The Etiquette of the Victorian Handshake: Advice on Opposite Sex Greetings(mimimatthews.com)
mimimatthews.com
The Etiquette of the Victorian Handshake: Advice on Opposite Sex Greetings
https://www.mimimatthews.com/2017/09/05/the-etiquette-of-the-victorian-handshake-advice-on-opposite-sex-greetings/
61 comments
> In general, handshakes between men and women could only be initiated by the lady.
Still the custom in the certain Muslim counties, you'll never get it wrong if you wait for the woman to offer.
Still the custom in the certain Muslim counties, you'll never get it wrong if you wait for the woman to offer.
Isn't one of the reasons for handshakes thought to be to show that one isn't carrying a weapon? Since women aren't expected under most circumstances to go about armed, they have less reason to shake.
I think, as modern humans, we try to retrofit these reasons on to old customs but I have a sense that a handshake is simply the most convenient expression to signify to a person that you have an inherent respect for them or recognise their value.
[deleted]
The handshake is definitely one of the strangest social customs that exist. Like a stupid word which reveals its strangeness once you start thinking about it conciously, the handshake seems ridiculous in the moment one questions it.
My understanding is that the gesture began as a kind of pat-down to show that neither party was hiding weapons in their sleeves (think "roman" handshake -- clasped at the forearms), and gradually evolved to what we have now.
Similarly, I heard that clinking glasses originally came from the host pouring some of their drink into your cup (and vice versa), thereby mixing the drinks and proving that neither cup was poisoned. Eventually this evolved into the symbolic tap we do now.
Similarly, I heard that clinking glasses originally came from the host pouring some of their drink into your cup (and vice versa), thereby mixing the drinks and proving that neither cup was poisoned. Eventually this evolved into the symbolic tap we do now.
How is it strange? (I don't find it odd at all)
I'm used to handshakes for non blood related males (friends, business contacts) and kisses in the cheeks for relatives and females.
In Anglo-Saxon and Germanic countries women default to the handshake even outside of business settings. I find it odd and still have difficulties adjusting to that.
In Anglo-Saxon and Germanic countries women default to the handshake even outside of business settings. I find it odd and still have difficulties adjusting to that.
Hehe as someone from Germany living in Sweden, I find this constant cheek kissing with quasi strangers in Southern or Western Europe or the Spanish speaking world pretty akward. But I understand that it's feels normal to most who grew up with it.
It's strange because it's unhygenic but a strong "social lock in" makes it essentially impossible to abstain without sending the signal of being socially awkward.
As a social construct, there'd be no need for going through the procedure, yet everyone basically has to go through it because everyone else does.
Considering that there are plenty of cultures in which handshakes are not commom (like in many Asian countries), there doesn't seem to be any good justification why it's done elsewhere, other than "custom". But not every custom actually is reasonable.
As a social construct, there'd be no need for going through the procedure, yet everyone basically has to go through it because everyone else does.
Considering that there are plenty of cultures in which handshakes are not commom (like in many Asian countries), there doesn't seem to be any good justification why it's done elsewhere, other than "custom". But not every custom actually is reasonable.
Not that unhygienic and also a pretty straight forward way to dedicate the presence toward another person.
Obviously it's a custom, but I don't see how it is a weird one.
Obviously it's a custom, but I don't see how it is a weird one.
I'd say there's certainly much odder customs than that.
Touching someone is an intimate act between two people. A handshake is a gesture at the least intimate end of that scale. It's a way of mutually saying "we are no longer complete strangers, we are two people who know each other well enough to actually touch each other... but not too much".
Touching someone is an intimate act between two people. A handshake is a gesture at the least intimate end of that scale. It's a way of mutually saying "we are no longer complete strangers, we are two people who know each other well enough to actually touch each other... but not too much".
One could argue that it's extremely intimate considering how people use their hands for anything. If the guy whose hand your shaking didn't wash his hands after the restroom, how is that not intimate? :)
I actually prefer hugging over handshakes due to my personal perception of it as less intimate.
I actually prefer hugging over handshakes due to my personal perception of it as less intimate.
You have to admit that your perception of hugs as less intimate than handshakes is not held by the general public.
I do. But I also have to admit that the general public not always shows the best reasoning :P
From an hygienic point of view at least, I'd find it possible to argue that hugging is less "intimate" than a handshake.
Most people's subjective perception might be different of course. But it seems a lot is about customs and having "grown into" a certain procedure.
From an hygienic point of view at least, I'd find it possible to argue that hugging is less "intimate" than a handshake.
Most people's subjective perception might be different of course. But it seems a lot is about customs and having "grown into" a certain procedure.
> I do. But I also have to admit that the general public not always shows the best reasoning :P
Nor the worst.
> From an hygienic point of view at least, I'd find it possible to argue that hugging is less "intimate" than a handshake.
> Most people's subjective perception might be different of course.
Yes it is different and I'll explain why: if a male and female hug each other, her breast will touch (via clothes) his chest. Especially if she has large breast. This can regularly lead to her getting hard nipples, and it might cause a chain reaction (ie. she figures she fancies him or might fancy him). Males know this (tho very young males might not). How's that not more intimate than shaking hands?
Another reason why hugging is intimate is that whilst hugging (feeling each other's body) you don't see each other at that point, and you don't see each other's arms or hands.
Yet another reason is, its traditionally part of foreplay for sex.
The problem of hygiene as you mentioned is partially solved by washing your hands before dinner.
As for hygiene, as a general note, you might wanna check your keyboard and touchscreens for bacteria. Tho neither existed in the Victorian era.
Nor the worst.
> From an hygienic point of view at least, I'd find it possible to argue that hugging is less "intimate" than a handshake.
> Most people's subjective perception might be different of course.
Yes it is different and I'll explain why: if a male and female hug each other, her breast will touch (via clothes) his chest. Especially if she has large breast. This can regularly lead to her getting hard nipples, and it might cause a chain reaction (ie. she figures she fancies him or might fancy him). Males know this (tho very young males might not). How's that not more intimate than shaking hands?
Another reason why hugging is intimate is that whilst hugging (feeling each other's body) you don't see each other at that point, and you don't see each other's arms or hands.
Yet another reason is, its traditionally part of foreplay for sex.
The problem of hygiene as you mentioned is partially solved by washing your hands before dinner.
As for hygiene, as a general note, you might wanna check your keyboard and touchscreens for bacteria. Tho neither existed in the Victorian era.
Don't people think this is sexist? If men and women are equal shouldn't they be treated the same in all situations?
I didn't interpret the intent as being that we should adopt Victorian-era customs today; it seems like it's just a glimpse into the customs of the past.
(And really interesting in that regard, though I wouldn't want to have to deal with all these arbitrary rules!)
(And really interesting in that regard, though I wouldn't want to have to deal with all these arbitrary rules!)
Why does equality require a loss of chivalry? Equality does not mean we pretend people are completely uniform.
Chivarly is profoundly sexist - not by chance but by design. It's entirely based on gender roles.
Perhaps you are thinking "politeness", which is meant to be applied equally depending on other people gender, age, wealth...
Perhaps you are thinking "politeness", which is meant to be applied equally depending on other people gender, age, wealth...
No, but doesn't equality mean that we treat everyone in the same way, regardless of gender, for one thing?
People aren't equal though. Coming from Russia, the West is really confused about what it wants.
It seems to want chivalry plus equality minus morality. This desire is represented by factions who seem to work together on some level. The end result is a mess.
It seems to want chivalry plus equality minus morality. This desire is represented by factions who seem to work together on some level. The end result is a mess.
A mess the end result of which is that people here touch far more rarely than they did in Victorian times. Yet we know that rarely being touched in childhood is a strong risk factor for promiscuity later on.
As for equality, women are far more at risk from sexual predation and assault; I don't think it's rude to let social customs reflect this by having them initiate touch, largely.
As for equality, women are far more at risk from sexual predation and assault; I don't think it's rude to let social customs reflect this by having them initiate touch, largely.
Risk factor for promiscuity. Is promiscuity a bad thing?
As long as you take proper precautions, it seems like sex is a good thing.
I like it, anyway
As long as you take proper precautions, it seems like sex is a good thing.
I like it, anyway
At a young age, yeah, it correlates with quite bad outcomes.
Democracy is messy, slow and complicated because it's build upon compromises between different factions. A lot of things in the west are more of a mess than they are in Russia, but there is a reason immigration streams one way.
What is that reason? Seems there is a lot of money in the US, isn't that it?
Go to JFK international arrivals and ask immigrants why did they come.
I guarantee you would get hundreds of reasons not just one.
Although they are probably gonna be "simple" reasons.
Maybe something like having the right to waive the Rainbow Flag in front of the Whitehouse in case of Russian immigrants.
I guarantee you would get hundreds of reasons not just one.
Although they are probably gonna be "simple" reasons.
Maybe something like having the right to waive the Rainbow Flag in front of the Whitehouse in case of Russian immigrants.
How many of those reasons are one of "something money can fix" or "something getting a European visa can fix".
Equality in modern colloquial context (esp. regarding social strata) means equal "especially in status, rights, and opportunities". It really means fair treatment, not equal treatment. Another side effect of people using the wrong language and sticking with it.
Treating people different based on their gender(or race) is kind of the definition of descrimination. That said, equality shouldn't mean a loss of civility, politeness, or hell even being romantic. It also doesn't mean treating everyone uniformly. Once you get to know some one or grow closer with them and learn their likes and dislikes, obviously you'll treat them differently. However when you don't know them well you shouldn't default to method A for men and method B for women.
