JAC: Reader Diane G. and I have had some email exchanges about the bad treatment of women by hyper-Orthodox Jews, including the several incidents I’ve reported when they wouldn’t sit next to women on a plane. These men also have religious strictures against touching or shaking hands with women. I asked Diane if she would mind writing a post about it for this site, and she kindly complied. Her mini-essay is below:
*******
Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons?
by Diane G.
Here at WEIT Jerry’s written more than once about the Hasids-on-a-Plane culture clash (e.g., here and here). For anyone who’s been out in the field for the past several months, in brief this involves Orthodox Jewish men taking commercial flights and refusing to sit near women because their religion prohibits it.
What’s been interesting to me in the resultant conversations is the occasional male commenter (and perhaps there have been females as well) who doesn’t view this as discrimination or misogyny. People who I would have expected to say, “your religious beliefs stop at my right to sit where I am” argue instead that this is simply a matter of courtesy and respect, that changing seats is the polite thing to do.
The Washington Post‘s Amanda Bennett noticed the same pushback, and wrote a column that appeared in the April 19th edition, Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons? In addition to the plane incidents, she begins her article with an anecdote about running into an Orthodox man at a social function:
Not very long ago I met a young man at a business function. “Hello, I’m Amanda,” I said, sticking out my hand in greeting. He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch women,” he said.
That exchange–which I thought was a particularly pointed description of these slap-in-the-face moments–received as much or more attention in the WaPo comment section as did the plane behavior. Those who disagreed with Bennett sensibly stressed (and stressed and stressed and stressed) that no one should ever feel required to shake hands, raising all the legitimate reasons one might not want to: germ-avoidance, arthritis, mere dislike of shaking, etc.
Unable to shake (heh) my conviction that Bennett had been rudely dissed, I reread her short description until I decided it was the brusque delivery of the message that made it discriminatory. New worry: does this make me a Tone Troll? Surely, if you know your customs clash with Western 21st century standards, you could at least use humor, self-deprecation, or any of the other ways society’s developed to disarm verbal conflicts. Perhaps, say, a smile accompanied by an “I’m sorry, my religion forbids me from shaking your hand.” Hmmm; that still doesn’t sit well. But I do think that’s the way to avoid shaking for all the other reasons; just bringing out the charming, contrite smile, and a simple, “Sorry, I don’t shake hands,” would do.
Nevertheless, the theme of WaPo comments such as the following disturbed me, although the last thing I want to appear as is a pomo-feminist SJW:
Mutual respect, “live and let live”, isn’t good enough for the politically correct crowd, they demand not just tolerance but endorsement. This is tyranny and not conducive to a peaceful society.
***
The liberal Outrage Lobby strikes again. So now, sincere religious belief is trumped by Amanda Bennett’s desire to shake hands. Amanda, the next time someone refuses to shake your hand, you might consider it’s actually because you are an anti-religious bigot.
***
The really important question is why the woman writer feels humiliated because another person does not shake her hand for religious reasons? The lefties love creating social turmoil and this is a favored strategy, being “offended” by the practices of others that the lefties can pretend are motivated by an intent to cause them “anguish.”
***
This whole discussion amazes me. A shomer negiаh sees his or her practice as respectful and chaste. This is a cultural divide which Ms. Bennett disrespects perhaps because she feels every thing is about her.
Does this mean I’m a narcissist and a traitor to my politics? Someone even saw Bennett’s reactions as anti-Semitic:
This article may be about discriminating women [sic] but it only shows the discrimination that Religious Jews face. How anti-Semitic is it to not take into consideration that Orthodox men feel uncomfortable with any physical contact with woman.
There were the expected (and in this case, unintentionally self-refuting) remarks from those who’ve drunk the Kool-Aid:
No, the Bible actually has no contradictions in it (apart from typos and translation errors). The creation story is given as an overview in Genesis One, then the particulars of the creation of man is given in Genesis Two.
Moreover, “rib” is a poor translation of “Neged” (whence “negative” is derived). Adam was the compilation of both male and female (I am not speaking physically) until the female attributes were removed into a separate individual.
The woman has never, biblically, been considered inferior to the man; just at a different rank. It is the same as saying that a colonel is no more or less valuable as a person than a major; he simply has greater authority.
And from a woman for whom I feel very sad:
My husband and I have had myriad social experiences professionally with rich, powerful, educated persons etc. My skirt is below my knees, my dress has sleeves or a jacket, no plunging neckline, shoes without cutouts, no bare legs, and I walk just behind my husband so if someone throws something-it hits him first. Provacative [sic] attire/behavior is for entertainers or people who don’t mind being attacked.
For those of you who think this subject has already been talked into the ground here–I’m not helping! But I know someone else has also sent Bennett’s article to Jerry, so perhaps I’m not the only one interested in continuing this discussion. Finally, I heartily recommend a book, written before the Great Online-Atheist Schism, which is a cogent, exceptionally readable, egregious-example-filled treatment of the overarching topic here: Does God Hate Women?, by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom. Please consider reading this volume no matter what you think of one of the authors in light of subsequent events.
Nevertheless, the theme of WaPo comments such as the following disturbed me, although the last thing I want to appear as is a pomo-feminist SJW
Not at all!. Having problems with tone is perfectly reasonable. The difference with the SJWs is that they take a valid criticism, that tone trolling *can* be bad, and use it to silence people.
And ty for this essay. I for one have been enjoying all of the chatter recently and have been bookmarking every interesting link:)
Thank you, Muffy, you make a helpful distinction there.
“Attention Coyne, Dawkins, and Harris: You Are Part of the Problem” and a whole lot more of this type of bizarre slogans and attitudes is what Ophelia Benson champions on her “freethought” blog. One of the most Orwellian named blogs on the web.
Just because she managed to shoot some fish in this particular barrel riding the coattails of precisely Harris and Dawkins whose bestsellers paved the way for her book, does not mean she merits a pass on “subsequent events”.
Namely events where she displayed spectacular suspensions of reason, outrageous misrepresentations of the aforementioned author’s positions and, what looked very much like engaging in a move to hoist herself out of obscurity: badgering R. Dawkins, labeling him a White Male Privileged Sexist Atheist (not necessarily in that order).
I am in no way advocating that. Where did you get that idea?
I was simply blindsided by the brutal irony, having come to the end of such a well written compelling piece, to find “heartily” promoted a book written by Ophelia Benson an author who with her shrill demagoguery and personal attacks defiled both the hard-fought legacy and honour of historic feminism and the reputation of some of our most eloquent, dedicated and outspoken critics of how religion drives misogyny, the very owner of this blog amongst them.
While not directly advocating for giving Benson a pass, issuing non-committal, I’m above the fray, weak tea, non-informative “no matter what you think” disclaimers does seem to have that effect. Note the absence of any eyebrow’s raised other than mine amongst all the comments posted.
I dislike the FTB SJWs, but this doesn’t mean that they are always wrong about everything and have been wrong since time immemorial.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And I am *no* fan of Ophie, but I will point out that she dared to disagree with the horde a couple of times in the last two months and was accused of being a hateful bigot.
Here’s preying that tasting the bitterness of her own medicine will bring her to our lord and savior Richard Dawkins… 😉
charlize, FWIW, Jerry himself raised an eyebrow or three pre-publication. 🙂
It was not at all unexpected. I’d considered asking permission to tout Benson’s book before submitting the post as is, but finally decided to just go with it and let the chips fall where they may.
Actually, I got nothing but a bit of pointed teasing about it from Jerry, before he let it run as is, which obviously says a lot about Jerry.
I figured there’d be pushback in the comments (I’m sure Jerry did, too), and like you I’m surprised that you’re the only one. I’m trying to think of a way to say “I respect your opinion” that doesn’t sound patronizing, because it’s true. I agree with you on most points.
I considered saying more than just “no matter what you think now” but thought that it would derail the post. I considered dropping the book recommendation but I have not read a better, easier to devour treatment of the subject than the Benson & Stangroom, which was woefully overlooked when published, IMO.
I stand placated…largely… 🙂
No other pushback was maybe due to: 1.The Benson brouhaha not remembered or known. 2. Not wanting to be seen ungraciously nickel and dimeing your piece. Held me back too at first until I went and refreshed my memory on those “subsequent events”.
FWIW the only time this subject will have been talked into the ground is when all religion (and its discrimination and repression of women)is in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
“Never trust the teller, trust the tale. The proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it.”
D.H. Lawrence
So in other words, never, right? (Sorry, I’m quite the pessimist.)
I’m glad you went ahead with your first post and I’m especially glad you’re largely placated.
🙂
You seem to think that Diane’s argument was: “the quality of the book justifies giving her a pass regarding subsequent events.”
In reality, she meant that we shouldn’t let subsequent events color our judgement of the book.
What I mean is that positions held, opinions expressed, actions taken and behaviour displayed by an author should colour our judgement of an author.
If one were to recommend a book written by, say, Joseph Goebbels on the topic of, say, the failures of the Weimar Republic’s economic policies, one would strive not to be coy about informing the reader of Goebbels’ involvement in “subsequent events” regardless how well written and historically valuable his book may be.
I see a significant difference in the fact that Does God Hate Women is exceptionally critical of Islam (surprise!) in way that would be immediately branded Islamophobic today by the SJW’s. (And wildly approved of by WEITians.)
