babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Iraqi PM doesn't shake hands

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Iraqi PM doesn't shake hands
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 23 June 2005 06:14 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I post this to enquire whether this bothers feminists politically. My dislike for Ms. Rice notwithstanding, I call it rude (at best), regardless of the cultural norms at issue.

But anyway:

quote:
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Photographers didn't have much luck getting pictures of Iraq's prime minister [Ibrahim al-Jaafari] shaking hands with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, even though the United States was co-hosting an international conference on rebuilding Iraq.

...

However, al-Jaafari -- a conservative Shiite cleric -- is rarely seen shaking hands with women. Islam calls for separation between the sexes, and many Muslim males who strictly adhere to the Islamic faith do not shake hand with females.

One photo shows EU External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner offering her hand to al-Jaafari -- and the Iraqi prime minister smiling, but with his arms firmly at his side.


Link (NYT)


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 23 June 2005 07:23 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd offer to shake her hand, just to get close enough to slap the cuffs on her...
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 June 2005 07:29 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An Algerian co-worker once told me that a certain hand for Muslims is kept clean always because the other one is used for tasks that are not clean. I think they always wipe their bums with the left hand and eat with the right one or some such. Maybe shaking hands is a cultural conflict for the fundies of them.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2005 07:54 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Chassidim in Mile End and Outremont, just south of here, don't allow physical contact with women who are not in their immediate family either. I have noticed shop clerks carefully placing change on the counter so Chassidic men could pick it up without risking contact with a female.

An irreligious Jewish lady I know of more than a certain age (her daughter is almost my age) chides an ultra-Orthodox cousin of her who won't shake her hand or give her une bise, saying out loud she doesn't have her period any more, she can't sully him...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 23 June 2005 08:10 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lagatta—

I just wonder if their scrupulous attention to religious "proprieties" would extend to refusing help if they were having a heart attack on the street and the only person around was a female ER nurse...

Jerks.

[ 23 June 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2005 08:15 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, Heph, I think most fundamentalist religious people have loopholes around that kind of thing ...

However (putting aside what we think of Rice) why should Western cultural norms prevail in other countries? East Asians didn't shake hands either, they bowed.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 June 2005 08:27 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree, lagatta, although I think there is a mixture of barriers here -- sometimes we're just looking at different cultural norms, but some cultures, as we know, still reject our notions, anyone's notions, of women's full equality, especially in public roles.

Still, I can't abide the ethnocentric sneer I detect in the prose of a male reporter for the NYTimes as he makes his kind of issue out of the problem.

There are intelligent ways of negotiating these barriers. The proven one, I think, is to turn to independent women or women's groups in the countries or cultures concerned and to ask them to take the lead or to advise. It was horribly offensive, eg, for privileged Western women like Laura Bush and Cherie Blair to imply that they (and their warlike husbands, of course) knew best how to liberate the women of Afghanistan, thus usurping the role of the most heroic political Afghan organization bar none, RAWA, which was opposed to the American invasion -- and, of course, of Afghan women themselves.

Liberation isn't imposed from the top, by condescending foreigners, certainly not by Condoleezza Rice or the NY Times.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 23 June 2005 08:29 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
However (putting aside what we think of Rice) why should Western cultural norms prevail in other countries? East Asians didn't shake hands either, they bowed.

Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of the holier-than-thou types right here in Canada who so assiduously avoid making contact with a female (but who still want their change, damn it!)

It's time some of these religious people (of *all* stripes) grew the hell up!


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 23 June 2005 08:30 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm probably going to misspeak myself but...

My understanding of Judaism and Islam is that it's not the transgression so much as forgetting of the norm that's frowned upon.

So if you're starving, eat the salted pork and apologize to Allah afterwards. If the woman is dying in the street, it's a greater evil to stand by and do nothing than touch her to carry her to safety. Not being able to pray at the appropriate times is not so bad as completely forgetting to pray.

Someone correct me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick here, please.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 June 2005 08:33 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ya, I'm not bothered by the shaking hands ritual. If I were alone and choking on a joint of beef or a New York pretzel or something, then I'd like for anyone to make with the Limerick Shavenheimer manouver.... or whatever it's called. And I don't care if the person is Acidic or Purrsian.[/Archie Bunker]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 June 2005 08:48 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, it can be a bit more of a challenge than that, though.

Take the case of, say, career diplomats in Canada, or skilled medical workers for an NGO. What if it is the turn of a highly qualified woman in either of those situations to be posted to a country where the local authority says, "Oh, no. We don't accept credentials from women. We don't meet with women. We don't negotiate with women." Or some variation on that theme.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 June 2005 11:53 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the case of some countries, we provide some aid. It might be worth reminding them that pretty much all money in Canada gets touched by a woman at some time or another. We should ask if maybe they'd rather we stopped sending such defiled money.
From: ĝ¤°`°¤ĝ,¸_¸,ĝ¤°`°¤ĝ,¸_¸,ĝ¤°°¤ĝ,¸_¸,ĝ¤°°¤ĝ, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 23 June 2005 07:24 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Never mind about religion.
No person in hir own house, and no citizen of a sovereign nation on hir own soil, owes you an explanation for the way they do things. Not even if they owe you money; not even if (looong stretch of imagination required) the aid you send them outweighs the benefits you have enjoyed at their expense.

If you send a (*ahem*) diplomat to another country, that diplomat should speak the language, be able to pronounce the names correctly, be familiar with the culture and abide by the rules.

If somebody comes to your country, you should try to make them as comfortable as possible, without violating your own laws and mores.

It's the polite thing to do.

(But then, USians don't seem to realize that not all countries are theirs... or that etiquette exists.)

I thought some more about it. Iraq is not a sovereign nation, but a recently conquered one. Okay, then, all Iraqui officials can be forced to shake or kiss Condi's hand, or genuflect, or kow-tow, or whatever the conquerors consider appropriate. In which case, both the required obeisance and the consequences of refusal should be made clear before the meeting.

[ 23 June 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca