Airline asked her to move because she’s a woman — now she’s suing

[Liberal_in_LA]

Renee Rabinowitz is a sharp-witted retired lawyer with a doctorate in educational psychology, who escaped the Nazis in Europe as a child. Now she is about to become a test case in the battle over religion and gender in Israel’s public spaces — and the skies above — as the plaintiff in a lawsuit accusing El Al, the national airline, of discrimination.

Rabinowitz was comfortably settled into her aisle seat in the business-class section on El Al Flight 028 from Newark, New Jersey, to Tel Aviv in December when, as she put it, “this rather distinguished-looking man in Hasidic or Haredi garb, I’d guess around 50 or so, shows up.”


The man was assigned the window seat in her row. But, like many ultra-Orthodox male passengers, he did not want to sit next to a woman, seeing even inadvertent contact with the opposite sex as verboten under the strictest interpretation of Jewish law. Soon, Rabinowitz said, a flight attendant offered her a “better” seat, up front, closer to first class.

Reluctantly, Rabinowitz, an impeccably groomed grandmother of 81 who walks wine a cane because of bad knees, agreed.

”Despite all my accomplishments — and my age is also an accomplishment — I felt minimized,” she recalled in a recent interview in her elegantly appointed apartment in a fashionable neighborhood of Jerusalem.

“For me this is not personal,” Rabinowitz added. “It is intellectual, ideological and legal. I think to myself, here I am, an older woman, educated, I’ve been around the world, and some guy can decide that I shouldn’t sit next to him. Why?”

That is just what many feminists and advocates of religious pluralism in Israel and abroad have been asking in what by all accounts is a growing phenomenon of religious Jewish men refusing to sit next to women on airplanes. Several flights from New York to Israel, on El Al and other airlines, have been delayed or disrupted as women refused to move, and there have been social media campaigns including a protest petition.

__!!!

Now, a liberal advocacy group that had spent two years searching for a test case on switching seats plans to sue the blue-and-white flag carrier on Rabinowitz’s behalf in a Tel Aviv court next week.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2016/02/26/man-asked-airline-move-woman-seat-now-she-suing/FlmeaKPnJXb48hCTeNFWFL/story.html

[Egnever]

1. Seriously?

[elleng]

2. Yes, in Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Good for her.

It is an absurd "accommodation" and shouldn't be honored. If El Al is concerned with it's male ultra-Orthodox passengers, then offer a "male-only" flight, and for every seat not filled, it is added to their ticket price.

[Hekate]

116. I suggested a male/male chaperone at all times. But your idea works too.

[MH1]

135. If a guy wants to guarantee what kind of person occupies the seat next to him,

buy a ticket for the other seat in addition to your own.

It's quite simple, really. That's the only accommodation that should be involved here.

(same goes for a woman. Regardless of religion.)

[Skittles]

4. stop catering to religious garbage

and yes, that is what it is - GARBAGE

[democrattotheend]

94. As a (non-Orthodox) Jew I find your characterization kind of offensive

I am not saying this woman should have had to move, but I am offended by your characterizing our most observant sect's religious beliefs as garbage. I am not even really religious anymore, but I have spent enough time around Orthodox Jews that I respect their traditions and don't think it's right to call their beliefs garbage, any more than it is right for religious people to demean atheists' beliefs.

[Skittles]

102. MISOGYNY IS DEHUMANIZING

UNDERSTAND THAT

[Crunchy Frog]

106. As a woman, I find your characterization of religiously based misogyny offensive.

I also think that you will find ALL forms of religious extremism get strongly derided on this site.

I personally don't have a problem with deeply held religious beliefs, so long as they don't get inflicted on other people in the public sphere. When they're used to disrupt a public airline flight, and to humiliate, degrade, and inconvenience someone due to her gender, then I have a severe problem with them.

And yes, if they're worried about "girl cooties", they can damn well stay out of public places where they're likely to encounter them. I'd feel exactly the same way if they were any other religious sect that degrades women (such as many forms of Islam).

[democrattotheend]

110. I don't disagree that the way these guys behaved was offensive and humiliating

And I sincerely hope this woman wins her lawsuit.

What offends me is some of the characterizations I have seen on this thread of people's religious beliefs, such as "bronze age fairy tales", or, as you put it, "girl cooties."

If the comment I responded to was referring to these guys' behavior as garbage, then I misunderstood and I completely agree. If it violates their religious beliefs to sit next to a woman then they should have either requested to be accommodated long before the flight, paid for the empty seat next to them, or not flown at all. For them to humiliate a woman and hold up a flight out of a sense of entitlement is completely unacceptable. That, I agree, is garbage.

[Skittles]

113. the belief is offensive and humiliating

what if I demanded not to be seated next Jewish people? It's disgusting.

[Hekate]

117. I don't care about "beliefs;" I care a lot about public behavior that hurts others. OTT...

...you are right: on public accommodations we generally don't get to refuse to sit next to another paying customer. African American, Jewish, Latino, LGBT -- you just don't get to pick and choose that way, and it shouldn't be based on female gender, either.

[Skittles]

118. THANK YOU

people who want to practice racism, misogyny, homophobia because of TRADITIONS and BELIEFS :

they need to stop expecting RESPECT from the rest of us

[cleanhippie]

156. You're offended that misogyny wrapped in religious trappings is viewed as garbage?

Beliefs that obstruct, restrict, oppress, or otherwise harm another should be viewed as garbage.

Especially when they are religious beliefs.

[Arugula Latte]

163. I respect peoples' right to believe that stupid, moronic bronze age mythology is "true"

but I don't have to respect the stupid, moronic fairy tales themselves. It's astounding that so many people believe this patriarchal make-believe in modern times. There is zero evidence to support these tall tales of the supernatural.

Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism are all utter horseshit.

[Quantess]

100. It's garbage. (no text)

[Lunabell]

101. Yes,

religion is private. Keep it that way and out of my life!

[Skittles]

105. OF COURSE IT IS

imagine if I requested NOT to be seated next to any Jewish folk

it is SICKENING

[backscatter712]

125. My thoughts exactly. Orthodox Jews can be the most obnoxious fundies.

Stop giving in to their stupid temper-tantrums, and tell them to buy a second ticket if they can't handle sitting next to a woman.