These are the chapter titles:
1. A God of Bullies
2. Religious Apologetics, Islam and Caricature
3. The World and the Kitchen
4. Honour is Between the Legs of Women
5. Holy Groupthink
6. Mutilate in the Name of Purity
7. Islam, Islamophobia and Risk
8. Lipstick on a Pig
From the first page of chapter 7:
So I don’t think the Goebbels comparison stands in quite the way you think it does. But that was an exceptionally creative Godwinning. 😀
I didn’t have a quarrel with the book really – couldn’t, hadn’t read it. And she does appear to make all the right noises – did the co-author keep her away from the deep end?
Yes, 3d Reich comparisons can be argued to be even more odious than helping Benson to book sales. But Goebbels just was too tempting to resist. Like Benson he was an editor who then went on to getting involved in “subsequent activities” where Holy Groupthink was imposed. Just like Benson over at FTB.
You’re obviously much better at history than I am. I stand corrected.
Despite the Godwin trope, Hitler refs are frequently appropriate, IMO. It’s where the mind goes when one needs an utter atrocity for comparison.
I read DGHW when it first came out, and our discussion–and just thinking about it again–made me go have a second look (albeit a quick one) to see if I was remembering it wrong. But all my thumbing through only supported my memory of it as a very copacetic-with-WEITians volume.
Seems to me that the appropriate response to “I don’t touch women” is “Thanks for alerting me. We’ve both been protected. I don’t touch idiots.”
“Idiot” is a little too confrontational for my taste. I’d go with “deluded fools.”
You’re the nice one. We could collaborate on a good cop – bad cop approach.
I can think of a string of expletives I’d utter. Stay home if you can’t shake a woman’s hand.
Or hire an assistant to do your handshaking for you. Now there’s a job I’d be really good at: my late dad was a handshake purist drilled proper form into my and my brothers’ heads (and I am only exaggerating a little) – I’ll look my handshake partner in the eye and smile and everything. I’ll do his kissing for him, too – no extra charge!
The Handenshaken Goy?
Shoot. I hadn’t thought of that. He would not hire me if he knew I am a Jew: there is a rule against aiding and abetting Mitzvah-breakers.
So many stricture!
I’d love to have a hand shake proxy as I find it not distasteful but germy. My proxy could take the hit for me.
This has been a plot point in many a fine sci-fi episode.
I hope there will be a time when people who shake hands will be labled “ignorant fools”. Shaking hands transmits many germs. There should be laws against it at least in hospitals and doctors offices.
It’s a custom I’ve never particularly enjoyed myself. One WaPo commenter felt that the fist-bump was becoming a preferred alternative.
If one has to make contact at all…perhaps we should just bow like the Japanese.
I have always really liked the practice of shaking hands. Maybe not with sick people in hospitals, but otherwise I think it’s great. I almost never get colds or flu. My germophobe friends who use hand sanitizer umpteen times a day are always complaining about their colds. Not enough immunity!
I dislike shaking hands for two main reasons:
1) The number of men who seem to think a handshake is a personal challenge to their manhood and a reason to crush my hand.
2) I’m horrified by the number of men who don’t wash their hands after going to the bathroom. And the number of men and women who wipe their nose with their hand or fingers, or pick their nose, and don’t wash their hands. And they want me to touch their hand?
Gross!
I worked in a bar a long time ago. One of the regular customers was a police officer. He once told me he had two main rules. Never wear a real tie and never shake hands. He said if someone starts a fight it puts you in a serious disadvantage. I had never gotten into (or broken up) more fights than when I was a bartender. People get seriously stupid when they drink.
Let’s face it, we have no idea who is sick and who isn’t, and who has just done what with their hands. For all we know the last person we shook hands with spend the morning cleaning up dog diarrhea. My own dog has had it for the last five days, so it’s on my mind, and I’ve been going through bleach and washing my hands like crazy. I’m surprised my skin hasn’t been scrubbed off.
I’ve been in the situation of having my hands elbow deep in chicken and covered in chicken guts, and someone wanted to shake my hand.
I literally had my hand down a birds throat, and a guy in a three piece suit shoved his hand almost into my stomach, wanting me to shake it.
I said, “I really don’t think you want to shake my hand right now, unless you want your hand covered with chicken guts?”
He looked very confused and uncomfortable, so I went and washed my hands (which takes about five minutes to do right when your covered with bits of chicken) and then I shook his hand. It was very awkward.
I too would much rather bow, which I think it is also more expressive. With the bow you can greet, show general respect, deep respect or ask for forgiveness.
With the added benefit of no transfer of potentially harmful biological material.
I don’t like to shake hands either. I am also OCD about germs. Yuck!
One thing that I absolutely hate touching are superstore carts and baskets, because the handles are usually covered in grease and dirt. Grease and dirty from icky people!
As a young adult I once worked at a car dealership, and the men would leave the bathroom without washing their hands. One day, I explained to them, that if none of them wash their hands, and then they all touch the same door handles, that they are fondling one another’s junk by proxy:P That made them uncomfortable enough to start washing their hands:P
Ewww, I know, shopping carts! I get home and rush to wash my hands.
Ever think about how many people might have picked up the same apples?
Not that this will help anyone’s disgust, but at least there’s reasonable justification for OCD behavior when it comes to shopping carts.
Hope your dog gets better ASAP, Michael!
And that chicken guts story is wild. Some people are so…oblivious…
Consider the following fatuous sign posted in, e.g., a coffee house restroom:
“Employees must wash their hands before returning to work.”
I’m sure that’s done to reassure customers. Fine. And perhaps (likely?) it is mandated by law. But don’t you know, employees already KNOW that. And they know to wash their hands as necessary in the work area.
Restaurant customers think they don’t have to wash their hands because they’re not handling food. But they handle the checkbook when the server brings the check, and they handle doors and various display items for sale. (And they shake hands here and there.) Do they think that germs distinguish between customers and servants? Ah, but don’t advise customers to wash their hands; they will be “offended.” Such a sense of entitlement.
Beyond that, consider hospital visitors who don’t wash their hands, and then presume to impose themselves on infection-prone patients, and even presume to use the PATIENT’s restroom. The media are good to fault hospitals on rates of hospital-incurred infections, but one (at least I) have never heard one word from the media about such visitors being a possible source of infection.
We visited my mum in hospital last w/e and it was hard to miss all the signs about hygiene and the antiseptic hand gel dispensers in every room on the ward, not to mention the very conspicuous hand basin near the nurses station.
/@
Actually it is posted as a matter of law. The state mandates certain health practices that must be followed in order to get a permit to prepare/sell food and these signs are among them. The state has no similar control over the behavior of customers, so the signs don’t say “And customers, too.”
I’ve got to dissent here – shaking hands is a massively important ritual when 2 strangers come together. I don’t need to recite the history of how it started, but it continues to be an important way for 2 humans who meet for the first time to establish rapor (since butt sniffing is frowned upon).
This suggests a useful reply to “My religion prohibits me from shaking your hand”: “Then how about a mutual butt-sniff? Certainly your religion doesn’t prohibit that.”
Or, “Shall I instead slap you across the face with this fish?” One should always have fish on hand for just this reason. 🙂
A halibut?
/@
AN halibut 🐡
That’s a very puffed-up halibut!
/@
Ya takes wut ya gets…
I always carry a spare fish.
A halibut.
If you’ve just been carrying a fish around I’m certainly not going to shake your hand. 😉
So true! If only someone would invent a cheap, effective way of combating those germs – perhaps a liquid “anti-bacterial” product one could put in a purse or a pocket. Or place “basins” and “soap” in accessible areas where one might perform, say, a “washing” of the hands.
Oh sure, naysayers will be like “everybody has to use these miracle products or else it won’t work!” Well, it would be nice if everyone did, certainly, but we have to start someplace; somehow I think if I “disinfect” or “wash” my own hands I will be fine. Guess I’ll have to wait on the science for that.
I spend my days in Manhattan. I find “idiot” too kind. 🙂
Heh, I think I would enjoy Manhattan.
The woman I used to be married to would have replied, “Well fuck you, then,” and walked away. And I would have applauded that.
That would be a fairly awesome scene.
Exactly my response probably followed by, “you deluded, mysogynistic dim wit.”
I’m with her. I don’t care if someone wants to shake hands or not. But I do care deeply if *you only don’t* when she’s a woman and he additionally goes out of his way to portray himself as the superior species.
Took the words right out of my mouth! 🙂
If confronted by this refusal and its reason, I think I’d be very unlikely to attack the character of the person who offered it. The problem is obviously with the religion. It’s rather like a soldier refusing to shake hands because he could be shot for fraternizing with the enemy.
“I don’t touch women.”
“What a horrible religion. You should question your faith.”
That’s so much nicer. And to the point.
That’s a wonderful response!
LOL @ all the satisfying comebacks in this comment thread!
“I don’t touch women”
“Why are you a recovering rapist?”
OR
As my wife said she would do regarding the plane event. Flash him and ask he’s allowed to look at breasts. :p
“I don’t touch women”
“That’s a relief”
I’d go with “Oh, I apologize, i wouldn’t want you to ever procreate, too.”
He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch black people,” he said.
He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch homosexuals,” he said.
He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch ,” he said.
Yes.
“I don’t touch people like you.”
Yes, the religious misogyny is so entrenched that we are numb to it.
I think the no shaking hands, though, is just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect the more complete answer would have been, “I don’t touch women, or do business with them.” The later, frankly, is much more problematic.
Exactly. It is entrenched.
