The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Shaking hands, or: A question of tolerance
[Expletive deleted]![[Expletive deleted]](https://us.v-cdn.net/5018289/uploads/userpics/203/nRDMYEY2NQBVO.jpg)
The mediocre doctorNorwayRegistered User regular
The mediocre doctorNorwayRegistered User regular
10 August a right-wing extremist attacked a mosque in Oslo, Norway. Thankfully, he botched the attack, no one was seriously injured, and he is now awaiting trial.
This is not about that.
22 August Crown Prince Haakon visited the mosque to show his support. There was a minor amount of embarrassment when one of the muslim women the Crown Prince was there to meet didn't want to shake his hand, but instead wanted to greet him by placing her hand over her heart.
Pictured: A faux pas – but by whom?
Given the circumstances, everyone handled it fine after a moment's of confusion. The woman later explained to the press that, in her interpretation of Islam, women and men should not shake hands or touch each other (unless very close family or they're married).
This isn't the first time the issue has been in Norwegian media. In 2018 a muslim substitute teacher's contract was not renewed because he refused to shake hands with women. Another muslim man applied for a job at the Postal Service and was called in for a job interview, but when he made clear that he for religious reasons could not shake hands with a woman, the interview was cancelled and he did not get the job.
I won't bore you with the regressives' take on the issue. But the progressives av been split about the issue:
Personally, I lean towards the second viewpoint. But, despite my disdain for religions in general, I understand the first argument.
So, what do you guys think? And how should the issue be dealt with as a society?
This is not about that.
22 August Crown Prince Haakon visited the mosque to show his support. There was a minor amount of embarrassment when one of the muslim women the Crown Prince was there to meet didn't want to shake his hand, but instead wanted to greet him by placing her hand over her heart.
Pictured: A faux pas – but by whom?
Given the circumstances, everyone handled it fine after a moment's of confusion. The woman later explained to the press that, in her interpretation of Islam, women and men should not shake hands or touch each other (unless very close family or they're married).
This isn't the first time the issue has been in Norwegian media. In 2018 a muslim substitute teacher's contract was not renewed because he refused to shake hands with women. Another muslim man applied for a job at the Postal Service and was called in for a job interview, but when he made clear that he for religious reasons could not shake hands with a woman, the interview was cancelled and he did not get the job.
I won't bore you with the regressives' take on the issue. But the progressives av been split about the issue:
- We should tolerate their religious beliefs.
- This is an equal rights issue, and it is both disrespectful and anti-feminist to refuse to shake hands with a member of the opposite sex.
Personally, I lean towards the second viewpoint. But, despite my disdain for religions in general, I understand the first argument.
So, what do you guys think? And how should the issue be dealt with as a society?
Sic transit gloria mundi.
0
Posts
(The core understanding behind it is very fucked, but if she's not pushing that on others eh)
Nobody was offended, they apparently resolved a greeting amicably
There's no way of knowing what kind of greeting someone would like in advance so you calibrate to do something non-offensive, and then adjust as needed
If you refuse to shake hands with only female coworkers or customers is that not inherently creating a hostile work environment?
Shaking hands is a type of expected physical contact that not everyone wants to do anyway.
Abolish handshakes.
Otherwise do what you want.
Edit: Professional is just an example. I'm sure there are other situations that it is harmful, but they need to be addressed individually.
I think it is fucking absurd to thing you ever have the right to touch someone.
This ultimately isn't a big deal, everybody worked it out. Very minor faux pas and everybody is cool about it.
Of course, this doesn't stop people who have an political bone to pick with either Muslims or the Norwegian from making hay over it, but we also don't necessarily have to give exaggerated outrage more attention than what little it deserves.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
While I can see the concern towards the underlying belief due to its rigidity solely along gender lines, that does not necessarily suggest an inherent belief in inferiority/superiority along those lines, and if it does that would manifest in other ways that would be more justifiable in choosing not to hire someone. For instance, refusing to be alone with someone from the opposite sex. Which is not a reasonable accommodation. If it extends to refusing to touch someone even when there is a need for health and safety (injury, choking, heart attack) then that crosses over to a legitimate concern. Otherwise it is appears to simply be placing what seems like an unusually high degree of implicit value on touch with regard to bodily autonomy, but that isn't really a problem. Just don't shake their hand.
This is one side of the coin.
This is the other.
Given the hard-fought (and far from won) battle for equal rights, I cannot deny that accepting unequal treatment of men and women on religious grounds feels very wrong.
Norway has a state church. A long (ultimately successful) battle was fought to allow female priests, gay weddings, etc. Apparently the struggle continues.
I'm not saying I have a right to touch someone. I'm saying discriminating who you shake hands with based on sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc is an inherently bigoted stance.
It seems like the sort of thing that only exists because it was signal amplified by bad actors.
Shocking. This has never happened before, ever.
I have serious problems with fundamentalist religions with regressive values (and to a lesser extent, religion in general) but the fact that it's always brown people being singled out 'for their own good' says it all.
This seems right up there with "its sexist to only hold doors for women"
That, for me, is the crux of the issue.
For example, it's pretty weird and sexist that we have men's and women's bathrooms
Exactly. As I said before this is also standard practice in many Jewish communities. As is women covering their heads. But the outrage seems reserved for Muslims.
But see, the bathrooms are separate, but equal.
Perhaps we should invent a non-touch from of greeting.
In fairness, here in Norway, the Christians are largely tamed. There are literally no observant Jews in Norway*, and other than muslims, the other religious minorities are miniscule.
* Minor anecdote:
This seems like whataboutism. People are critical of evangelicals, ultra-orthodox Jews, and other fundamentalists all the time.
We have a few.
There's the 'sup' chin raise.
Or, more formally, the nod of 'Hello, stranger who also failed to avoid eye contact'.
They allow women priests, gay priests, and officiate gay weddings. They are officially for legalized abortion.
They have been brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Surely the answer is that if you're at work, or looking for work in the public service or with a significant public-facing component, and have restrictions on how you can interact with one class of people, you just treat everyone according to that special standard. Can't shake hands with women at work? Don't shake hands with men at work either. In private, do you. Problem solved.
A bunch of places in NC responded to the bathroom bill by just going unisex. It’s a little weird at first to be in a club bathroom where it’s just everybody waiting for a stall, but you get used to it.
In fact, it's really gross.
It kind of gives away the game re multiculturalism
This can exist simultaneously with the statement that someone who refuses to shake hands ONLY with women is sexist and hey, maybe you shouldn't be employed here.
It's an expression of harmful behaviour / views that probably don't conform to organizational guidelines.
I should point out that this is the state church we're talking about. They were forced to make these changes by politicians, the public opinion, and the fact that all members (which was all citizens until 20 years ago) voted it that way by direct vote (we elect the church council in elections).
So when I say we tamed them, I mean we, the people, tamed our church. Got rid of the fire and brimstone priests, got rid of the "gays are an abomination" bishops, got rid of the "women should not speak at assembly" theologians. Brought them and the church in line with the will of the people in a long, hard battle.
I'm down with that.