The rest of the world has no obligation to cater to their sky-daddy garbage.

Go look in places where there's a decent number of *ahem* extremely observant members of the Jewish faith. They can be just as batshit as any fundie Christian or fundie Muslim...

[Skittles]

141. what kills me the most

is seeing a historically-oppressed group think nothing of oppressing others - it's very disturbing

[meow2u3]

5. Why the hell did she have to move instead of the fundie guy?

Quit catering to fundamentalists. That's my solution.

Here's another solution: kick the ultra-Orthodox man off the plane for distrubing the flight by refusing to sit by a woman.

On a side note:

Reluctantly, Rabinowitz, an impeccably groomed grandmother of 81 who walks wine a cane because of bad knees, agreed.

Is she 81 years of age, or does she have 81 grandchildren? This paragraph reads pretty ambigious to me.

[Generic Brad]

14. And how does one "walk wine a cane"?

The author has piqued my curiosity with this unique turn of a phrase.

[meow2u3]

15. Must be a typo nt

[yuiyoshida]

140. MAYBE the author had too much

wine?

[yuiyoshida]

153. whining about Wine?

[ManiacJoe]

69. The airline groups the fundies together to minimize their disruptions.

[rjsquirrel]

76. Right?

Put him in the last coach row in front of the aft lavs. Middle fucking seat.

[melman]

6. She should have told them to fuck off then and there

[SoLeftIAmRight]

52. agree

...

[cynannmarie]

7. I am thrilled to see her do this because

I was on a flight from Brussels to NY when this scenario happened in the seats in front of me. Hasidic guy wouldn't sit next to a woman and just stood in the aisle blocking everyone behind him. The woman refused to move so the flight attendant was asking all who were seated for a volunteer to switch seats with him and no one would for the longest time. The flight was delayed for at least 15 minutes while a long line of passengers were backed up behind him. Attendant started begging and people were getting agitated. Finally some man reluctantly gave up his seat so the Hasidic guy could have it. I was very upset by this that the rude Hasid won in the end, and caused such discomfort and disruption, as well as being insulting and demeaning to the woman in the seat, although in the end I'm sure she didn't really want him to sit there with that attitude, as well as his bad smell. I was so mad that the airline accommodated him at the expense of many others. I hope this 81 yr old's case is won and puts an end to this.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. Boot their asses off the plane

They want every one to live by their Bronze Age fairy tales, but want to enjoy the conveniences of the modern world. Fuck them- let them ride donkeys. And that goes for fundies in f every religion

[KitSileya]

8. If they don't want to sit next to a woman, they need to buy the row.

Force them to contact the airline and buy the 3 or 4 seats they need to make sure they don't catch girl cooties. Also, they need to agree to not move from their seat the entire flight, so that the onus of not touching women is on them, and not the women on the flight.

I hope Rabinowitz wins her case, so that the airline is forced to update their rules about such situations.

[jtuck004]

11. They can walk. Fuck 'em. n/t

[RealAmericanDem]

25. If they can make a fat person buy two seats why not?

[RobinA]

83. Generally I Agree

with making them buy the row, but as a woman, any airline that wants to move me to first class to make room for some fundie...or hey, just about anybody...I will be fully cooperative and will happily give up my right to sue.

[Crunchy Frog]

108. She wasn't offered a seat in first class. Just a "better" seat, closer to first class.

And this was an 81 year old lady who had difficulty walking, so it was a horrible inconvenience for her. With respect, they should have offered the baggage compartment to "gentleman".

If it had been me, I would have accepted first class, with all the perks, but nothing less. That wasn't on offer here.

[avebury]

130. They did not give her a seat in first class, just a seat closer

to first class.

[democrattotheend]

95. There's a simpler solution

El Al, which probably flies Chasidic Jews all the time, should just provide a mechanism during the booking process for passengers to request seating next to a particular gender, and ask all passengers to give their gender when they book. Having gone to Jewish day school and worked with Orthodox Jews, I understand the religious laws and why the Chasidim feel they cannot sit next to a woman, but neither they nor the airline handled it right. The Chasidim should have contacted the airline when they booked the flight to request this accommodation, and the airline should provide a mechanism for people to request same-gender seating. You would think that an airline that flies Chasidic Jews all the time would be able to figure out a solution that accommodates everyone.

[KitSileya]

96. That is incredibly problematic.

Because what about people who do not fit the binary gender model our society espouses? Not to mention transgender men and women? I can't imagine fundie Jews are any less hostile towards transgender people than fundie evangelists and other fundie religions.

[democrattotheend]

97. So have a checkbox in the online booking form for gender, and include transgender as an option

And if someone requests to sit next to someone of a particular gender, make that happen. There are probably not that many of the people who need this accommodation per flight, and the airline can just seat them together or next to other people of the same gender, without inconveniencing anyone else.

Please understand that these men are not being sexist. There are laws in our religion against having any physical contact, even shaking hands, with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage. I personally do not follow this rule (or most other rules), but I know several people who do who are in no way sexist. For example, my former boss follows this rule, but has litigated many gender and pregnancy discrimination cases on behalf of women. My college boyfriend follows this rule but has remained true to his progressive beliefs despite becoming an Orthodox Jew, and he is in no way sexist. Neither one of them would behave like this or delay a flight, and I will be the first to say that some ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel have a sense of entitlement and the way they behaved on this flight is emblematic of that. But I do feel that if they had handled it properly by requesting an accommodation beforehand, the airline should attempt to accommodate them.

[KitSileya]

99. And I still think it is sexist to demand things from the other passengers on this

This is their choice, so they bear the burden. They will have to navigate through a crowded plane, anyway, no guarantees they won't bump into a woman. Or do you advocate creating a section in the back of the plane for these men, and then letting them board first and deny them the right to move around in the plane? Doubt that would fly, pun intended.

[Skittles]

104. OF COURSE IT IS SEXIST GARBAGE

G A R B A G E !!!!!!!!!!!