For example, this urban legend popped up a few years back:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/racistpassenger/
Tables turned on racist passenger who wouldn’t sit next to a black person. The story was widely praised. Yet, sadly, more people than not would probably support the Hasidic Jews out of “respect for religion”, and, as you stated, entrenched misogyny. It is such a part of our culture that we don’t really notice.
Indeed,Mir is just seen as accepted and women who make a fuss about it are over sensitive or bigoted against the poor man who doesn’t much like treating women as equals.
Yes, the deliberately offended black, gay or woman is *always* supposed to take the high road. No_matter_what.
Yes, a very good point.
“Yes, the religious misogyny is so entrenched that we are numb to it.”
Indeed.
When Asra Nomani says that “Muslim women are treated as second class citizens… put in the back of the mosques, and not even allowed into the front doors of some mosques,” we often are too eager to give this sort of discrimination against women a pass as simply one more religious custom… hey, religion is different, it’s not typical sexism, etc
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/04/15/muslim-feminist-dukes-muslim-students-association-tried-cancel-my-speech
Perfect, and I doubt anyone would give him a pass if his explanation were “I’m a white supremacist, or KKK member, and it’s part of my deeply held personal beliefs”.
The woman has never, bibliauthority, but thatthen considered inferior to the man; just at a different rank. It is the same as saying that a colonel is no more or less valuable as a person than a major; he simply has greater authority.
Lolwtf?
“Simply.” Too bad his mother wasn’t there to hear that. “Oh, so now you’re a colonel! Well, Colonel Big Shot, I’m a general ordering you to report to the kitchen for dishwashing duty!”
The military reference – and that guy’s smugness – remind me of the old joke that an organization is like a tree full of monkeys: the ones above look down and see nothing but smiling faces; the ones below look up and see nothing but a**holes.
Just sayin’ …
“Lolwtf?” I know, right? 😀
MooT–love that military reference!
He’s nuts – everyone knows 2 Colonels beats 3 Majors any day. Lower rank – what nonsense.
I agree with you and Bennett. It is discrimination against women. Their behavior is out of bounds for our society.
What if the woman responds with “in that case, your religious superstitions mark you as a delusional person, therefore, I will have no interaction with you”.
I bet the PC crowd would consider that as discrimination, even though it is a valid response to thei bizarre behavior.
Religious dogma does not have to be respected. It can get carried away, as in this case.
+1
Well said.
It would probably be more effective to end with “…therefore, I will now make a point of trying to disabuse you from your superstitious delusions. Fasten your seat belt — it’s going to be a bumpy night.”
If enough women did this then eventually it might end up being less theologically dangerous to just go ahead and shake women’s hands.
You just gave me an idea. Maybe we need to print out atheist versions of something like Watchtower and carry them with us to hand out to annoying religious seatmates when trvelling. They will, after all, be a captive audience:-)
You’re looking for non-tracts. You can get them here.
Perfect!!
Or materials about how proselytizing anything to a captive audience is annoying and so should stop.
‘Proselytizing,’ by definition, is annoying, in that attempts to ‘convert’ are never honest — but if they choose to bring up something which is debatable then I think it’s high time they start accepting the live possibility of an actual debate. No, they won’t like it. But not just because they’re finding out what it’s like when the shoe is on the other foot. The real problem runs deeper.
The religious have been riding smug and comfy on the assumption that they can say and do all sorts of implausible or controversial things and it’s simply off limits to argue with them because awww looky I’m-expressing-my-faith. Such a deeply felt yet delicate flower is the spiritual, rarefied and mysterious, it cannot be reasoned against. That’s the height of incivility: as a Believer, I’m immune.
Wanna bet? Believers are human. They don’t get to borrow impregnability from the so-called Divine. In my opinion it’s high time that people who excuse rude, obnoxious, cruel, or outrageous behavior on account of religion get their religion called to account. As Richard Dawkins famously stated after 9-11, “The gloves are off.”
100 likes plus a gold star.
It’s extremely hypocritical for people like Pat Robertson (and his ilk) to go on national television and say a hurricane was caused by God because of homosexuality is an abomination to God, but if we comment on their religion, we are horrible people.
They don’t get to behave like boors and not get the same right back. If they want their religion to be personal, then they had best keep it personal and stop shoving it down my throat.
Much appreciated, NEBob!
I believe this is a very important topic in any discussion among Atheist about the bible or any religion. It is front and center and we should not forget this.
Please take a look at Chapter 17 of Christianity is not Great, John Loftus. The Chapter is titled – Woman, What Have I to do with Thee? This Chapter is written by Annie Laurie Gaylor, page 343 to 359.
Remembering that these books were written by MEN, I will quote only a few lines from Timothy 2:11-14 —
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
A second class citizen if ever there was one.
I think I’ll have to get that book–Annie Laurie’s a hero of mine! (As is her mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor.)
I wonder which insurance policy will be in court for not covering cliterectomies. Or which doctor. Or is this procedure strictly home brew.
Seriously, all this SJW stuff is aimed at America (and allied) men, white, heterosexual. It will be fashionalbe foe a decade or two and go the way of the anti-war movement.
You haven’t seen people in the streets protesting drones, or stealth bombers.
They can’t be in the streets. The drones and bombers would get them. 😀
All this trigger stuff rides piggyback of justifiable rage at laws that imprisoned people for private sexual behavior.
There is also a long history of denying that people are born with ambiguous sex. Or anomalous chromosome counts.
Eventually, social accommodations will be made, and this protest will become boring.
“I’m sorry, my religion forbids me from shaking your hand.”
My reaction would be: “Thanks for telling me! I almost broke my secular rule to avoid shaking hands with jerks!”
In my opinion it comes down to what kind of society you want to live in. I don’t want to live in a society where bigotry or discrimination against any demographic is normalized or considered, in any context, to be OK. I’d really like to live in a society that is free of that and I am sure it would be a better society in virtually all respects for virtually everyone.
To be clear, I don’t think it should be made illegal in any sense for an asshole to show their ass, for example an Orthodox Jewish man making a scene and inconveniencing dozens of people because he doesn’t want to sit next to a woman. I wouldn’t want to live in a society like that either (though I have no problem with the airline deciding to boot the ass off the plane). But I do want to live in a society where such an asshole would get no respect or support for such actions.
I think the religious freedom argument as a defense for bigotry and discrimination needs to be challenged, ridiculed and / or scorned whenever it is encountered. I can’t think of a worse excuse than “But, I sincerely believe in my religion’s myths so you can’t disapprove of my discrimination of women, gays, blacks, etc. In fact you must respect my right to do so.” I would need Christopher Hitchens eloquence to properly express how fucked up and pathetic I think that is.
It is precisely about curtailing further progress toward a better society for everyone VS continuing progress toward that better society for everyone.
Shorter, I think your persistence in questioning and criticizing this behavior is not just okay, I think it is good and even necessary. And, a very good article Diane. Thank You.
I’ll second that.
Excellent article, Diana. And an excellent book recommend. Ophelia Benson is a terrific writer.
I meant “Diane,” not “Diana.” I knew that.
😉
Hey, everyone, this article is by Diane G., NOT DianA Mac. Credit where credit is due. It goes without saying that DianA can write a mean article, too, but this particular one is by Diane G. ( who, I assume, knows which way her tp should be hung:-)
I don’t write mean articles, I write nice articles. 😛
LOL – I sort of anticipated a smart(ass) response to that “mean”:-)
Another book I can suggest is “When Women Were Priests” by Karen Jo Toriesen published in 1993.
Although Christian misogyny often is blamed on Greco-Roman values, misogyny was part and parcel of the Jewish religion from which Christianity arose. All of the religions “of the book”, Judaism, Islam and Christianity have this
major flaw.
Perhaps, if orthodox religious men cannot accomodate themselves to modern polite manners, they should stay home.
Thanks for the book recommendation!
“Although Christian misogyny often is blamed on Greco-Roman values, misogyny was part and parcel of the Jewish religion from which Christianity arose.”
Yep, blame someone else if at all possible.
Thank you very much, darrelle.
“In my opinion it comes down to what kind of society you want to live in.”
Yes, that’s an excellent way to look at it!
Well written Diana. Thanks for this. I agree with you and with Ms. Bennett.
The answer to your heading is: No!
Diane.
Thank you, jb. 🙂
Sorry I missed on your name! Well done.
In a modern pluralistic society that is enjoyed in the primarily secular West, that sort of discrimination to half of humanity is totally unacceptable.
I believe that “Fuck off you misogynistic git” is appropriate.
Drawing from Jimmy Carter’s 2014 book, A Call To Action: Women, Religion, Violence and Power, (pp103-5), it appears that the ultra-Orthodox comprise an increasing % of Israelis, and the problems they’re causing are not going unnoticed.
Another factoid he mentions re. this – just 45% of ultra-Orthodox men have jobs while the number is 60% for women.
I’m going to have to get that book, too!
Yes, I’ve read about the problems the ultra-orthodox are causing in Israel. It’s astounding how they can be so smug and self-righteous while they’re living off the dole.
A few days ago I sent Jerry an international poll about religiosity which, among other things, shows that Israel is a very not-religious nation.
However, the political power of the ultra-orthodox is disproportional and they are definitely abusing this power.
What angers me most is that (as a rule) they don’t serve in the military, like other Israeli Jews (Israeli Arabs don’t serve either, but their situation is really complicated in this regard).
That’s good. A while ago there was a post on the responses by Israeli politicians which I found disappointingly pro religious anti secular.
I guess they were just being politicians after all.
Although it is disappointing that just absurd beliefs have any, let alone disproportionate power but that can be the case anywhere.
Yes. It was an article from Haaretz about questions they asked politicians of all parties. Only 2 were fully supportive of teaching evolution and nearly all “believe in God” (I am 100% that some were lying, but I cannot prove it, of course).
This looks like a contradiction to the Gallup poll which ranks Israel as the 8th most secular nation, but I think it’s not. The problem is that the secular Israelis are not a sector. The primary issues they vote on are security and foreign affairs with economy and society coming next. The ultra-orthodox vote almost exclusively to their own parties which typically decide the Prime Minister, because they can join both the left and the right to form a coalition. So politicians have a clear interest to keep them happy, knowing that this won’t cost them much in other parts of the Israeli society.
Somewhat similar to my understanding of how all the extremist Islamic factions gained so much power in Saudi Arabia. The only way out is through education and eradication of all religion. Not that I expect any chance of that happening, but it’s the only alternative that I can see, and that’s where I differ with Carter, who I think is a great man. He pushes to modify religiously-based abuses through modifying the religious views (and has apparently had some success in particular with genital cutting), but I don’t see how there’s much hope of permanent modification if things are based on scriptures that still exist on the books.
That’s where the religions are stuck. They can’t go in and remove all the odious parts, like Thomas Jefferson did, because if they did they’d be admitting that the whole thing is man-made and not handed down from a deity. So the only alternative is to ditch the whole sorry mess.
Would it, however, not be too outlandish to speculate that in the subconscious collective national psyche (inculcated since childhood with perhaps greater rigour than in other nations) the biblical legacy looms large as regards the reason why the nation was chosen (ahem) to be situated where it is geographically (or even exists at all) and that therefore the orthodox – the guardians of that legacy – are conceded their perpetual seat of honour as much as they may understandingly be despised elsewhere for everyday reasons?
I have President Carter’s book but, haven’t read it yet. I must move it up in priority in the stack of books I’ve yet to read.
I’m assuming that the ultra-orthodox male Jew in Israel devotes his time to studying documents of his religion rather than taking care of himself and his family financially. The problem of such people living off welfare is one that occurs
orthodox Jewish families in the United States also.
I suspect that in Israel it’s more complicated.
They are practically exempt from military service. Part of the arrangement is that they are not allowed to work. This is a huge discouragement for work.
This situation is convenient for the ultra-orthodox parties, as this keep their people dependent on them, so they are bitterly fighting any attempt to change this.
Also, they have their own education system which does not prepare their kids for the modern job market. Here, again, their representative use all their political power to prevent any change.
The basis of the religious argument is that women are a source of sexual temptation to men, so must be quarantined and kept apart. This, as with so many other religious tenets, is nothing more than self-centered refusal to take personal responsibility for one’s behavior.
If you are overcome with lust, that is your problem, not the object of your desires. Forcing women to comply to your immaturity is unacceptable, and should not be condoned in a civilized society.
Thank you: That needed to be said. But the unstated problem here is the airlines, which should IMMEDIATELY put in a rule that people who don’t want to sit next to women can bloody well take another mode of transport. Alas, they are whores and since the hasids make up a sizable paying block, won’t do that. And I wouldn’t hold my breath for the FAA to do so.
agreed. The airline management dumps the problem on the poor crew, who have to try and negotiate a settlement, with the hopes that some poor passenger will give in to these unreasonable demands.
The omniscient, omnipotent airline demigod CEO needs to board the plane and, Romneyesque, show flight attendants how to do it. That’s why he’s being paid “the big bucks.”
Also, a Romneyesque solution would be to put a portable containerized seating module on top of the plane for these “VIPs.”
I have a sincerely held belief that I should not sit next to children on flight, especially if they are unruly. This includes my own kids. Can I demand a seating change next time?
You’re right, flying often sucks for many reasons from screaming children to cramped quarters to that guy who feels the seat is the place to take care of personal hygiene. We certainly don’t need this all compounded by someone having to volunteer to sit next to misogynistic assholes because said assholes can’t settle down. To them, I say get the fuck off the plane.
It strikes me as typical that we should always show respect for religious people and their beliefs so that they can continue showing utter disrespect for others by acting like this. Absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason we should have respect for this kind of disrespectful behavior. If you show no respect for women than you’re very welcome to move to a different planet.
“Does God Hate Women?” Funny title as I am sure Benson does not believe God exists; but the point is well taken.
The normative claim that needs to be made is: Women should hate religion. Nothing has done more harm to women in human history than religion. It poisons reason and above all equality.
A believer might object to that by listing out things that are/have been worse. I am confident you could show them (not that they’ll hear you) how you can get from any given ill to its root in religion in one hop, two hops at most.
You could make it a parlor game! A grim, hideous, depressing parlor game.
Yes, a sick, unfunny, not fun to play, but truthful and educational version of “Cards Against Humanity”
Oh, yeah, that! I’ve heard of it but never checked it out.
And yet women are its biggest supporters.
My hypothesis is that, in the face of the subjugation and selflessness that is expected of them, they have to believe there’s some perfect afterlife to look forward to. Rather a classic Catch 22.
They also get approval and acceptance and women sure are conditioned to crave this; their self worth is often measured vs. what is outside of them not what’s inside them.
I think for some woman (particularly those who have children), that craving is actually the biological motivation to make sure progeny get the maximized advantage. If a society honors people who are religious, then it makes sense that a ‘woman’ might achieve very reasonable justification to raise children as religious since she may believe the outcome will serve her children better than not raising them religiously.
If this hypothesis is true, atheism will see a fast rise in its ranks as soon as society views that being atheist has greater merit than not begin an atheist.
I think, from my own experience as a woman, that a lot of it is how women are rewarded. Look pretty, keep quiet, don’t make a fuss. You are conditioned this way from childhood. I’m hopeful that this has changed over the generations.
youtu.be/LS37SNYjg8w
/@
Ha ha! I like the part about how over education leads to beard growth.
“If a society honors people who are religious, then it makes sense that a ‘woman’ might achieve very reasonable justification to raise children as religious” – this sounds like it would be the cultural-evolution counterpart to the sexy son hypothesis.
Great work, Diane G! I liked reading introspection, which I think reflects what a lot of Gnus and progressives are chewing on these days.
I liked reading your introspection, meant to say.
Thank you very much. I’m not the most confident person, and it feels a bit funny to, uh, let it all hang out like this. 😀
Ya gotta love the WEIT community.
That’s right – we cannot have chosen otherwise! I’ve noticed that confidence is not a function of capability – or looks or wealth or anything other than confidence itself (and I’m confident I’m not the first person to notice). Your commentary is always interesting, even your emoticon “drive-by” comments are much appreciated! Have confidence in that!
I think the problem is it can be both: our notions of ‘courtesy’ and our notions of ‘nondiscrimination’ can come into conflict. Here, being courteous would mean acceding to any seat change request which isn’t too onerous. Being nondiscriminatory would mean not permitting someone to discriminate against a(nother) woman passenger. Different people will disagree on which “wins” in that case, or the specific circumstances under which one principle wins out over the other. Does it matter, for example, if the Hasidim is giving up a first class seat for a coach seat? What if he offers that first class seat to a woman in exchange for her seat next to two men?
In the hand-shaking case, I would agree with you that Bennett had been rudely dissed. Beyond that, what to say? She would’ve been fully justified in saying something rude back. A Ms. Manners courteous response would’ve been to ignore it (and quickly find someone else to converse with), because “courtesy” often means ignoring to some extent someone else’s rude and socially unacceptable behavior. Should she have asked the organizer never to ask the guy back? Probably not, that may be too extreme a response (and something of a strawman, because she didn’t), especially if we freedom of speech folks are going to run around talking about “no right not to be offended.” So, she was dissed. That in and of itself does not necessarily dictate a specific response: there are still a range of responses that different people will deem appropriate, even if they think the guy’s behavior was sexist and rude.
Yes, different people will respond differently in situations where they are disrespected because of their gender, ethnicity, or similar. The issue isn’t should the offended person be expected to call the offender out, or to respond in any prescribed way. The issue is should it be acceptable for the offended to call the offender out.
I thought I covered that in the last bit. If “call out” means say something to them, then yes that should be acceptable. Actually, I think it already is. Maybe Dear Abbey would tell you not to say anything potentially offensive back, but IMO most Americans are perfectly comfortable with a bit more of a ‘rough and tumble’ conversation being considered socially acceptable behavior in company. Hahvahd standards are one thing, but New Yawk standards are okay sometimes too.
I so often find life is a series of gray areas, and I’ve been downright envious of those for whom everything is black and white. I agree with you that human interactions are highly situational and often there’s no one correct answer.
One thing I thought I picked up from Bennett’s narrative is that she felt a bit more than just dissed. When I unexpectedly run into a similar affront, there’s usually a physical reaction–that sort of gnawing in the pit of your stomach that feels awful. Instead of shaking hands, one ends up emotionally shaken.
Yes absolutely. If someone insults you (me, one) in public, most of us have a physical response of embarrassment and shame – even if we didn’t do anything wrong. Words fail – sometimes, literally.
The people I envy are the extroverts. Ignoring an insult, calling someone out, making a joke out it – they do all of those responses better and more naturally than I do them. I would love to be able to pull off a Joe Welch-like “have you no sense of decency, sir?” response to public bigotry or insult. But I would settle for being able to respond to such instances with something like a Churchillian “Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it” quip.
