you may get the pound of flesh from HR but then literally nobody is ever going to speak to you again
🇳🇱
Is the fact that he was Muslim relevant at all though? Seems the same anecdote leaving that out would have been just as true and relevant.
@freemo As @icedquinn said, people just take their risks. You don’t have that issue between male-to-male work
I really dislike sex harassment at work, it’s uncomfortable when someone makes unnecessary touching, but reaching to the point of suing people only to get some money it’s gross.
Me Too movement was witch hunting, even using strong words (under work context) could be interpreted as sex harassment. You know, patriarchy and that bullsht.
For now, most males just will avoid females at work, it’s safe, it doesn’t bring any lawsuit, makes your working time healthy.
>For now, most males just will avoid females at work, it’s safe, it doesn’t bring any lawsuit, makes your working time healthy.
If they're too socially retarded to understand women's boundaries, sure, they better just avoid women entirely.
At my workplace, the vast majority of women and men get along really well. I even asked out two of my female coworkers at different times and remained good friends with one and good coworkers with the other after being rejected.
There's one guy from the company that co-occupies the building who got into mild trouble, and that one definitely deserved it. At least two women complained about him over the years and he really is a total douche.
I have couple of "kinda feminist" friends, and they always complain at every job how their bosses or coworkers are making sexual harassment to them in the way they talk, even saying "you look great with that dress" they will consider it sexual harassment.
So, in perspective, don't talk about how they look, don't invite them to eat or coffee, avoid hotheaded discussions, avoid socializing too much with female coworkers, and you will have zero risks to be classified as shtty person because "their boundaries".
Commenting on a female coworker's dress literally *is* inappropriate unless you're on friendly terms with her, and you better think carefully about whether you really are, especially if you're an authority figure.
Inviting someone to a private date is appropriate only if you're not higher than her on a hierarchy, or if you're *really* sure that you're on friendly terms despite the hierarchical work relationship.
You can socialize with people without having "hotheaded" discussions.
@socjuswiz @icedquinn @freemo Yeah, but women can do that and that’s not sexual harassment. Why? Because women can’t make inappropriate comments of course.
What’s a friendly term? Who defines that boundary? It always depend of interpretation. Males don’t have that problem each other.
I had female coworkers who said to me “you look good” or “you look nice” after a new haircut or new dress style, and that OK. Why is inappropriate when a man does that? Why that’s not a problem between males?
The problem on your reasoning its based in a lot of “you must assume the other person thinks that”, and it’s impossible to know how the other person thinks, to avoid any problem it’s better just to avoid women at work. No assumptions, no risks.
If you seriously don't understand the power dynamics between women and men which make such cases vastly inequal, I don't think I can teach you that over fedi posts.
You better just keep staying away from women just to be safe.
Maybe reading some feminist literature or history, or listening to the life experiences of women, especially older women, could help, if you actually want to understand.
@socjuswiz @icedquinn @freemo Yeah, I believe on true gender equality, so I don’t give a fck if you are female or male for most things, but still would avoid interacting with women at work as much as I can to prevent any problem.
I keep my work professional, so I don’t like wasting my time “how to interact with males” and “how to interact with females”. Take your risks, and avoid them as much as possible.
You cannot have gender equality without understanding how the inequality even functions / without even being able to see the inequality.
@socjuswiz @icedquinn @freemo Like which one? What’s that male privilege? Do you have few examples? Urinate standing is no longer a male privilege.
As far I know, if some divorce happens, females get almost everything. If some female makes a serious accusation against a male, it will be assumed true, while if opposite, then will be assumed false by default. If a woman attacks their partner, then male did something wrong, if opposite, then aggressive male bad.
@socjuswiz @freemo
Strictly speaking the christian bible supports it as well. In practice you will always have some sexist abusers, but the majority of Muslims do not support such things.
@freemo @icedquinn @socjuswiz That’s correct, most Muslims protect a lot women, but at expense of any freedom for them.
At certain Muslim countries, females are just “property”, something I don’t agree ethically, but different country, different culture. That’s a discussion I always have with my girlfriend lol.
I don’t talk or promote freedom on cultures who may not like it.
> "Men are qawwamun in relation to women, according to what God has favored some over others and according to what they spend from their wealth. Righteous women are qanitat, guarding the unseen according to what God has guarded. Those [women] whose nushuz you fear, admonish them, and abandon them in bed, and strike them. If they obey you, do not pursue a strategy against them. Indeed, God is Exalted, Great."
vs
> Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.
there is a lot of hemhaw online about not liking the 'strike them' passage, but i'm not finding a clause in the bible that supports hitting your wife for disobedience. the bible also doesn't call for completely covering your women because they are dirty either.
@freemo @socjuswiz
Qu'ran:
""The best of you are they who behave best to their wives."
Bible:
"your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
""If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall...stone them to death, the young woman"
See, I can cherry pick nonsense too
first quote has nothing to do with proving wifebeating so i'm ignoring it
second quote. i guess. (although adultery is punishable by death for both parties always.)
@socjuswiz @waltercool
As I said, when you cherry pick nonsense out of context you can make any religion look bad. You can find excuses for anything.
The fact that wearing polyester is a punishable offense is not a defense of ahte bible, if anything it is damning as it shows it considers things to be offenses that should not be.
i looked for wife beating clauses in the bible. still waiting.
this is not to say i want more Christianity, but that it is ironic that feminists seem to speak so highly of Islam which seems counter to their supposed goals (there cannot be 'equality for women' and also support for religions about female subjugation.)
christianity can and does get attacked and there is zero penalty for being christophobic.
@socjuswiz @waltercool
Sorry but not only is your quote out of context but it is grossly mistraslated. I have studied the Qu'ran rather heavily and have addressed this passage multiple times.
The part of your translation "to strike" is a translation of the word "daraba" and while that is one of several definitions there are other equally fitting definitions that do not imply violence. The word "daraba" also translates to: to present, to set forth, to leave, to shun, to hit, to tap, or to cover. One could just as easily say the passage is telling you to shun your wife, not to hit them.
Furthermore the context is important, which as I said you left out. The Qu'ran in multiple places explicitly or implicitly indicates that striking your was is against Muslim law.
Here is a quote fromt he Qu'ran that explicitly states you can not hit your wife:
'"O Apostle of God! What is my duty to my wife?" He said, "That you give her to eat as you eat yourself, and clothe her as you clothe yourself; and do not slap her in the face nor abuse her, nor separate yourself from her in displeasure."
I dont mind people criticizing religion. But when its so blatantly out of bias that a passage is misquoted, the positive passages that contradict it are omitted, and the inverse is done for Christianity, omitting the negative passages and presenting only the positive... at that point it is so blatant and bias its hard to justify it as an earnest objective criticism and simply hate leading to an attempt to cherry pick and justify.
I just wanna leave a couple of quotes from my 2 fave Sufi mystics:
"I have learnt so much about God that I can no longer call myself a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew."
- Hafez
"I looked for God. I went to a temple and I didn't find him there. Then I went to a church and I didn't find him there. The I went to a mosque and I didn't find him there. Then finally I looked in my heart and there he was."
- Rumi