[Hekate]

119. You have a good take on it, at least for El Al, but I don't see it working for the rest of the world

Except maybe the fundamentalist Muslim states.

[democrattotheend]

142. For other airlines, they should call ahead and make a request

Which the airline would probably attempt to accommodate. Kind of like requesting kosher meals, which I think most airlines can provide if you make arrangements in advance. And as many have said, these people could also buy an extra seat if they want to guarantee that it won't be a problem.

I understand their beliefs even if I don't agree with them, but there is no excuse for their sense of entitlement or for treating someone so poorly.

[MH1]

136. "Decline to state" must also be an option. Let me add a suggestion:

Include this as part of an OPTIONAL section that clearly states that the airline would like to accommodate certain religions with regard to same-gender seating, and would the passenger like to participate in this program? There are no incentives or disincentives for passengers who choose or not to participate in this program.

After the OPTIONAL choice to participate in the program, the user can select if they have a preference to be seated next to the same gender, and if the preference is religious in nature. (I may prefer to be seated next to the same gender, but just because.) Priority will be given to those with a religious restriction that requires it, so please don't check the "religious" box unless that is true. The airline makes no guarantee that this request will be accommodated, this information is only to make it possible to make an effort.

I hope this makes sense. I think there are probably a lot of non-Hasidic Jews and probably others, who just for the sake of peace and harmony would be perfectly fine to participate in this option and give the airline a fighting chance to make everyone happy. But it needs to be optional because for a variety of reasons, some people will not want to specify their gender.

That said, I fully support the woman in this case, and think in the absence of a program such as you describe and I expand on, anyone wanting to guarantee the gender occupying the seat next to them, needs to purchase that additional seat.

[Arazi]

144. They are sexist. They don't know whether a woman is "unclean"

Ie having her period during which they too become "unclean " if they touch her.

Its ridiculously sexist to label a perfectly normal bodily function as MORE "unclean" than anyone whose taken a shit that day. Both bodily processes eliminate waste yet only the female's dirty.

If they care that much they should be doing a mitzvah after every flight because i guarantee they're touching the remnants of diarrhea, vomit and urine that's on every seat from sick children and adults.

That somehow touching a woman - without even knowing their menstrual status - makes them particularly unclean is sexist at its very core

[spooky3]

146. and that wouldn't apply to any woman in her 80s (like the plaintiff) so it can't be the

basis for their requesting accommodation in this case.

[Arazi]

148. Yup. Its a despicably sexist practice masquerading as cultural relativism

well fuck that shit

[Crunchy Frog]

150. The should accommodate these passengers by offering them hazmat suits.

Those should be sufficient to protect them from menstruation cooties, or anything else "unclean".

[Skittles]

161. he says they're not sexist, then describes in detail.....sexism

it's all bullshit

[Arazi]

162. Yup, exactly

[Skittles]

103. OR

AIRLINES CAN BE ASKED TO NOT PRACTICE MISOGYNY

*ENOUGH ALREADY*

[spooky3]

145. Where does that end, though? What if someone had a deeply held belief that Jews are evil,

that blacks are unclean, that gay people are sinners, that Muslims are going to hell, etc.? What duty do airlines have to allow ALL prospective passengers to state what is not acceptable to them on a public accommodation, and then to provide it? By definition this request was based solely on the gender of another paying passenger (versus one might request an accommodation for a dietary preference or something else that harms no one). Where do my rights to request accommodation end and another's right to be free from discrimination begin?

I think you are confusing the rights to hold certain beliefs and respect for these beliefs with the right to impose them on others in a public or commercial space. If one's private beliefs are that a person different from him or her are to be avoided, then she or he should not use public transportation. The airline should have absolutely no obligation to bend on this.

[democrattotheend]

158. I agree that the airline does not have an obligation

At least, under US law. Generally under the Civil Rights Act, private businesses are only required to provide religious accommodations if the burden is de minimus. Under Israeli law, it may be different, since the ultra-Orthodox have too much power, IMO. I will not attack or disrespect their religious beliefs, but I will criticize the government for conferring special privileges on them, such as the ability to avoid military service.

Anyways, back on topic, I don't think airlines have the obligation to or should inconvenience other passengers to accommodate those who are a small sect of even Orthodox Jews. However, given the fact that this situation comes up a lot on El Al, I think it would be smart to establish a procedure like the one I suggested to allow people to request same-gender seating in advance (without guaranteeing it) to avoid having the planes delayed and other customers inconvenienced or humiliated when these situations come up. While you are theoretically right that someone could also complain that it violates their religious beliefs to sit next to a black person, I am not aware of any sect of Judaism or any other religion that subscribes to that belief, so I think it's silly to avoid dealing with the situations that do come up because of other hypothetical situations.

Like I said, I don't think ultra-religious Jews have a right to choose who sits next to them, and they certainly don't have the right to delay a plane and humiliate or inconvenience other passengers. But I think as a matter of practicality and to try to be accommodating without inconveniencing other passengers, it makes sense for the airline to provide a mechanism to request an accommodation that is probably easy for the airline to accommodate if it assigns seating. If people pick their own seats when they book, then the airline can give passengers a mechanism to request a same-gender neighbor but advise passengers that it is not guaranteed, and offer them the choice of reserving and paying for the seat next to them if the airline cannot accommodate the request.

[spooky3]

159. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

As for the legal obligations (which I was not addressing in my post), presumably the groups who were looking for a test case have looked carefully at the relevant Israeli or international laws, and these matters will be resolved. On edit: did you see these paragraphs in the linked article in the OP? They certainly are not consistent with what you are saying.

"An El Al spokeswoman said in a statement that “any discrimination between passengers is strictly prohibited.”

“El Al flight attendants are on the front line of providing service for the company’s varied array of passengers,” the statement said. “In the cabin, the attendants receive different and varied requests and they try to assist as much as possible, the goal being to have the plane take off on time and for all the passengers to arrive at their destination as scheduled.”