> Treating people different based on their gender(or race) is kind of the definition of descrimination.
Not really, it's also supposed to be unjust or harmful.
Not really, it's also supposed to be unjust or harmful.
Gender based etiquette is based on an idea of a weak and feeble minded gender.
Can you see how that alone is harmful in some contexts?
Can you see how that alone is harmful in some contexts?
It is based on two ideas: that one is weak and infirm and the other is strong and healthy.
Attributing strength and health to gender identity carries with is all kind of problems for everyone involved.
Attributing strength and health to gender identity carries with is all kind of problems for everyone involved.
A lot of the chivalry seems to be just doing mundane things for women or treating them differently (opening doors, scooting out chairs, shaking hands differently). Women can do these things literally just as well so it's not like most of the "chivalry" we are losing is due to real differences between genders. I still get things off of high shelves or open pickle jars for my girlfriend but those are based on practical differences (she is tiny and I have great grip strength)
Um, you just contradicted yourself.
Sorry for being unclear. My point to was that the vast majority of "chivalry" is in no way rooted in real physiological differences while trying to also highlight some small exceptions. Chivalry is mostly crap but also that you shouldn't avoid helping them (or anyone) when it makes sense. You shouldn't treat women any differently than anyone else who is in a similar situation (I do jujitsu so I have good grip strength and have helped both male and female friends open pickle jars as a weird example).
EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it's not your gender or ethnicity that makes you treat someone a different way, it's who they are as an individual. I think that the idea of "chivalry" runs generally counter to this.
EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it's not your gender or ethnicity that makes you treat someone a different way, it's who they are as an individual. I think that the idea of "chivalry" runs generally counter to this.
My biggest question is why you and yours consume so many pickles that you have established protocols for opening the jars.
Spoken like someone who truly does not hold a high enough appreciation for a good pickle.
Not really. I'm female and hate most of the "chivalry" stuff, because it treats me like I can't do things like open doors or pull out my own freaking chair.
Reaching high boxes or opening jars is different. I'd do the same for a short old man as a woman, and I assume most men would do the same. It is no longer about sex, but about differences in people's strength and height. Gender doesn't matter as much, just ability.
Just like I'll hold the door for someone going through right after me instead of allowing it to slam in their face, or hold it longer for someone who's hands are full. I don't wait for elderly folks, though, since most folks are capable of opening doors.
Reaching high boxes or opening jars is different. I'd do the same for a short old man as a woman, and I assume most men would do the same. It is no longer about sex, but about differences in people's strength and height. Gender doesn't matter as much, just ability.
Just like I'll hold the door for someone going through right after me instead of allowing it to slam in their face, or hold it longer for someone who's hands are full. I don't wait for elderly folks, though, since most folks are capable of opening doors.
Putting a urinal in a men's restroom and not in a women's restroom is not sexist, even though they are being treated differently based on sex, because there is no prejudice or unfair discrimination going on.
The handshake rules are not necessarily prejudicial or unfairly discriminatory. Some of them might be, some of them might not. It's best to think of sexism, and other isms, as a spectrum, and not hard and fast rules.
The handshake rules are not necessarily prejudicial or unfairly discriminatory. Some of them might be, some of them might not. It's best to think of sexism, and other isms, as a spectrum, and not hard and fast rules.
I tend to hold the door open for people (male or female) if they are following close behind, or if I'm exiting just as they are entering. It's a subconscious thing that I don't think about before doing it.
Occasionally, I get a sneer from women. I assume it's an assumption on their part that I'm being sexist.
Occasionally, I get a sneer from women. I assume it's an assumption on their part that I'm being sexist.
If you were being sexist, you wouldn't be holding the door after you, you'd be opening it for them to go first.
That is what I do in the situation where someone is following close behind. Again, reflexive, not conscious...would be hard for me to change it. To be fair, I don't really know the reason for the occasional sneer. But it is almost never a male sneering.
Victorian era was sexist.
Hugs are more hygenic than handshakes. Hug greeting for the 21C!
Simpler one with _zero_ contact!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste
Fist bumps > handshakes https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fist-bump-better-handsha...
I'm not sure if I can find a direct citation, but Penn & Teller have said that rubbing butts is more sanitary than shaking hands, and that they'd be happy for fans to greet them that way.
If you shake hands with an unsanitary person you can easily sanitise your hand. If you hug an unsanitary person you'll need a shower and a change of clothes.
Plus there's the smell...
Plus there's the smell...
[deleted]
The author of this article writes Victorian romance fiction. It is not to be taken as advice for the modern reader. Unless you are a Steampunk cosplayer, or some sort of Neo-Victorian as appearing in The Diamond Age
(ICO starting now, invest unless you want to risk being isolated for the rest of your life. In fact, also invest to safely opt out.)