But it's not sexist it's her choice who she does and doesn't touch and she chose not to touch him,
A compromise is also a mature thing to do at the end of the day it doesn't matter she doesn't need to shake hands to do her job
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Swedish muslim woman who refuses to shake hands in job interview wins case
- Thread starter Thisman
- Start date
A compromise is also a mature thing to do at the end of the day it doesn't matter she doesn't need to shake hands to do her job
As stated very eloquently by Nivash in his post, greetings in Sweden are serious business. Not shaking someone's hand is very disrespectful. I will feel very awkward if she does her gesture and I do nothing. It's not how Swedes do it.
I mean, this is blatantly wrong. The concept of avoiding or even prohibiting skin contact between sexes as a religious concept is a huge problem for people, and not without reason, I'd argue.
She could be Jewish or any other religion (or even not religion) with similar views, the problem would remain.
Yup.
Most of these cases ends up with the one refusing to shake hands being reprimanded.
The thing that made this unique was probably that she was refused the job interview chance altogether. Should have still just taken the hand, shook it and been done with it.
Her faith is supposedly the reason that causes her to think/behave like she is so it's very convenient for you that gets summed up as "I'm not interested in talking about it".
At the end of the day, her faith is her own, but her actions and thoughts outside of her own head/her own home get faced with the same scrutiny, debate and potentially consequence everyone's do. Whenever your faith isn't "private" anymore and affects others or affects your behaviour around others it may be discussed. There may also be consequences.
It becomes a sexist act once she announced that it's root was cultural sexism. Just like if someone else refused to shake everyone's hands, but then announced it was to avoid touching Asian people. Now it's a racist act since they announced the intention.
This isn't about shaking hands, it's about the underlying views of men and women, of gender equality. We don't think it's ok for a man to consider a woman his property here in Sweden, and this is really just another aspect of that.
But her choice is only informed by gender. Like RoadHazard said, if someone chooses to not touch brown people, but as a compromise decides to not touch anyone, does it make the reasoning less racist?
You want me to discuss her faith but the topic is about how she won a case against an employer because they refused to accept that she doesn't allow anyone to touch her.
Her holding her hand over her heart is not subjecting anyone to sexism.
So you have issue that she openly made mention of her faith, and she not said anything, it would cease being sexism as you've defined it?
And she was prompted to give a reason, not that anyone deserves a reason to not being touched.
If it was about people of different skin color, would it not be racist? If it would, how is this not sexist?
Again has no effect on the job
But that's not what's happening in the thread
Yet you want to force her to shake your hand? The irony is astounding
Again her choice is her choice she isn't hurting anyone nor is she obligated to touch anyone
It's been worded more eloquently than maybe I said it, but see RoadHazard's post above you. As soon as she made it clear her thinking was based on a religious passage of gender inequality, adding to that the initial inequality is "evened" out by opting out of shaking women's hands doesn't paper the cracks in thinking.
That kind of thinking can be used to abuse very easily under the guise of "intolerance equality".
User banned 1 week: False Equalvance and Belittling of civil rights issues
The same people who support that woman would be upset if a baker refuses to make a cake for a same-sex wedding because of his religious belief lol.
Do you not see how counter intuitive it is not to discuss the reasoning behind someones actions? The reason behind someones action is how we decide if it was just or unjust.
But I suspect that's actually the reason you're avoiding it.
Do you feel it is sexist for women to not shake hands with men based on religious reasons?
I feel I have an idea how how you really feel by now and I would rather you just stop wasting everyone's time.
I've already responded to that and I find that completely absurd, had she not made mention of her faith, you would cease to call her act of greeting everyone respectfully with her hand over her heart as sexist?
It absolutely is.
"My religious beliefs forbid me from touching people of the opposite sex, so as a compromise I won't touch anyone."
VS
"My religious beliefs forbid me from touching people with brown skin, so as a compromise I won't touch anyone."
You don't get a free pass just "because religion".
An employer would possibly still ask why someone was behaving like that, but yes, I said earlier if there was a genuine cause for distress most would probably accept it. I'll quote myself
The reasoning someone gives for something most certainly causes opinions to change.
Yes. If the reason is based on sexist religious norms, then the act becomes sexist. I can't say I'm stopping shaking hands with everyone now because my religion says not to touch Mexicans. It becomes racist.
But again it ain't the same because one is real and one is your fantasy land
You must be too young to work because you would know that you don't do what you want in a company.
If your boss says I don't want you to work with a baseball cap on, you don't work with a baseball cap on saying "but it's my choice, I can work with a baseball cap on !!"
There are some rules and social conventions you have to accept when you work, you will discover that soon, I hope.
You touching me and me wearing a cap is totally different don't try me with that lol you done
So again your beef is her religion just admit your bias and say she should shake hands against her will because you don't agree with her views
Again, her reasons, doesn't change she is greeting everyone equally and respectfully.
I already answered in the affirmative but you continuing to repeat an already answered question says a lot to me about you as well.
Also, why do you want me to answer a question that I don't think applies in this case, as she is not just refusing men to touch her.
And it casually slides over the fact that someone has bodily autonomy, regardless of their faith.
So you have an issue with her faith and not any sexist act that occurred here.