Hoffman’s group, the Israel Religious Action Center, which works to advance pluralism in public spaces, previously fought Israeli bus companies and the Transportation Ministry over gender segregation on so-called kosher lines that serve ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods. The Supreme Court in 2011 made it illegal to require women to sit in the back of the bus and allowed men and women to sit separately only if they did so voluntarily. Two years later, Israel’s attorney general issued guidelines calling on government ministries and public agencies to end all manifestations of gender segregation in the public sphere."

You didn't really answer my questions, but chose to reiterate that you believe it is appropriate to expect a commercial airline to make an exception for one group of people's demands, without consideration of the demands that others might make. My point was that I don't see a fair basis for making that exception, and that it is a slippery slope (among other problems). Judaism is not the only basis on which people might hold beliefs, and people who are not members of that faith may fly on any commercial airline. Maybe this airline transports only Jewish people; if so, I will have to revise my position.

My post was addressing a broader, moral obligation on the part of the airlines, and to recognize that they are a commercial business that must make profit to survive. As such they need to treat all passengers with respect and should not be expected to incur financial or or less tangible costs (e.g., customers' boycotts) based on peoples' acting on private beliefs, particularly when those actions are offensive to most in developed cultures.

I do not agree that an airline has this obligation, and think it is far less trouble for the airline to offer to sell however many seats, if available, to people who want distance from other people based on their demographics - if that is done in advance rather than the time of seating at the request of the passenger rather than in response to a proactive offer on the part of the airline. But it appears from the article (see pghs quoted above) that El Al says doing that is against their own policy of nondiscrimination, and Israeli law may also forbid this type of discrimination.

[SheilaT]

154. You've expressed it far more politely than I would have,

and nicely put.

[jalan48]

9. Good for her.

Tell the guy his superstition doesn't mean others have to obey him.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Interesting. Just a couple years ago some people here thought it was a great idea that airlines had

a policy of moving adult male passengers away from sitting next to unaccompanied minors, because, you know, men are just inherently dangerous.

Which I guess means that women are expected to move in that situation, too, presumably to take the seat of dangerous mr. man-man.

[kcr]

18. Don't you need to go stockpile the SI Swimsuit issues that might get banned?

Life for men sure is getting rough, isn't it?

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Wow, such a witty retort.

I noticed someone posted this year's cover, somewhere in GD. Fortunately the people for whom seeing it "ruined my whole entire month!!!!111" a couple years ago must have girded themselves for the experience, or else they've figured out "hide thread by keyword".

So, anyway, I think you're missing the point, here- Please explain to me how men can be moved around an airplane because of their gender in such a way that won't result in women also being moved around the airplane because of their gender?

[kcr]

23. I thought I'd do something nice for a change. It's clearly what you wanted.

I don't think I'm the one missing the point, here. I think you are. You're the one who seems to have the problem with the lawsuit.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I do?

Perhaps you should re-calibrate your seemstosensor.

[kcr]

48. So I imagined that you came into this thread with the bit about women wanting

men to move on planes too, so of course you had to come and set things right. Because I can think of no other reason why someone would do that other than to make the point that of course women should just be relegated to second class citizenry because look at that one time that airline made men move! But I'm sure other people will come along to point out how that really actually didn't happen and demand I apologize. I'll be waiting.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. what?

No, my point is that I find it pretty friggin interesting when people take polar opposite stances on what is essentially an identical question, based upon knee-jerk preconceived notions and internalized pet narratives.

Plus I find it funny when people don't think through to the consequences, namely like "make teh men move because men are dangerous!" means making women move, too- perhaps to a seating arrangement less desirable for them.

You can try and paint that whatever color it is you prefer, but that was where I was coming from.

I support this woman's lawsuit, btw. I have no great love for uptight fundamentalists, I'm sure you realize.

[kcr]

53. But it isn't identical

Not in the least. I get that it's a common argument to compare how men struggle too because they're sometimes suspect due to the the fear of sexual violence and bring that up as a comparison every time sexism and sometimes even racism is brought up. But it isn't the same. I love how you had to go back two years to find one that involved airplanes. And then it was airplanes, so totally exactly the same! But you support this woman's lawsuit, though. Too bad you couldn't do it without the bean counting.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Look at the post directly after yours.

In the midst of self-congratulatory nonsense about the supposedly statistically significant "greater danger" of having a man in the next seat vs. a woman, the practical fallout is that the policy kind of sucks for the women.

I dont have any great desire to sit next to other peoples' kids on airplanes. I already sit next to my own, thats plenty.

[kcr]

63. How does it actually suck for the women?

Do they suddenly imagine that they're being forced to move because it's a man who doesn't want to sit next to them because they're a woman? Or, do they move because they see what the actual situation is and it's they're being asked to move because an unaccompanied minor is on the plane? Your attempt to shoehorn this situation to make it equivalent just doesn't work

[Warren DeMontague]

65. I guess you didnt read it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7645497

It is forcing women by virtue of being women to be de facto child care for unaccompanied minors. I woukd think that would be problematic.

And although someone, somewhere, maybe racks up some tumblr points in the "all men are potential ---" category, in reality the dude who has to move is probably like "ok, cool"

[kcr]

67. What? Why are women de facto child care providers?

Are they de facto child care providers when they happen to be seated next to a child by chance? No.


And I do think that most men probably react like "ok, cool" Because this is in no way like the woman being forced to move because a man simply doesn't want to sit next to her.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. read the post, and ask the person who said those exact words.

[A Little Weird]

57. Not the same at all

I was asked to sit by a child to accommodate the airline policy. I had spent a long time before my trip choosing the seat I wanted. But because I was a woman flying solo, I was asked to move to the freaking middle seat next to a fidgety kid. I'm sure the man who was forced to move was offended but he got a better seat out of the deal. The airline expected me to be an unpaid babysitter for them. So no - the man is moved because the airline policy demands it. Whereas in the case of the fundamentalist, the woman is asked to move because another passenger demands it. Do you not see the distinction there?

[Warren DeMontague]

59. You and I are saying the same thing.

People get so hung up on the stastically scary man thing that they forget that the policy sort of sucks for women.