I once had a chat on a Catholic message board where I asserted that life has many shades of gray and I was met with the response that if you adhere to the Church’s teachings, everything nicely turns black and white.
And, of course, they’re right; most Catholics don’t follow the law to the letter and things aren’t always black and white but the structure and teachings of the institution are clearly there. Being that this is probably the only (and certainly longest lived) example of how this world looks in black and white, I say we happily embrace the gray.
That physical reaction = undischarged adrenaline. I think it’s the reason they invented Twitter.
“Does it matter, for example, if the Hasidim is giving up a first class seat for a coach seat?”
I suspect that if this were the case there colleagues might be offended by the flying pig.
On a lighter note, this gives a whole new meaning to Snakes on a Plane, doesn’t it?
I have no problem reasonably accommodating people’s beliefs if no ethical or human rights violations are involved. Some of my colleagues are semi-observant Jews and I don’t serve pork tenderloin when they come over for dinner. I voted against accepting a candidate to an academic program because he refused to be interviewed in a room alone with a woman (let alone shake hands).
So, it’s fine for an airline to provide vegetarian meals, but not OK for a vegetarian to insist that the airline provide only vegetarian meals. It’s not OK to refuse to vaccinate (or even treat) your children because this has effects on the child and the community’s health.
I think it’s *legal* for a Hasid to ask to switch seats so he doesn’t sit next to a woman. It’s also fine for everyone to refuse and the airline has no obligation to help him beyond making a polite request. Clearly, the hasidic belief that men cannot touch unrelated women is discriminatory in both concept and action and conflicts with secular society’s egalitarian ideals. In the event that no one will switch seats, the fundamentalist gentleman can either put up with girl germs or leave the plane.
And, I’ll bet those airline seats are thoroughly contaminated with female DNA. What to do about that?
Here you go.
LOL!
Ah, he’s the Bubble Goy!
SNL should bake a skit out of it. 🙂
Bubble Goy!
Excellent coinage there Eric. I snorted some of my drink through my nose.
This picture is old. I wonder if it will ever stop making me laugh.
Everyone knows them girl cooties dig deep…
I read somewhere that in Victorian times, when a gentleman gave up his train seat to a lady, it was etiquette for him to engage her in conversation for a few moments before she sat down so the seat could cool off a bit from his butt-warming. In exact opposite, when I caught a bus on a chilly morning last week just as a female passenger got off, I was only too appreciative of the pre-warmed seat.
It annoyed me to no end that these religious people expect everyone to just put up with their silly requests, like the image either a jerry or a commenter published on WEIT that showed a sign in Enfland ordering women to walk on the other side of the road. WTF?!
I know!
A related comment to Bennett’s article:
That is infuriating. I never thought I’d have reason to be pro-hipster, but ohhh me of little faith.
That’s disgusting! Don’t stop the attacks by going after the attackers who are doing something illegal and immoral, instead go after people who just want to ride their bikes in peace by implicitly telling them they can’t go there.
+1
I’ve never seen a hasidim in the audience for the naked bike ride in Portland, OR. Now I know why.
lol!
If I lived in that area I would be irate. I tend to regard the Orthodox view of women as shooting themselves in the foot (and that goes for dress-them-in-sacks fundy-Muslims too), if they want to deprive themselves of the pleasant company of women that’s their loss. But (in purely selfish terms) I’ll be damned if they’re going to deprive me.
Quite aside from the fact that the police should have been protecting the cyclists and hammering the attackers.
But will happen (and has happened) is that the whole damn plane sits on the runway b/c the Hasid will not sit down or leave the plane, and no one will move.
Great post. As many have said, this isn’t about which version of the magic sky daddy you choose to follow. It’s about actions that are innately disenfranchising and hateful to half of the population. We can’t stop anybody from being a misogynist in their heart but we can sure as shootin give them both barrels when they open their mouth.
Below is one option that would work as long as first class agrees to share their facilities with steerage.
http://pictoraltheology.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-seatbelt-sign-is-on.html
“It’s about actions that are innately disenfranchising and hateful to half of the population.”
Yes!
As a person who does not excel in the social graces, and tends to be rather uncomfortably blunt, I can’t help but wonder if the Orthodox Jewish businessman mentioned above had responded more like:
Smiling. “Nice to meet you Amanda.” A few moments of friendly chit chat.
If Amanda still seemed put off by the non-handshake, he could easily say, “Oh, by the way, I hope you are not offended, but in my religion men don’t shake hands with women.” Continue brief, warm, friendly chit chat.
I’d think this would have been an almost non-issue.
As a business person,I’ve found myself in situations that violated my cultural comfort zones. Finding ways to deal with these situations gracefully was of course a necessity.
“I’d think this would have been an almost non-issue.”
I don’t know if being polite about discrimination should make inherently unequal treatment of women tolerable. Mark Twain blamed genteel manners for allowing Southerners to get away with horrible things.
As to there being a non-issue, it is highly probable that the man who wont shake hands with a woman won’t do *business* with women either. Would a polite explanation of that suffice and make that “almost a non-issue”?
I agree. Dressing up bigotry with polite phrases and cheery gestures doesn’t make the bigotry a non issue. It’s frankly patronizing to think the woman who experienced this encounter wouldn’t see through it.
Rob, you probably noticed that my first thoughts about how such a situation could have been handled better were the same as yours. I’m grateful to commenters like Scote and Diana and others up-thread who spell out why that’s really not a satisfactory solution.
Sure, I’m not saying discrimination is OK. I’m just thinking of the bluntness of the businessman’s comments, and how it could of been handled more professionally.
At best, cross-cultural interactions can be awkward. (I remember suddenly being kissed by a business associate in a Latin American country. Sudden panic! I’m sure my response was less than charming.) With practice we learn to function in foreign cultures without violating our own values.
I probably wouldn’t fore-go doing business with a person who didn’t shake my hand. At least not without seeing if we could develop a good working and respectful relationship.
Purely on the handshake point, the same problem can occur with some Muslim women who seem to deal with it by keeping their arms folded and give a polite nod or the like. Still an idiot belief but sensibly handed. I suspect they have a slight advantage in that a lot of men tend to let women lead on handshakes even if momentarily.
I don’t think that an individual refusing to shake hands with women is discrimination (at least not in the sense that makes it morally or legally wrong). If it’s done in a respectful manner, I don’t have any issue with it, regardless of the reasons. I know some religious Jews who observe “negiah”, but shake hands with women who offer them their hand for shaking, so to not shame or upset them (I am not an expert, but this is generally a valid reason in halachaic law to bend or break certain laws).
To the general question, no, religion cannot justify discrimination.
Just to respond to one of the comments you quote: “rib” is an excellent translation of “tsela”, not “neged”. The person who says it doesn’t know either the bible or Hebrew, and probably neither.
That woman had more problems than a simple mistranslation. 😀
But thanks, nice to know that.
HEH
I know it’s not an important issue, but it’s one which is so easy to refute that I couldn’t resist it.
Golan, would you be equally sanguine with this?
I don’t think that an individual refusing to shake hands with Jew is discrimination (at least not in the sense that makes it morally or legally wrong). If it’s done in a respectful manner, I don’t have any issue with it, regardless of the reasons
OK. “regardless of the reasons” was indeed a foolish thing to say. I guess that if someone said that he shakes the hands of everybody, only not Jews, I would find it offensive. However, while I understand the equivalence, I am convinced that an observant Jew who does not touch women are not all misogynist (the it’s likely that some are).
I just know many who observe this Ig
One does not have to be a misogynist in ones’ own head to act in a discriminatory manner. You can believe everyone is equal but if you don’t treat them equally, you’re discriminating.
If “misogynist” was limited to people who believed women were inferior, and the label did not include people who acted as if women were inferior while claiming they were equals, then very few men from the 1960-80s on could be considered misogynist. Yet, they were. We are – often without noticing.
I guess you are right. Blame my English.
I mean that they would not (otherwise) discriminate against women.
Relations between men and women are generally more complexed than relations between members of other groups.
Like a wrote in response to another post here, I experience a similar problem. In my family and social environment, kisses are reserved to lover and close family. My wife is Brazilian and there it’s common to kiss people you hardly know on the chick (I am told that French and others do this too. When I meet with her friends I kiss only the women. I don’t think so, but If you tell me that this is sexist, then I must surrender and admit that not shaking the hands of a member of the other sex is sexist too, but I fail to see the principle difference.
I am not sure that I can provide a good explanation to how this is difference from not shaking hands with a member of another race or faith. Maybe it’s the complexity of relations between men and women.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not defending the general treatment of women in Judaism. I don’t think that there is a way to do this.
I hear my religious friends talk about this issue. They understand the problem in terms of politeness. Personally, I learnt early in my adulthood to not offer a hand to religious women, because it too often leads to embarrassing situations. I cannot deny the possibility that I am just too used to it to see the problem the ways you guys do, but I am truly convinced that this rule does not represent chauvinism.
“I am truly convinced that this rule does not represent chauvinism.”
I think you need to think about why you feel this way. Perhaps it is because you don’t see someone who does that as chauvinist in other interactions, perhaps you know people who you think are good people who do this. I don’t know.
I can tell you that it is exactly the same thing to refuse to shake the hand of a gay person or black person but not the hand of a white person. As others have said, it is not so much not liking shaking hands but not wanting to shake the hands of a woman and I think of you root cause this (5 whys) the reason will be religious bigotry whether that person is consciously aware of that or not.
