How do I balance these conflicting values? Should I tear
up our contract?
-- J.L., New York
A. This culture clash may not allow you to reconcile the
values you esteem. Though the agent dealt you only a petty
slight, without ill intent, you're entitled to work with someone
who will treat you with the dignity and respect he shows his
male clients.
If this involved only his own person -- adherence to laws
concerning diet or dress, for example -- you should, of
course, be tolerant. But his actions directly affect you. And
sexism is sexism, even when motivated by religious
convictions.
I believe you should tear up your contract.
Had he declined to shake hands with everyone, there would
be no problem. What he may not do, however, is render a
class of people untouchable. Were he, say, an airline ticket
clerk who refused to touch Asian-Americans, he would find
himself in hot water and rightly so. Bias on the basis of sex
is equally discreditable.
Some religions (and some civil societies) that assign men and
women distinct spheres argue that while those two spheres are different, neither is inferior to the other. This sort of
reasoning was rejected in 1954 in the great school desegregation case, Brown vs. Board of Education, when the Supreme
Court declared that separate is by its very nature unequal.
That's a pretty good ethical guideline for ordinary life.
There's a terrific moment in "Cool Hand Luke," when a prison guard about to put Paul Newman in the sweatbox says -- I quote from memory -- "Sorry, Luke, just doing my job." Newman replies, "Calling it your job don't make it right, boss."
Religion, same deal. Calling an offensive action religious doesn't make it right.
I tend to agree with it. I’m not sure what purpose the “no touching” thing serves, particularly in modern times. Maybe someone can elaborate on that. I’m intolerant of the Catholic church not ordaining female priests. I’m intolerant of Muslims calling holy wars on others. Why should a person take that kind of treatment in the business world? Which comes first – religious respect or human respect?
This is pure speculation. I think the prohibition might be against contact with the “unclean.” A menstruating woman is regarded as “unclean” according to Exodus or Leviticus or Deuteronomy (or one or all of those books of the Law). Since you can’t possibly know whether or not any woman met at random is temporarily “unclean,” an ultra-orthodox and very cautious Jew might simply avoid physical contact with women in general.
And, yes, I would agree that he might be in the wrong line of work.
I read that. IIRC, the not touching members of the opposite sex isn’t about disrespect or thinking that the members of the opposite sex were “unclean” or even that they were lesser. If it were, then it would bother me, and I’d agree with the answer given by the advice columnist - but that isn’t the explanation I’ve heard. So I don’t see it as an obvious slap to women in general.
Could someone with actual knowledge please chime into this thread?
I am astounded by the stupidity of the response the letter writer received.
Not shaking someone’s hand is not a matter of “Ethics,” especially in light of the fact that the man was presumbly obeying his God.
“Sex discrimination” implies unfair treatment based on sex - the loss of a substantial right or privilege or material thing. Nobody has a right to a handshake, and a handshake is not a thing with any real value. The man did not deny the woman any business - he did not say “I will not do business with you because you’re a woman.” He did not cause her to lose anything substantial. He did business with her. Where is it written you have earned a handshake when you sign a contract?
Or to use a counterexample, if a Muslim woman were to tell a man she can’t touch him, does that mean he cannot ethically do business with him? I know a Muslim woman who won’t shake hands with men. It never occurred to me there was an ethical problem with this, because it doesn’t cost me anything substantive; it’s trivial. If she refused to do business with me because I was a man (or a non-Muslim, or white, or whatever) that would be different. That is real discrimination. Denying a handshake is not. It’s a stupid thing to complain about. You don’t have a right to make someone else touch you.
David Simmons is correct. An orthodox Jew avoids physical contact with women he doesn’t know well because if the woman is menstruating the contact will render him ritually unclean. To become ritually clean he must immerse himself in the mikva (ritual bath). He would most likely not worry about this with women he knows well, because they would not offer to shake hands if they were unclean. If you were a member of his shule, he would probably wait for you to extend your hand, and if you did so he would shake it.
The orthodox rabbi who was principal of my daughter’s school handled this issue by assuming that a) everybody knew he was orthodox and what the handshaking issue was, and b) anybody who got within a couple feet of him was ritually clean. The school accepted students through eighth grade, and the principal had no reservations about giving hugs to girls who could very well be ritually unclean. (And no, the hugs were not interpreted by anybody as being sexual harassment.)
My daughter’s Hebrew teacher handled it roughly the way the real estate agent did. He sent out postcards to the parents of all his students before the first scheduled parent-teacher conference explaining why he could not shake hands with women.
Orthodox Jews do not regard the law of Family Purity to be demeaning to women. They regard it as a form of respect to women.
Thanks for explaining Chava, but I still don’t get it. How is it a form of respect to women to consider them “unclean”? On the face it sounds pretty demeaning to me.
As far as the original question. If it was someone I was just doing business with one time I would probably think he was weird and then forget about it. I don’t know that I would be willing to do business on a regular basis with someone who wouldn’t touch my hand because I might be on my period.
If he refused to touch my vagina I might understand…
My “me too” is in response to In Conceiveable’s response. I think the response to the question was uninformed, but I still think it is rather strange. What happens when you become ritually unclean? Are you shunned?
In both of your examples there is a “good” reason not to shake anyone’s hand. In the OP it seems that he didn’t want to shake hands with a women because she might be on her period and “unclean”. He would still have touched a man or a women he knew wasn’t “unclean”. At least that is the only explanation we have so far. That is where the disrespectiful to women part comes in.
It’s a handshake, people, not an act of discrimination. He performed his duties in his capacity as a real estate salesperson. It isn’t even strange that he should persue this line of work. The contrary involves him disobeying his religion just for a measly handshake.
There is nothing demeaning about it. He sold you a house. He refused no goods nor services. I am comfortable in assuming he even smiled now and again.
Sorry eris I still think that it is demeaning. Let say, he shook her husband’s hand and he shook the seller’s hand but then refuses to shake her’s because she may be “unclean”?
I am sorry, but the message is that women on their periods are dirty and by extension all women are dirty because you never know when one might be bleeding. How is that not demeaning?
I really wish someone Jewish would get in here and explain this better. I keep thinking there has to be a good reason but I am not coming up with anything on my own.
In Conceivable, it’s a free country. If Mr. Weiskopf wants to continue an old practice based on the uncleanliness of menstruating women, that’s his thing. You are free to be offended.
The OP concerned a matter of ethics. The question is whether or not it is ethical to do business with this man. It is not a question of whether or not you agree with the specifics of a Jewish custom.
There is nothing about this custom that suggests a violation of ETHICS. You may choose to think it is mean, or demeaning, or that it hurts your feelings. However, the central question is a different one; is it ethical to do business with him? In my opinion it obviously is. There is no real ethical concern here.
There are many religious beliefs I do not agree with; that doesn’t mean it’s unethical for me to do business with people that hold those beliefs. On the other hand, it IS unethical to tear up a legally binding contract just because you didn’t get a friggin’ handshake.
The advice given in the column was - I’ll say it again - amazingly stupid; the person writing the column quite literally does not seem to understand what “Ethics” means in a business sense, does not understand the concept of contracts, and can’t tell the difference between a genuine act of discrimination and a personal statement of religious belief.
)