[A Little Weird]

68. It's not the same

Well, in the sense that both situations suck for women then yes they are the same. But you presented it as if it were an injustice to men to ask them to move away from an unaccompanied minor (post 10). No - it is not an injustice to men. They are being asked to move due to an airline policy put in place ostensibly to protect children. Women being asked to move due to some passenger's religious biases is pure bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I happen to think they're both bullshit, the idea that a man on an airplane is inherently somehow

'more unsafe around children' is likewise bullshit.

Just like it's bullshit that the guy on the plane with a turban is somehow inherently more dangerous.

People need to get a fucking grip imagining boogeymen everywhere.

Is it "an injustice"? No, not by my definition of injustice. It's a bit offensive, sure. I suspect being told "you have to move because JHVH says you have woman-cooties" is offensive, too. The facts on the ground, however, to my mind would include whether or not being forced to move meant I ended up in a worse seat, which was your end result due to this policy I brought up, whether or not there was "injustice" involved or no.

[A Little Weird]

77. They are both bullshit, but they are not the same

A passenger with religious biases shouldn't be able to have another passenger moved anymore than a passenger with racial biases should be able to have another passenger move. It's bullshit based on nothing but prejudice.

The policy limiting who can sit next to a child is put in place to protect children (although I concur that it is a misguided way to go about it). Men are more likely to be molesters - that is simply a fact. But the percentage of men who are sexual predators is incredibly small. There are better ways to protect children flying alone. There are even better ways to implement the current policy.

This article talks about it some if you are really interested -
http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/predators-are-free-to-move-about-the-cabin/Content?oid=2173389

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Thats an awful story, no question.

I note that the perpetrator is a religious figure. Maybe the answer is to not sit unaccompanied kids next to priests, etc.

The serious answer is, if they're in the airline's care the airline should be keeping ane eye on them. Like seated at the very front if the plane, like the article notes. Unfortunately those are expensive seats so the airlines probably prefer to get the high-paying 1sf class ticket buyers. Still, unaccompanied kids shouldnt be turned loose out among the general public, period, no matter what the gender of the person sitting next to them.

Im sure we could make all sorts of quantified observations about who is more likely, demographically, to commit what types of crimes or acts of terrorism, even though the actual statistical incidence is small. I think most people here would agree that profiling is wrong in those cases just as it is wrong to slap "potential molester" on the guy in 26D just because he has a y chromosome.

my larger point- really, my main one here- is that the OP headline is "airline asked her to move because shes a woman"- not "...and because she didnt like the specific reason for it". Even leaving aside all the other objections or debate, in the unaccompanied minor situation the airline is gonna be making a woman move, too.

So if the lawsuit is just about "having to move because she's a woman" then there is something of an equivalence there.

[Blue_Adept]

26. That's because this year's cover is ~empowering~!

[Warren DeMontague]

29. My God, the shit-losing over that picture of 3 young women on a beach; you'd think it was the

Cambodian Killing Fields.

A human rights atrocity on a scale not seen since; well, ever.

Good times, huh?

[Omaha Steve]

31. One is from Nebraska

Here she is again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026184438

[Warren DeMontague]

33. What kind of dork wears a suit and dress shoes; with no socks?

That's what I want to know.

Is that like "preppy business formal", or what?

[RobinA]

86. Well, He's Got

a suit on at a beach pool! That's dorky with or without socks.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. "they said wear a swim suit!"

Okay, I apologize for that one.

[Blue_Adept]

75. I'd certainly take it over GDP these days

I couldn't help but laugh at that whole thing because of the massive disconnect from reality. It's why I wish the DU Bingo Card was in effect this year because we desperately need it as a distraction!

[Warren DeMontague]

78. No shit.

i'll take a good olive garden fight any day over that.

[scscholar]

27. That is a good policy to protect children

That has *nothing* to do with this situation.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. it is?

Well, okay. It also means that women are being recruited as de-facto child care on those airplanes, because they're deemed inherently "safer" or more maternal.

I don't know about you, but I don't see sitting next to other people's children as some kind of prize.

[yardwork]

32. I have to disagree. I can't see how it is anything but blatantly discriminatory.

Assuming that all men are pedophiles who can't be trusted to sit next to children is just as wrong as asking women to move because some man doesn't want to sit next to them.

Both are wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. And don't get me wrong, I fully support this woman in standing up to these fundamentalists.

When people simply can't reconcile their religion with life in the 21st century, it's not incumbent upon the rest of us to go out of our way to accomodate them.

I just find it interesting when people knee-jerk to 180 degree different reactions to almost identical situations, based upon the perception of the underlying narrative. Plus I think they're not fully running through to the consequences, which again probably mean inconvenience for female passengers at least par with that of the men being moved.

[kcr]

49. Except they aren't almost identical situations. Not even close.

Was the man in the OP afraid he was going to be raped or molested? Was that the reason he wanted that woman moved? No. Whether or not one agrees with a policy that makes men move when children are accompanied on a plane, the motivation for it is to protect children. It is not even remotely the same thing as what the airline is doing to accommodate Orthodox Jewish men who don't wish to sit next to women.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. And when men move, who moves into the seat they just vacated?

Also, none of the stories about the men being made to move have anything about "being afraid"; it's an airline level policy, not something initiated by the kids themselves.

[kcr]

54. How does that make this situation the same?

You're totally taking it out of the context, then saying because it's genders moving around! It's on a plane! So, it's the same! As if no one will use their brain and logic to process what you're saying.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. The situations are similar. Im not saying the rationales are the same.

But if you notice, the end result in both cases is likely to be women having to change seats.

[kcr]

62. But you realize that the issue isn't women having to change seats, right?

The issue is a woman being forced to change her seat because a man doesn't want to sit next to her because she's a woman. See, other people actually realize that. I know it's fun to pretend you're the smartest person on the internet, but most people realize there are only two genders. It's true.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. "Most people realize there are only two genders"- interesting statement.

Brings me to another question, namely, how are these policies cognizant of the pluralistic gender environment which tolerant-minded people should accept as our 21st century reality?

Of course the fundamentalists cant deal with it, no surprise, but how does an airline with "no men in 21D" as a policy handle trans citizens? Someone who identifies as one but presents as another?

Seems like it could be complex.