And, in the end, it feels bad to be treated differently simply for being something you cannot change (gay, black, a woman) and for being made to feel that you are inferior for being this other (gay, black, woman) by the way someone else treats you in relation to others.
YES!
There’s no excuse for treating people differently based on inconsequentialities such as biological characteristics.
That’d even extend to things like holding doors open. If you’d hold the door for a woman but not a man, that’s just as bad, even if you’re being nice to the woman rather than insulting.
The whole point of common courtesies is that they should be…well…common. Universal.
Withholding them is an insult, and doing so should always be the result of deliberate calculation. You might choose to not be courteous to a Nazi or a pedophile priest or somebody else who is similarly grossly uncivilized, but everybody else should get equal respect.
b&
It’s definitely embarrassing to extend your hand for a hard shake to and see no response from the other side. It happened to me several times with religious women, so I know the feeling. After a few times, I took the lesson, stopped trying to shake hand with religious women, and now, whenever I am shaking hands with a group of people which include religious women, I am always afraid that they will be offended by me not shaking their hands.
I said that I base my opinion on personal experience with people who observe this rule and are not chauvinist. I also agreed that Judaism treats women badly. It’s not unlikely that an ultra-orthodox man is an asshole towards women. It’s not the handshake thing that makes him one.
I don’t buy into this 5 whys thing. The origin of the handshake custom is to demonstrate to the person you meet that you hold no weapon that may risk him. I am well aware of this history. However, I shake hands regularly with people who are extremely unlikely to stab me with a dagger. The origin of the custom is completely immaterial for me observing it.
You and I agree that 2,000 years ancient rules are no reason to treat women and men differently. However, we still treat them differently. A woman isn’t required to show to a meeting with a tie. A man is. Is this discrimination? I guess that technically we could say it is, but we don’t see this as something offensive (at least I don’t). It’s a cultural convention many of us accept.
I’m not interested in root causing the custom of shaking a hand. I am in the reason for someone not to shake a woman’s hand while being willing to shake a man’s. I think it is important for people to understand the root of their actions.
Are you really going to equate men wearing ties to certain meetings (not in IT BTW) to gender bias and discrimination of wome, not a man not being willing to touch a woman? That’s insulting.
I am equating men wearing ties to men not willing to touch women and women not willing to touch men. Religion is bad enough as it is. Negiah is not an issue of gender bias and discrimination of women (and anyway, if it is, it equally discriminates against men).
I don’t find it insulting.
I really don’t see how dress codes in this case can be equated with social norms, especially considering how formal attire — especially footwear! — for women is typically so much more uncomfortable and restrictive than a necktie.
b&
not to mention bras and pantyhose:-(
Yeah…how y’all put up with all that nonsense is beyond me.
Luckily, save for concerts, I’m basically never called upon to wear anything more uncomfortable than shorts / jeans and a T-shirt and shoes I’d wear on an hike. I have a bunch of ties languishing in a closet somewhere from days long gone by, and I hope to never buy one again and have to go searching for them because I’ve forgotten what happened to them the next time I have to wear one.
It’s worth again noting that I live in the Valley of the Sun, and formal attire was generally designed by and for northern Europeans. It’s not uncommon for us to have winter days as warm as it ever gets there in the summer. There’s maybe three days a year when it gets cold enough that you’d actually appreciate the warmth of a full double-breasted three-piece wool suit and maybe three more where you wouldn’t mind it all that much. And a few months at a time where, even at the crack of dawn, you’d put yourself at risk for heat exhaustion if you tried to exert yourself wearing one. Step outside wearing one midafternoon in August and you might as well put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.
b&
Work dress codes are pretty often aimed at women as well. At one place I worked at, the men dressed like they just rolled out of bed but heaven forfend a woman showed too much skin. Then a note about attire got sent out. I and all my female friends always thought the email was aimed at is as we rushed to the bathroom to make sure we weren’t showing too much skin (we never were).
Honestly, I’m amazed that this sort of thing hasn’t been the subject of a discrimination case by now. (Or has it?)
Most places I’ve worked and most people I know of have stories about new dress codes constantly being issued for women but not for men. How is this okay?
As far as I’m concerned, dress codes should be gender-neutral. If you’re going to permit women to show their knees, you’ve gotta permit men to show their knees. If you’re going to require men to wear neckties, you’ve gotta require women to wear neckties. If women have to wear six-inch heels and hose, so do men.
The practical upshot is that everybody would wind up with the least uncomfortable set common to both genders. And if that winds up being shorts or jeans, a T-shirt, and sneakers, all the better!
b&
Well now, I’m guilty of – infrequently – standing up for women on the morning train (though usually only if they’re pregnant / elderly / laden with bags). Which I wouldn’t do far a man. I plead Guilty.
Oddly enough, when people stand up for me (which I find disconcerting, since I don’t think I’m nearly as decrepit as I look), it’s usually young people in their late teens / 20’s, and far more often young women than men who do so. The guys who do are quite often rappers (or look like that – jeans, nikes, baseball caps on backwards, I’m sure there’s a word for them). So, not who one might expect.
I have no idea of the significance of this.
“And, in the end, it feels bad to be treated differently simply for being something you cannot change (gay, black, a woman) and for being made to feel that you are inferior for being this other (gay, black, woman) by the way someone else treats you in relation to others.” –Diana MacP.
In a nutshell!
Oooof. Sorry, not sure how this happened….
I know many who observe this rule with all signs suggesting that they are anything but chauvinist pigs.
“Someone even saw Bennett’s reactions as anti-Semitic:
This article may be about discriminating women [sic] but it only shows the discrimination that Religious Jews face. How anti-Semitic is it to not take into consideration that Orthodox men feel uncomfortable with any physical contact with woman.”
I wonder how the ADL would react to news about people openly saying they would not shake the hand of a Jew on religious/ideological grounds.
Good point!
Yeah, think they’d be offended if someone refused to shake an offered hand at a business meeting, saying “I don’t touch Jews.” That would be clear anti-Jewish bigotry. Just the way doing the same thing to women *should be* considered clear anti-woman bigotry.
As Lesli has already said (here:https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/guest-post-why-is-it-okay-to-discriminate-against-women-for-religious-reasons/?cpage=1#comment-1179148), this is not the typical case of sexism and your comparison doesn’t stand.
In Israel, this is common and I avoid offering a hand for shaking to religious women to avoid the issue. It always embarrasses me to shake hands with everybody but the religious women in a group, but so far this has worked well.
“As Lesli has already said… this is not the typical case of sexism and your comparison doesn’t stand.”
Yes, I saw that post:
“As far as I know, a Chasidic woman won’t shake hands with a man, either, so it isn’t exactly classical sexism.”
And it does add some nuance and makes my analogy less on point, but it doesn’t invalidate it. Religious man may say that he doesn’t touch women, or look in their direction, because he must remain pure. A racist bigot who wont shake hands with a Jew can say the same thing, that it is about “purity”.
And, of course, even if both sexes refuse to shake hands of the opposite sex, it is still *sexism*, treating people differently in the workplace. Nor do you dispute that a man who does not shake hands with women because of religion may also not *do business with women*, either. And that you can’t palm off as some sort of equal opportunity sexism.
There is no problem for problem who observe this rule to do business with women.
There is really nothing about equal opportunity of here.
In Brazil, it’s common to kiss people you hardly know. My wife is Brazilian and when we meet with her friends, I don’t kiss men. Is this sexist too?
For me, not shaking hands isn’t even impolite.
It sounds to me like things are a bit different here in the States than in either Israel or Brazil.
So, if the person who won’t shake hands with Jews will do business with them, that makes it all right?
I didn’t say that. I merely rejected the attempt to make this an equal opportunity issue.
Is the prayer: “Blessed are you, Lord our God, Ruler of the Universe, who has not made me a woman.” a classic or not classic case of sexism?
Of course it is.
It’s not nearly the worst case of racism in Judaism, and I am not suggesting that Judaism is feminist. I am just saying not touching the other sex, while possibly encourages sexism, isn’t sexist in itself.
I agree. No matter what the apologists’ responses are, there is no reason not to be hurt, insulted, embarrassed or outraged in either scenario (pick the feeling that would apply to you in the situation).
In fact, would anybody feel respected as an individual in such a scenario?
Every human being wants and generally deserves respect.
I bet if this were a power scenario where the woman were in a position of power or influence over the Orthodox Jew , then the Orthodox Jew (as would most any other human being) would move heaven and earth to make sure that he demonstrated respect for the woman facing him.
The fact that this did not seem to happen infers that the male felt himself the woman’s better in that situation.
And that is why the notion of “equal as humans but not equal in authority” as an explanation just does not cut it.
Which is why you shake Ms. Bennett’s hand when she offers it.
Well said!
If someone asked me to change seats on a plane, I would do it if it gave me as good or better a seat (and for me, that is an aisle seat, period — I need to wiggle). The reason for being asked wouldn’t matter much. OTOH, delaying departure because they can’t get a seat that suits them would make me really, really annoyed with that person, and again I don’t care if the issue is religious, discomfort with a middle seat, whatever. It would also make me less likely to give up my seat; it’s hard to accommodate someone you’re mad at.
(If the person is disabled and needs special accommodation, I hope they would have made arrangements to deal with that earlier; however, I can think of situations where someone needs to be on a plane ASAP, so I would be much more willing to change seats in that situation.)