Her greeting everyone in the same respectful manner is not sexist. If you find her reasoning to be sexist, that doesn't change the fact that she hasn't commited any act of sexism by not adhering to the social norms of handshaking.
As far as I'm aware most of the main Abrahamic religions don't talk about race too much. Although Jewish people can get it tough from some Conservative Islamic doctrine. Being Jewish is often seen as racial identity.
Better "comparisons" would be homosexuality intolerance, as it has been rife throughout history and still is in the name of religion.
I "satirised" that earlier too
The crux of the issue here is a few of you seem to be happy if sexism is disguised as being intolerant to everyone. So as above, be intolerant to all gay people, and not just gay men.
I absolutely have a beef with sexist aspects of religion, yes. Any decent person should.
Hmmm
This sounds very familiar...oh wait
Yeah good luck with that stance.
The beef only becomes her religion when she uses her religion as the reason to avoid touching everyone. If she had used another reason that wasn't based in an inherent discrimation of a person, then it would be fine.
So you want a situation where 84% of the worlds population are ousted or shunned? And good way to pull that 84% over to liberalism instead of the complete opposite. Sure to work wonders...
But she's not being Intolerant tho she's just not shaking their hands?
But is that really the beef as it's stated some Muslims will shake hands and some will not it is their choice only sexism I see is you telling a woman wgar she has to do with her body
She acted mature and said as to not offend any if my work colleagues I'll do a different greeting in which I show them respect and I respect my religion not once did she actively treat anyone wrong
But that ain't how it works tho
Why are you so eager to compromise with sexist people? Would you do the same with racist and homophones? Would you defend a racist who refused to shake hands with a man because if his skin color if he as a compromise wouldn't shake hands with anyone?
It's a simple question with a simple answer.
Do you feel it is sexist for women to not shake hands with men based on religious reasons?
I think the concept of supernaturally imposed morality and any traditions or even rules and laws should be questioned heavily in any secular society. In this sense, I believe everyone should have "beef" with every religion.
Then you need to also say it's fine for a racist person to not shake hands with everyone because they're avoiding touching Asians. They're technically not committing a racist act by this logic. And if an employer finds out that's why, too bad?
Lmao pathetic, you lot seem to be upset that she won the case is all, regardless of her reason she ain't got to touch you bruh
Again, not only are you showing your bigotry, prejudice, sexism and intolerance (as well as a disdain for the actual law too), but also your ignorance on this specific aspect too. The rule in question applies to both men and women equally.
Ultimately you're coming up with a stupid strawman argument to try and defend your nonsense. It doesn't matter what her reasons are, so long as she isn't hurting or harming anyone, she is allowed control and power over her own body and decisions, and shouldn't be penalised for them, especially when it has no impact on her work. You don't get to dictate what she can and can't do with her own body due to your own bigotry and sexism.
Last edited:
Remind me then, because I don't remember you directly answering the question.
Yes, but your expectations that this can be done 'quickly' and the militant manner in which you express your 'concern' belies a streak of intolerance and really a lack of true interest in seeing it happen. Why the fuck do you think that vehemently inflicting your polished Western perspective on the matter will change anything? You come off as just another righteous ass who so painfully wants the world to understand why you are right.
If you truly had an interest in turning cultures and religious stances, you have to understand and appreciate the full scope of the situation, and the very many gray areas within which people live and exist (and have lived and existed for centuries). Everything begins with conversations and empathy. I'm not saying you have to change your logic or your stance, but you have to appreciate the scope of what it is you're dealing with. You have to make inroads. Attack core problems like education and core male dominator aspects in these cultures that still trod upon women--honestly, why are you hung up with the shaking of fucking hands? There are many things at play here, and you have to pick what will really be effective.
I can guarantee you that this Sam Harris style preaching 'the truth' is not what will change any minds or turn any hearts. You will do much better if you can get yourself into a (genuine) trusted position to empower such people. Doing so will reveal where the true issues really lie, and they are many and complex.
Your hat may be progressive but your words, methods of persuasion, and actions are regressive in that they follow the same pattern of dominator culture BS of the past.
I disagree--at least in terms of how you are implying it. Anyone who thinks objectively or in a secular fashion is obviously inherently going to have a "beef" with religion. I have a beef. But if by "beef" you mean aggressively attacking religious people, my question to you is what exactly is it that you expect to accomplish? The term beef is problematic and polarizing here =)
Also what the hell is a "secular society"? What does that even mean? A society may be largely secular, but there is no guarantee or way to draw a line that says "Oh, hell, look at this, we are secular! Therefore, this is how we must conduct ourselves."
Last edited:
Where did I say anything was fine or not fine, I'm stating she didn't commit any act of sexism here. If you want to discuss her reasoning, we'd be steering the discussion towards her faith.
The employer in this discussion would not be sued if it was simply them not hiring her.
...what the hell? How is this an answer to my post?
Edit: maybe take a step back and refrain from being insulting like this.
Last edited:
84% of what, I don't get this number that you conjured up and don't even know what it means
Intention is a huge part of how laws against discrimination work though. I suppose there can be an argument as to how the company mishandled the situation. But we cannot divorce intentions from people's actions, it matters.
As an aside, I actually like the idea of heart greetings over handshakes because of germs. But I don't like it as a form of avoiding someone because of their gender.
84% of the worlds population is religious according to the Pew Research Center.