[kcr]

66. You got me.

Never mind I think most people would realize I meant gender identity and did not mean to be intolerant of the trans community. Hey, everyone. Warren DeMontague won this argument. I guess women will have to atone now, and if a man doesn't want to sit next to them, well. We deserve what we're getting, because airlines make men move, too! I bow to your victory, sir. I should have been more careful. I'm sure you meant to be all inclusive as well in your gender terms, right? Of course.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. I didn't even know it was an argument, but it's nice to know I won.

I didn't know they were giving away prizes for smartest person on the internet, either. Thanks for the heads up!

[scscholar]

35. If the policy is wrong...

then why have airlines had it in place for so many years without it being challenged?

[yardwork]

36. Are you serious?

Wrong headed policies often last a long time, especially when they involve fears around sex.

[scscholar]

39. Just read the headlines...

it's not a fear. It's a truth.

[yardwork]

41. What's true? Pedophiles on planes?????

[Warren DeMontague]

43. ...

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Headlines like these?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jennifer-caswell-teacher-sex_us_55cce141e4b0898c4886d282

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/pennsylvania-teacher-sex-crime_n_7784156.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/15/irene-khan-teacher-sex_n_7291810.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/06/jennifer-fichter-teacher-sex_n_7012166.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/kayla-mooney-teacher-sex_n_6992046.html

[prayin4rain]

56. An unaccompanied minor is in statistically greater

actual danger of being harmed sitting by a man than a woman. It's a very sad fact of life that we should not pretend is not true for the sake of political correctness, imo.

The man in this story is not in any more actual danger sitting next to a woman than a man.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. why do we let men sit next to kids in movie theaters, then?

I mean, shit, movie theaters are dark. Seems far more sketchy.

[LanternWaste]

82. I too, used to take the sentiments of "some people"

I too, used to take the sentiments of "some people," (usually a mere two or three) apply it to a much broader consensus, and then pretends it means something.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. did you now?

Well, it's a sad fact of life that we just can't do the things we used to, as we shuffle off into our golden years.

[Solly Mack]

13. K&R

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Good for her!

If you can't stand being in the presence of women, then stay the fuck out of the public sphere. Charter your own fucking planes, if that's what it takes, or just don't travel. Or maybe they could get themselves vaccinated against girl cooties. Just don't expect the rest of the world to cater to your religiously based misogyny.

I hope she wins the fuck out of this case.

[Liberal_in_LA]

17. The lawsuit is really initiated by a group using her as test case

[Initech]

19. Orthodox religion: how is this still a thing?

[Skittles]

122. because misogyny still exists

[leftynyc]

20. Go, Ms. Rabinowitz

Let them get seats in advance or buy the whole freezing row. Nobody should have to accommodate religious taboos in a public space.

[Iggo]

21. And you want me to respect people's deeply held religious beliefs?

[democrattotheend]

111. The beliefs, yes. The behavior, no.

Having gone to a Jewish day school and spent a lot of time around Orthodox Jews (though probably none this religious), I am somewhat offended by the comments I have seen characterizing their beliefs as "girl cooties" or "stone-aged fairy tales." There are plenty of people like my college boyfriend, who has stayed true to his progressive beliefs despite becoming Orthodox, who subscribe to many of what some of you might consider "bronze age fairy tales" and would be offended by having his beliefs derided that way from people in his own party. Even though I am not Orthodox it offends me too.

That said, the way these guys behaved is disgusting, and no, I am not asking you to respect that. If they were concerned about sitting next to a woman, they should have contacted the airline long before the flight and requested an accommodation. If the airline could not accommodate them, they should have either paid for the empty seat next to them or waited for a flight where they could sit next to a male. There is absolutely no excuse for them holding up the flight and degrading a woman. I am glad she is suing, as this kind of thing seems to be happening with increasing frequency and they should not be allowed to get away with it.

[Iggo]

112. Nope. Not a fucking chance. I respect their right to believe, but that's as far as I go. (n/t)

[Skittles]

114. I DO NOT RESPECT MISOGYY

FOR *ANY* REASON

[cleanhippie]

157. I respect a persons RIGHT to believe. Beliefs EARN respect, and irrational religious beliefs don't

earn anything but the ridicule they deserve.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. So, to recap: it's okay to move a woman if it is to get a man out of a seat next to a kid

but NOT okay to move a woman if it is to get her away from one of these fundamentalist yubnubs.

(believe me, I'm no fan of fundamentalist yubnubs, now)

Just freeballin', here... the Airlines could work it out by making sure they put the fundamentalist yubnubs on the SAME plane as the unaccompanied minors. That way, when they move the woman away from the fundies, it's okay because they're moving her into a seat previously occupied by a scary man-man.

[davidn3600]

40. No one cares about that because it's a man being asked to move

A man traveling from to Brisbane from Sydney was asked to change his seats so he would no longer be next to two unaccompanied minors on a Virgin Australia flight.

A flight attendant asked 33-year-old Sydney fireman Johnny McGirr to switch seats with a woman after he was seated next to two young boys on an April flight, the Sydney Morning Herald reported. McGirr said he estimated the boys to be ten years old. He wrote about his experience in a blog post titled "My Virgin experience as a Paedophile!"

He said he was approached and told he had to move. When he asked why, he was told, "Well, because you are male, you can't be seated next to two unaccompanied minors." He said he thought the request was sexist and discriminatory, but was told it was the airline's policy.

"As I collected my things from the seat pocket I could see people looking at me and wondering why I was being moved. I was red from embarrassment. I felt like I was being judged and found guilty of a crime I hadn't committed. It was an uncomfortable situation and I felt ashamed which was a weird feeling because I hadn't done anything wrong."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/08/should-men-sit-next-to-kids-on-airline-flights/

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Right, but what i think they dont realize is that by asking a man to move,

Unless you replace him with another man (which would kind of defeat the purpose) you are ALSO asking a woman to move.

[Omaha Steve]

37. She was there first

They should have moved the man's seat.

K&R!

OS

[Warren DeMontague]

38. What does the Old Testament have to say, specifically, about airline travel?

It's an interesting theological question.