I despise airplane travel. It is uncomfortable, it gives me a horrible headache, and I almost always catch a respiratory virus. I am not obliged to further misery by changing seats to accommodate superstitions, or listen to someone tell me about Jesus, or endure a kid kicking the back of my seat continuously without complaint.
“…it’s hard to accommodate someone you’re mad at.”
😀
Regarding the hand-shaking thing, there are polite ways to avoid shaking hands. Even if you only avoid shaking hands with women, you can explain that with a self-deprecating smile and add “pleased to meet you” or something. It isn’t necessary to be a jerk about it.
When I read the article, I just can’t help thinking of a Phoebe Buffay quote; She should have said, “Didn’t you hear me? I said I’m a man, duh!”
As far as I know, a Chasidic woman won’t shake hands with a man, either, so it isn’t exactly classical sexism.
Do Ultra-Orthodox women not fly? Will they sit next to a man not their husbands?
On a similar note, a woman in hijab got up from the seat next to my husband on a bus and looked for another place to sit (next to a woman, I assume). He didn’t notice–I did. I was across the aisle, sitting with our daughter. Hm.
I think those women are behaving in a sexist way too. They are implying men are all rapists or at least perverts.
I guess that some religious women actually believe this, but many don’t and still avoid touching men, because they accept the religious law.
I don’t think you interpretation is correct, even if this the original reasoning behind this rule (which I doubt).
That’s why I said “implying”. They may not consciously think that but their actions certainly suggest it. I’ve known a few men who have felt pretty insulted at such behaviour and often the reasons given for women wearing burqas is that men are like randy goats so if they don’t encase themselves in cloth, they will be raped.
I don’t know.
It may be a novelty in other countries, but it’s common in Israel. I have many religious women friends and some relatives, who (I hope) know that I won’t rape hem if they shake my hand.
Again, whatever the original reason for this rule was, I don’t think that most religious Jews think about it this way anymore.
I’d be tempted to 5 Why anyone who wouldn’t shake my hand because of religious reasons.
Why won’t you shake my hand?
Because my religion forbids me to shake the hand of a woman
Why does your religion forbid you to shake the hand of a woman?
Because I could be tempted by the woman?
Why would you be tempted by the woman?
Now this answer I’d like to hear!
What kind of ultra-pervert would automatically feel tempted by a woman after simply shaking her hand?
Almost any teenaged boy….
b&
True dat, but these clowns are mostly older and married.
Can one accuse someone of implying something without knowing their intent.
This kind of off loose use of off terms pointing at others supposed intentions are quite a problem for me.
If a man walking behind a woman on a quiet night crosses the street to make her feel more comfortable, is he implying he and probably all men are rapists?
Why don’t you ask that woman? I can guarantee the woman moving away from the man wasn’t doing so to make him feel comfortable but because he was simply a man and men cannot be trusted among women. I wonder how men feel about that when that happens to them.
The reason I say imply is perhaps it isn’t the intent of the person to be a chauvinist but their actions cause that and the best way to figure out how your actions are affecting someone else is to ask them.
That’s a good point Lesli, but I think that in general the women are going to be in those situations much less often then the men. The women, as has been mentioned above, are not likely to be allowed to engage in business; they don’t seem to be flying, or at least nowhere near as much as the men are, etc.
At least in Israel, ultra-orthodox women work in higher rates than men.
Wow, in addition to having a few dozen children, right? 😉
Amazing.
Yeah
It’s sad and funny at the same time.
Yep. The wife of the local Chabad rabbi here has 8 kids (I think–they’re grown) and an Ivy league PhD in psychology.
Does. Not. Compute.
“Do Ultra-Orthodox women not fly? Will they sit next to a man not their husbands?”
Will the wives of Fundamentalist Muslims in, say, Pakistan leave their homes without a male “guardian”?
Not the same at all. Ultra-Orthodox women are often in business. Even politics.
I wanted to submit to your consideration that maybe, just maybe, some of the rules Ultra-Orthodox women follow are not necessarily the expression of their own will, not that the situation of women in Ultra-Orthodox Jewish and Fundamentalist Muslim families is exactly the same.
Ah, ok. I think whenever we talk about these strict, insular groups–Amish, Chasidish, Jehovah’s Witness-ish, Elvish… (wait, strike that last one…)whatever, the whole issue of “free will” is pretty fraught. If you’re raised in a certain society, and know that leaving its strictures will mean social ostracism, how free is your free will? The price is heavy. So I agree–an Ultra-Orthodox woman (with rare exceptions) doesn’t have to worry about honor killing or a face full of acid. But she might lose her family, even her kids. Same with the men, of course. Jews are more equal opportunity that way. (In other words, the strictures apply to both sexes–none of this “she’s in a burqa, he’s in shorts” crap I see all too often.)
I know a woman who left the JWs after 20+ years. People crossed the street to avoid her–and she had no friends left. None. She was shunned. She got over it, but it wasn’t easy.
How many Jewish women were killed on religious grounds? It’s not “not exactly the same”, but a completely different situation.
I agree, though, that their freedom to choose otherwise is questionable. [PLEASE DON’T BRING DETERMINISM INTO THIS DISCUSSION 🙂 ]
Just about the politics bit, I am not sure… At best, they are seriously underrepresented. The extremely few ultra-orthodox politically active women are the exception, and their community typically view this negatively.
That’s perfectly reasonable to me, because it didn’t put anyone else out. Likewise, if we imagine that the plane is half-full, I doubt anyone would have a problem with an Orthodox fellow just getting up and moving to an empty row, no explanation given. Wouldn’t we all move if there was an empty row?
The issue really comes up when (a) the person specifically calls out some form of discrimination as their reason for doing something, and (b) discomfits other people to get their way.
I guess the (a) problem makes it somewhat analogous to a business’ freedom to serve, hire, and fire people: yes, you can refuse service (to hire etc.) for a lot of reasons and even for vague reasons. But if you do give an explicit reason, “because they’re a woman,” “because they’re black,” “because they’re old” and so on is not going to stand.
I find it interesting, and perhaps uplifting, that nobody suggested poking him in the chest with a delicate forefinger.
I think giving him a kiss might have been an appropriate response. Maybe a hug & a kiss. Tempt him. Test him to the breaking limit. I bet Sarah Silverman would do it.
Perhaps what is needed is a reality TV show where they set up confrontations between Orthodox Jewish men and “inapropriately clothed” female actors just to see how they react.
I like Sarah Silverman, but if I saw an Orthodox man sitting next to her, I might just give him my seat out of pity.* She’d have no mercy on the poor dude, he wouldn’t know what hit him. By the time the plane landed, he’d be a puddle.
*And because then I get to sit next to Sarah Silverman.
Is there really any meaningful difference between “I don’t touch women.” and “I don’t touch Jews?”
No matter how the apologists for the religion try to explain it to make it somehow OK in a context of diversity, it seems that if one is to take umbrage at the latter statement, then they must take umbrage at the former to be consistent.
Great essay, Diane. Many thanks.
Late to the party, too much to do for more than skimming the comments which have already made the points I’d make.
“I don’t shake hands” is fine. As soon as you add “with ____,” regardless of what goes in the blank, that’s a problem. And, if you’re not shaking hands “with ____,” you better not shake hands with anybody.
That’d extend even to people with dirty hands, with the lone exception being something like suspected Ebola or similar contamination. I’ll offer to shake hands with a car mechanic if he’s not wearing gloves, regardless of the grime on them. I can’t be above getting my hands dirty from his if his are dirty on my behalf, and it only takes a moment to wipe / wash / whatever.
b&
If I were one of Ms. Bennett’s colleagues, and I saw that happen (he wouldn’t shake hands with her), I would refuse to shake hands with him and tell him why.
In the airplane case, if I were asked (by a flight attendant) to move and it didn’t separate me from my family and wasn’t a down-grade in seating, I’d do it. Make life easier for the woman and the cabin crew. Forget about the idiot, I would want to help out the woman and the crew.
I have moved seats for many reasons, usually to help families sit together.
I’m a really large guy. I try to not impose on my neighbors (in the plane).
Several years ago I’ve had an experience similar to the one Amanda Bennett had. In my case it was a salafi muslim. This group has similar ideas when it comes to touching women outside their family. The most hardcore of them will even refuse to shake hands with non-muslim men, or they use the left hand, which can be interpreted as a veiled insult.
In my case the guy was a coworker, he refused to shake hands with any female. I thought it was really disrespectful and it made me feel very uncomfortable. He didn’t last long, though. Our boss was female and getting told what to do by a woman resulting in some interesting fireworks.
I still don’t get it, despite a (real) university education, he still clung to these silly religious rules.
Hand shaking is no big deal, Hitler shook Chamberlains hand and look where that got us.
I’m disturbed that this extremist non hand shaker thinks this has some fucking meaning that’s going to change the world,
rant over, now for fun,
If a male is in mixed company with deluded hyper-Orthodox Jews they should also refrain from shaking their hands and greet all women the way the European do, a kiss, not once but twice or thrice, perhaps on the back of the hand for good measure and make a complete farce of the whole sorry carry on.
Diane, just tell him what a wanker he is. And you’ll be theologically right. And quite possibly, literally.
Leviticus 15:2 and 15:9-10 ‘When any man has an unusual bodily discharge, such a discharge is unclean…Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening…’
Would you want to shake hands with a man who’s been choking Kojak?
