• Sweden Muslim woman who refused handshake at job interview wins case
    38 replies, posted
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45207086?ns_campaign=bbcnews&ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social
for religious reasons. She placed her hand over her heart in greeting instead. What's the other person supposed to do then at that point? It's not their religion to do the same thing, it's common courtesy to shake someone's hand at an interview or something else business related. It's not even a case though, just shake their hand, damn.
what's so important about a handshake anyway, it's just ritual as much as that kind of greeting is
shes hot
she dont put out tho, whats the point
Good. What's wrong with that? I wish I didn't have to shake people's hands.
It's common courtesy to do a greeting, doesn't have to be a handshake, regardless a handshake shouldn't be so fucking important that you refuse a job to someone over not doing it.
When you do apply for a job working with people you should probably be able to conform to the current standard of greeting people. Now as an interpreter she'll probably work with a lot of muslims and i can understand that they might not want to shake her hand if they're male but she should be able to shake hand with the other part for which she is translating to.
Why does it matter if she handshakes or not?
But you wouldn't just shake the hand of a Japanese business man who bows down before you, now would you?
it's the standard greeting in the country she's working in. When in Rome etc. If you can choose between two people equally skilled but one won't conform to the current standard why would you choose the the one not wanting to shake hands?
It's kinda weird that the article emphasizes that the interviewer whose hand she refused to shake was a man, when by her own account her refusal didn't have to do with him being a man: "In my country... you cannot treat women and men differently. I respect that. That's why I don't have any physical contact with men or with women."
how about no, it's safer to not transfer disease by hand.
This isnt a problem if you just wash ur fucken hands you savage
What's the issue? Who cares really, it's such a non-issue, lol; she isn't hurting anyone, she isn't being necessarily disrespectful, it's fine It's a secular country - she should be allowed to do that on the grounds of religion, although company has a right to not accept her because of it, since it's well, a private business so the secularity might not apply to them if they don't want to, I guess
Because it doesn't actually matter.
How do you know if two people are equally skilled when you deny one an interview because they don't give you a fucking handshake
She showed equal courtesy in a completely harmless way so what even is the big deal
Wait until she sees my dick. It's really fucking small and she'll run away.
you call me savage yet majority of people dont wash their hands properly. and its more rude to get weird over declining a handshake. not every culture has to adhere to amurican "etiquette"
not saying i reject handshakes but i have rejected a doctors handshake before.. knowing their lack of hand hygiene on the whole. so before u rate dumb and assume im being weird, enjoy ur mrsa and diarrhoea.
A handshake translates into getting off on physical contact, what are you even on about, did you think before posting this? Depends on the country I'm in, if I'm in Japan then I'd do what's custom over there, but other places it's generally a hand shake, you do what's a custom in that place.
"Here in Sweden we eat pork shut the fuck up and accept the meal."
Sweden is currently undergoing a sort of culture crisis where the refugees are refusing to blend with the existing culture. Anyone who says anything different is treated as racist or discriminatory by their government. This woman also said she refuses to have any physical contact with men or women, and as an interpreter you better expect to have some sort of physical contact because you'll be working with several kinds of people. I don't know the individual motives of the employer in this case, but I don't think you should be allowed to claim religious rights to force people to hire you if youre unwilling to do something that may be required in the line of work. An interpreter needs to be willing to accept the culture of those that theyre interpreting for and from. Mixed bag.
why are you making an all or nothing scenario over something so benign can i not greet people with a howdy since i dont live in the south anymore?
Okay, so I read about this yesterday and it's peeving me. I think this was handled shitty on every side. The employer handled it shitty because they clearly discriminated based on her religious beliefs, but she handled it shitty by aligning with an ass-backwards, repressive and patriarchal religion. In a country like ours, one that strives for the equal and fair treatment of all people regardless of gender, sexuality or color, it comes with this strange compromise that "well, if your religion says you can/can't do X then you have to/don't have to", even if that ideology completely undermines the progressive values of the society as a whole. We fight actively for women to not be oppressed, we walk in the streets to see fair treatment in employment. The age of #MeToo ushered in new awareness on sexual assault and whole industries were put in scrutiny over their unfair, sexist treatment of women. But her book says she can't touch men and that she has to shield her head from them so they don't go crazy over it and commit sin - and that's just kinda fine? And this grinds my gears, because a lot of people over here will claim that Islam is not a religion that actively practices misogynistic ideology - despite all of what I've just said. I dunno. In this instance it's just a handshake, sure, but there's deeper stuff behind this - I mean the whole debate is about religion anyway, since that was her motivation for not shaking the hand in the first place.
What. This is not oppression, her 'shitty, ass-backwards, repressive and patriarchal religion' has members, male and female who are willing to shake hands. She personally does not. If your society is so tolerant then tolerate the most minor of cultural differences that will arise instead of talking about how trash you think her personal beliefs are. A nation of 'equal and fair treatment of all people' is one that will accept cultural differences and integrate cultures inward, it's not one which will freak out over the most minor of cultural nuance and demand everyone conform to their perfect view of a native. That's not an immigrant, it's an Uncle Tom.
Hey Tudd
I think what she meant was "I am a Muslim woman,.thus I can't touch men I'm not married to. However in this country I'm living in, we don't discriminate between a man and a woman. Thus, i chose not to touch both gender."
I'm aware there's of course people who do not follow that principle, but her personal motivation for not wanting to shake hands was because of religious reasons. Her religion prohibits her from physical contact with people of the opposite sex. That is what I would call a "shitty, ass-backwards, repressive and patriarchal" religion. You could argue it's not patriarchal, but when it's men who set those rules to begin with there's no arguing which sex is considered the more "valued" one. But that's what I mean, I even say this in my post. I say this is a fault on both sides - the employer should've probably just accepted that she didn't want to shake hands. I respect her choice not to do so, it's her religion and she can practice it however she wants - I just find it strange that considering how progressive our society wants to be (and I'd argue we've been extremely successful at becoming one of the most progressive and inclusive societies in the world), it seems counter-productive then to be accepting of an ideology that goes against those very values we fight for. It's a bit like the paradox of tolerance, when it comes to fighting fascism's abuse of free speech, where in order to keep a tolerant society tolerant, you have to be intolerant of the intolerant. That paradox is conveniently ignored in these cases.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.