[RobinA]

88. Now

you're just being an originalist.

[Dr. Strange]

90. Hezekiah, chapter 5.

⁶Art thou a bird, with wings or feathers? Verily not. ⁷Therefore shalt man not fly towards the heavens. He is not of the air, but of the earth. ⁸So give up the dream of flight, of touching the clouds, of flying first class. The Lord has decreed that it is not to be.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Sigh. I love that passage.

It's right before the one about 'hand stamp required for re-entry'

[phylny]

44. This reminds me of something that happened to me about 10 or 11 years ago.

Our home builder was a Hasidic Jew in Orange County, NY. He was very polite to me, but I knew the rules - no touching.

We were looking at siding and each had one piece and as I put my hand up to hold up the sample, so did he, and our pinky fingers touched.

I really felt badly because I know it shocked him. I didn't know what to say, so I said nothing.

And I kept the fact that I was menstruating to myself.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. He should convert to pastafarianism

Being touched by noodly appendages is not only permitted, it's encouraged!

[phylny]

47. Heh. Plus, I think the headwear is much more attractive ;) n/t

[prayin4rain]

55. Good for her! ! n/t

[Warpy]

58. She was never the problem, HE WAS

He should have been asked to move elsewhere or wait for a later flight.

Anybody with that much icky religious baggage should either wait to charter a flight with like minded mediaevalists or stay home. Half the human race shouldn't be inconvenienced because they're assholes.

[bklyncowgirl]

70. I am not particularly surprised at this. I worked with the Orthodox in Brooklyn.

Back in the day I worked in a library where the Hasidic men insisted that our female clerks place all change on the desk so that they wouldn't touch a woman's hand. This did not go over will especially with my African-American coworkers who were righteously offended not to mention convinced that they did not want to touch them because they were black. One of them said as much and well, We all had to go to sensitivity training.

These folks are very much a law unto themselves. I met many wonderful, saintly people from that community, some of whom had numbers on their arms and had every reason on earth to hate on the rest of the world but who were kind to everyone. There were also quite a few jerks as well as well. Maybe It's easy to be a jerk when you believe that God is your best friend.

It seems to me that if someone has to insist that they have veto power over who sits next to them then he or she should pay for the seat next to them to keep it empty or just suck it up like the rest of us have to when we end up next to someone we can't stand.

[democrattotheend]

98. I mostly agree with you

And appreciate your balanced view, which is refreshing compared to some of the ignorance that has been displayed on this thread.

I will be the first to say that some of these folks have a sense of entitlement, and the way they behaved here is way out of line. If they wanted to ensure that they would not sit next to a woman, they could have contacted the airline beforehand and requested to be accommodated, just as religious Jews flying on airlines other than El Al have to make arrangements for kosher meals in advance. I am sure El Al would be able to accommodate them without offending anyone if they would request the accommodation in advance. Holding up the flight and insulting a woman is really offensive.

That said, I take exception to those who say that these men are inherently sexist because they will not sit next to a woman. They have sincere religious beliefs, which are primarily based on ensuring marital fidelity and ensuring that men will not be exposed to inappropriate sexual temptation, not a contempt for women. That is not to say that I have not met sexist Orthodox Jews, but the underlying belief is not based on sexism. I will be the first to say that their conduct was offensive, but if they had properly requested in advance to be accommodated I think they have the right to that.

[bklyncowgirl]

107. I can't disagree with that.

[Crunchy Frog]

109. These "sincere religious beliefs" are similar to those of fundamentalist Islam.

The idea that a middle aged man couldn't possibly control his libido in the presence of an attractive 81 year old lady. Similar to the fundie Islamic idea that men can't control their sexuality unless women are covered from head to toe and guarded by male relatives.

It's not just degrading to the women, but to the men as well.

IMO, if you're modern enough to fly on a plane, you're modern enough to accept the risk that you might have some sort of contact with a woman. If you're not willing to accept that risk, then stay off of public flights and other types of public accommodation.

[stevenleser]

120. Yes they are because the Koran is very similar to the Old Testament. In fact...

when I read a Koran, and this is after 5+ years of Hebrew school, I noted that somewhere north of 60% of the Koran is essentially the Old Testament with "Allah" substituted for "God". Many of the rules are the same or similar.

That 60%-75% that is essentially the same passages dont end up having the same effect because Judaism has been around for 3000+ more years than Islam and has been subject to rabbinical review altering the meanings or saying some things are unenforceable. Capital punishment for instance is prescribed for the same things in Judaism that it is in Islam. It has been deemed unenforceable by Rabbinical review because unless you can have godlike certainty of the guilt of the individual, which you can never have, you could be guilty of murder if you executed someone.

Very similar to the idea that what courts say about the Constitution and what it means today is different in some important ways from what they said shortly after it went into effect.

But yes, despite differences and rabbinical review, there is a lot that remains similar and fundamental adherents of both religions will have elements that particularly to outsiders, seem very similar. Backward opinions of women are definitely among them.

[Crunchy Frog]

134. Is this what the world looks like to men of this fundamentalist religious persuasion?

Sorry, but I find that kind of religious backwardness to be ridiculous, misogynistic, and not worthy of respect in any way. And frankly hillarious, if it wasn't so degrading to other people.

Just imagine the reaction if it was a Muslim kicking up this kind of shit on a public flight.

Oh, and I've never seen any form of religious fundamentalism treated with respect on this site, so no reason to single these regressives out as special snowflakes.

[stevenleser]

137. It should not be respected in the case of flight situations like this.

Make them charter a plane or fly private jets.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. Were I the attendant I would have had him move...

...but often I've seen attendants ask a person in an aisle seat to move as it's less disruptive.

In the US interfering with the crew is a serious matter. Should the guy requesting the change not be happy how ever he was/wasn't accommodated, there are stiff penalties:
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/interfering-with-a-flight-attendant-or-crewmember.htm

[oberliner]

81. They did offer to move her to a business class seat

Which is an upgrade that would normally cost quite a bit more than a coach seat.

That being said, it is insane that this man's demand was honored and I support this woman in bringing attention to this ridiculousness.