Thank your lucky stars that this liberal ultra-Orthodox isn’t chucking shit all over you, you young hussy.
2 Kings 9:37 ‘And the corpse of Jezebel shall be as dung on the face of the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, This is Jezebel.’
God told them to launch a few floaters at some poor, traumatized Israeli schoolgirls, as explained in this BBC story from 4 years ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15237018
Can it get any stupider? (Don’t answer that.)
Choking Kojak..just when I think I’ve heard it all… 😀
I recall concluding (from Sunday school) that Leviticus was some dirty old man with an obsession about perversions and diseases and everything that was nasty.
I’m astonished at the missing-the-pointness indicated by the phrase “Amanda Bennett’s desire to shake hands.”
I presume it’s not that Amanda Bennett badly wanted the experience of a handshake and is miffed at being denied one – as though she’s some weirdo who hangs around in hotel foyers at conference time in order to pick up stray handshakes. Obviously it’s the discrimination that’s the problem.
Perhaps everyone could see it more clearly if you imagine that the religious zealot had refused to shake her hand and then, seconds later, a male offered his hand and it was accepted. How could this be anything other than gratuitously insulting?
Incidentally – I went through a period of avoiding handshakes altogether when I managed to injure my right wrist and left third metacarpal within the same week. I had an unimpeachable reason, but it’s still strangely embarrassing.
Thank you for articulating that distinction so clearly. That’s what I meant to say as well, complete with the example of watching male hands being shaken subsequently.
Not very long ago I met a young man at a business function. “Hello, I’m Amanda,” I said, sticking out my hand in greeting. He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch women,” he said.
—
Sorry, but “fuck you” would be the most appropriate response at this point.
Hmpf.
Another good one would be, “you know my name is a Laton gerund. It means, loosely translated, ‘worthy of being loved’. You are refusing me my love! You are an abomination!”
Latin gerund. My iPad has been messing with me all day.
iPo, iPas, iPad, …
/@
My favourite fake Latin conjgation is of YOLO
yolo
yolas
yolat
yoamus
yolatis
yolant
My dad’s was wheelbarro, wheelbarras, wheelbarrat, …
/@
Oh, the perks of being a Classicist! ;D
If determinism is the name of the game, such that we ought not hold murderers morally responsible then, surely this orthodox guy could not have acted otherwise either, as Jerry says,
“for, like the rest of us, their actions were determined completely by their genes and environment, and at no point, were the tape of life rewound, could they have behaved otherwise”.
So this guy can not be held ‘morally’ responsible.
But, such behaviour still needs to be assessed and evaluated and appropriate consequences determined. We just need to ease up on the moral consternation.
We can change though, if we listen to and respond to inputs. Although I am still struggling to come up with a coherent sufficient understanding of determinism and the possibility of change.
One of the problems with these fundamentalist and orthodox types is that they deliberately restrict their inputs so they can’t readily change.
What can we do?
In my opinion it is essential to rid the world of superstitious magical traditional thinking. This is the main barrier to reasonableness.
So, stick to the evidence based reality message and limit tolerance and respect for religious traditions.
And, hopefully the message will finally come around and people will at least try and think independently on how to behave well.
But, as it stands, he could not have acted otherwise.
But, they, and others need to hear that they are wrong.
As often as it takes.
When you hear someone say something potentially discriminatory to a woman and want to know if it was real discrimination or a sincere religious conviction, just imagine he/she replaced the word “women” with “black people” or “Jewish people”.
“I don’t touch black people.”
“I’m so sorry dear sir, but my religion forbids me from shaking the hands of Jewish people. Respectfully, of course.”.
So why do those obviously bigoted sentences become sincere expressions religious belief when you replace “black people” and “Jewish people” with “women?”
yes! “sincere religious discrimination.”
I have no doubt that in many cases the bigotry is a sincere expression of religious belief. That is precisely the problem.
I frequently avoid shaking hands because I find it excessively formal. Like, I almost never initiate a handshake unless I’ve just been formally introduced to someone.
(Ever got caught in one of those handshakes where neither person wants to be the first one to break it off, so it gets longer and longer and more embarrassing?)
But if someone offers to shake with me, I’d usually respond. Unless my hands are oily or something (which they often are) in which case I wave my hand and say ‘sorry’.
If it’s against someone’s religion they should decline politely. I wouldn’t take offense at that. But not refuse abruptly.
And finally, “I walk just behind my husband so if someone throws something-it hits him first.” Sad. It brings to mind a joke about Afghanistan. A reporter noticed that women, instead of walking behind their husbands as in days gone by, were now walking in front. Thinking this must be a sign of new social enlightenment, he asked an Afghan colleague for confirmation of why women now walked in front. And the Afghan just said “Landmines”.
If handshaking is against someone’s religion, that is one thing. If someone’s religion requires that women are lower status than men, and that for that reason men should not, among other things, shake hands with women, that is quite something else. It isn’t about the handshake itself. The refusal to shake hands with women is but one symptom of a much larger, hugely damaging and unjust, issue that should be confronted as often as possible.
Depends on the context. I’m not able to judge where someone is coming from on first meeting (and even if I had been told their exact background – which might include for example a religious denomination – I probably wouldn’t have sufficient knowledge to judge anyway. So they’re from the ‘Reformed schismatic universal life church’ – how would I know what their policies are?)
So if they’re polite, I’ll take it that way. I’m not going to ‘confront issues’ they haven’t raised, certainly not on first meeting. That’d be me initiating the rudeness and usually one ends up regretting that and feeling like a prat.
“Landmines” – that one was being told during Viet Nam.
I’m not surprised.
“The woman has never, biblically, been considered inferior to the man; just at a different rank. It is the same as saying that a colonel is no more or less valuable as a person than a major; he simply has greater authority.”
Are you sure that’s not a conservative Southern Baptist quote? 😉
To me there is a simple test that would solve the question: would the defenders of these “religious freedom” find it acceptable to hear “I don’t shake hands with(or sit nearby, or accept seeing parts of the body of)” judes (or cristinas, muslims…)? If not, they must accept that what they call “religious freedom” is in fact the right to brainwash their children into discriminating against women.
That said, I must also point out that I find it sexist to blame patriarchalism only (or primarily) on men. Although they are the favoured group, many women are tremendously vocal (and active) in defending all these forms of discrimination – and “educating” their children into them. You may argue that they have been brainwashed – but so have been men. Unless we realized this, we will never be able to address the problem effectively.
Coming late to this discussion, just wanted to say that in olden days (back in the 1900’s), it was bad form for a man to offer to shake a woman’s hand – a gent was supposed to wait for the woman to offer her hand first. It certainly offended me when a man grabbed my hand and pumped it without my consent. Once a lady offered her hand in introduction, as Ms. Bennett did, the gent could politely accept and shake or squeeze it gently. The response she got to this friendly (and these days, normal) overture was rude, obnoxious and inexcusable (I could go on) in any setting, but especially so at a social gathering.
This is fantastic. What delusional world do these people live in? It’s utterly amazing how many logical problems there are in that one phrase:
1) The OBVIOUS: Where on Earth is it an imminent risk that someone will throw something at you? I’d bet good money that the odds of tripping on the curb and injuring yourself are orders of magnitude greater.
2) Not all hurled items take on a straight trajectory, suppose the item clears the husband’s head and on a downward arc strikes the wife unconscious due to her blocked view?
3) Suppose someone throws an object from behind them where she will be first in line to be struck?
4) Replace “behind” in 3) with “the left” or “the right.”
5) Did this woman marry a man lacking in normal reflexes to dodge an item hurtling at his head? What he ducks and it hits her?
6) It is considered good for the man to be struck by an object leaving the woman open to attack?
7) It “hits him first.” So, it still hits her, only after he’s absorbed the blow? What kind of object are we talking about here? Anything big enough to hit them both seems a safe bet to also do serious damage to both. Maybe if there’s risk factors like these in their neighborhood, it’s best for everyone to stay inside.
Anything I’ve missed here?
You’re taking it way too literally and stretching it way too far. Replace ‘thrown’ with ‘landmines’ as in the joke I quoted and it would make perfect sense.
But either way, it surely applies only in 1% of the world. It probably applied more often in primitive days in certain desert countries.
I can see that in certain – tricky – situations it makes sense for the most capable person – who is commonly the man** (stronger, better-armed, yadda yadda) – to go in front and suss out the lie of the land. That’s a commonsense reaction to a specific set of circumstances. It makes no sense to try and make a general rule out of it.
** Wild generalisation, I know, with many exceptions.
I’m going to venture a guess that the commenter does not live in an area where landmines or grenades are a huge risk. I think my point still stands even if the object is a landmine. But I’ll have to disagree that I’m taking this too literally…did the woman mean this metaphorically? If so, what’s the meta for? 🙂
I think the woman’s attempted justification was rather silly, (or as you said, delusional) so trying to refute it in detail was giving it a gravity it didn’t deserve. But I don’t want to make too much of it.
Oh, I see what you mean now. Maybe my initial post was unclear in my intent, which was to show how many levels of crazy just one phrase in her overall statement was. Certainly not all my points are needed to refute it. I was more amazed at the number of mental hurdles that need to be cleared for it to make any sense at all.
LOL, perfect! 😀
I had to include that comment, though I felt sorry for the commenter, just to find out if anyone else’s jaw dropped when they got to the end of her post.
I’m pretty sure even June Cleaver didn’t walk behind Ward.