Gender discrimination towards women among religious types is still very much alive and well all over the world.

[lapislzi]

84. She was already in business class

There was no "upgrade."

Why didn't the man ask for a different seat? Why is nobody asking that question? I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous, but the most ridiculous thing about it is that the woman had to be inconvenienced and disrespected because of the unreasonable request of a man.

Freaks.

[spiderpig]

87. Wholeheartedly agree

This scenario is ridiculous on so many levels.

If you don't want to sit next to a woman/child/ethnic group/interplanetary species - DON'T USE COMMERCIAL OR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

(Sorry for intentional caps.)

Had I been the female passenger I'd have dug in my heels so hard they'd still be prying me from the seat.

[oberliner]

89. You're right

Poor reading comprehension on my part.

I'm guessing the man was probably being an asshole and refusing to move and the woman was being nice and offered to move and the flight attendant just wanted to get it settled so that the plane could take off.

It will be interesting to see what happens with her gender discrimination lawsuit against the airline.

[KamaAina]

85. Why don't the ultra-Orthodox start their own Air Haredi?

Presumably with the men sitting in front and the women in back.

[Hekate]

115. Good for her. Either she gets first class, not just "near first class" or he reseats by the restroom

Any man that sensitive and delicate simply should not travel alone. He needs a male chaperone at all times to protect him from himself and from the wanton women of all ages just waiting to throw themselves on him.


What religious fanatics want is segregated seating automatically available. I say to hell with that in any democratic country.

[tabasco]

121. I hope she gets a big pile of cash from those fuckers. n/t

[wheniwasincongress]

123. Question for people who have seen women refuse to give up their seats:

How do the other passengers react? Do most people support the woman's refusal, or do they act like the woman is being stubborn/ridiculous/annoying for not giving up her seat?

[Shankapotomus]

124. If I was a woman on a plane

I'd beat these misogynists to the punch. I'd demand to be seated next to a Hasidic male on account of my "religion" and torment them from seat to seat.

[Dorian Gray]

126. If I

were a man on that flight, I'd offer to switch with that woman, sit next to that man, and proceed to watch pornography on my computer, aimed at him, for the entire flight.

[Quantess]

160. And please make it be gay porn!

[Crunchy Frog]

129. Me too. Especially if I was 81 years old.

I'd enjoy flattering myself that I could still be seen as a dangerous temptress, able to risk a man's marriage or very soul with my female wiles.

I'd thank the man for letting me know I've still got "it", and refuse to budge an inch.

[Chemisse]

127. Unbelievable.

The one who has a problem with the seating arrangement is the one who should have to move.

I hope she clobbers them with this suit.

[B Calm]

128. The man was religiously insane.

[avebury]

131. So the 81 year old woman with the cane is forced to move while the physically fit

50ish man gets to keep his seat after throwing a temper tantrum.

I would not have moved and if I saw a woman in that situation I would have stuck up for her.

If his delicate religious feelings don't allow him to sit next to a woman it was HIS RESPONSIBILITY to make arrangements with the airline PRIOR to the flight to have those delicate feelings accomodated not wait until the flight is boarding to throw a hissy fit and expect to get his own way.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if someone had pulled out their cell phone, dialed 911, reported the location and that a man was causing a ruckus on the plane at the gate and that there is a concern that he might be a danger to the flight.

[avebury]

132. How to fix this situation? Have one passenger pull out their cell phone

Dial 911

Hello, I am on El Al Flight _____, at Gate ___ at _____ Airport. There is a man acting up and making a ruckus. I am concerned that he could be a danger to this flight and the Flight Crew isn't getting him under control. Please send help.

[sabbat hunter]

133. all airlines

should refuse to accommodate these people. If they do not like it, let them get off the plane and find another flight where they aren't seated next to a woman.

And if they do not like that policy, they should start their own airline that only allows men on board.

Fuck those who try to use their religion to treat women as second class citizens.

[irisblue]

138. He was the problem, not her.Toss him off the plane

[Orrex]

139. He caused the disruption. Treat him like any other disruptive passenger.

[Yo_Mama]

143. Asked to move surely shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit? Told to move would be.

I've moved seats to allow friends/family to be together and for other reasons having to do with comfort of the other traveler - including moving my aisle seat to a window seat to accommodate someone having a bad day.

There is nothing wrong with being courteous. Being MADE to be courteous should be illegal.

[spooky3]

147. but you weren't asked BECAUSE OF your gender.

That's a very different situation.

[Crunchy Frog]

149. She most likely felt pressured. She definitely felt humiliated and degraded.

A situation like this may be perceived as inherently coercive, and she may have felt that she didn't realistically have a choice. If that weren't the case, I doubt she would be suing.

I don't have a problem with people voluntarily moving seats to enable family to sit together, but I'd have a huge problem with someone being asked to move because someone else didn't want to sit next to a black person. Would you be okay with that as long as it was merely a "request"? Why should gender be any different?

[Orsino]

155. That's her fault for knowingly boarding a plane with cooties. n/t

[Skittles]

165. careful

people who believe in that crap take strong exception to the word "COOTIES"

[Arugula Latte]

164. Religious loons need to ride on the wing. They can pray to their Invisible Magical Friend in the Sky

that they don't get blown into the wild blue yonder.

[Quantess]

166. Those religious wackadoos and their magical sky-daddies can go shove it!

I don't respect religions, although I do believe in respecting people, which is more than can be said for a lot of religious fundies out there, of all major religions! Fucking jerks.

[FrodosPet]

167. Exclusionary apocalyptic religions! Ya gotta love 'em!

Because you are called a bigot if you don't.

You can have nothing but love for people of every color, gender, origin of the world. But if you criticize an Abrahamic religion's doctrine or scripture, you are a pariah. An Islamaphobe. A Christophobe. An Anti-Semite.

Never mind that you have love and hope and sorrow for the people trapped and harmed by the violent or exclusionary interpretations of those religions. Nope. If you point out parts of the Torah, the Bible, or the Qu'ran that motivate bloodthirsty literalists, you are a horrible person who hates all Christians, Jews, or Muslims.