Airline Gave Woman New Seat, Because Monks Cannot Sit Next To Women

[ripcord]

CHICAGO (CBS) — A California woman was given a new boarding pass when arriving last Monday at John Wayne airport for her United Airlines flight to Houston, because two men did not want to sit next to a woman.

Mary Campos, of Coto de Caza, Calif., is a frequent flier. She thought she saw it all until she was given a new boarding pass from a United gate agent just as she was about to board her flight.

The agent handing Campos her new boarding pass, said this is your new seat, and “I don’t know how to tell you this…the two gentlemen seated next to you have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, or talking to or communicating with females.”

Campos was told the men were Pakistani monks. Even the female flight crew were not allowed to serve the men.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/09/30/airline-gave-woman-new-seat-because-monks-cannot-sit-next-to-women/

Turns out they were Buddhist monks but I guess my question is simple, since the monks were the ones with the problem shouldn't they have had to move?

[unblock]

1. the preferred way to deal with this is to make a big show up bumping the woman up to first class

[Akamai]

78. Absolutely -- that was my first thought in reading the story as outlined. Bump her up

and probably tell her quietly (sub rosa) the reason for that. I think she should be given the truth and not to give her the actual reason is very questionable.

Maybe airlines should have a little slush fund to accommodating the demands of the religious, and passengers should know why they are paying the extra fee.

[stopbush]

2. Why not make the fucking monks move?

Fuck religion.

[MANative]

4. ^^^^^^^^

And most especially, fuck misogynist religion, which in my personal experience is most of them.

[uponit7771]

17. +1

[Mariana]

23. Make them move right the fuck off the plane.

They could have paid for the seat to remain empty. They didn't, so fuck them.

[Chemisse]

57. Good point.

I think that should be required for men who feel this way.

[kristopher]

109. Finding 2 seats vs finding 1 seat is probably a big factor

So, if the change is acceptable to the woman why is it a problem? I don't usually develop an emotional attachment to a seat, do you?

[stopbush]

112. You don't need to find two seats.

You move the asshole who would have been sitting next to the woman to the empty seat. That leaves an empty seat between the woman and the guy who didn't move. End of "problem."

[kristopher]

114. Zealots are everywhere.

[Egnever]

3. Grrr

hopefully the new seat was first class. If not it's a bad call and she should have been given the choice.

I don't find it reasonable to fly on a commercial airline and expect not to be seated next to a female. I doubt anyone does.

[Warpy]

5. Yes, they should have

In fact, they should have paid for the three seats so that no one else would be inconvenienced.

I wonder which branch of Buddhism that was. Monks are celibate but I've never seen them be that afraid of contact with icky doodle women cooties.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Yeah, I've been around more than my share of Buddhist monks in my day

I used to live across the street from a nice Thai lady who was friends with some. Very friendly gentlemen. They needed a TV at one point, so I gave them my old one. Apparently they didn't have any restriction on either being around women, or watching TV.

[Cakes488]

130. Surely the Monks know they'll be encountering women in their travels

and if it's such a problem for them then they should of bought the block of seats.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. ^^This^^

Pay for the whole row to ensure separation.

It's not unreasonable to ask this woman to change seats as long as the new one is of equal or better desirability. That's reasonable accommodation. It's a bit ham-fisted to simply tell her she has a new seat assignment though.

[Doreen]

106. That was my first thought.

I am Buddhist and have never heard of Buddhist monks not being allowed to talk to females. I have heard there are new branches of Buddhism and maybe that is it.

[kristopher]

107. Only some monks are celibate.

Many in Japan and Tibet are neither celibate nor single.

[Odin2005]

128. Theravada Buddhism.

Theravadin tend to be very strict when it comes to interpreting monastic rules.

[Warpy]

129. Yes, they are, especially within the monastery

but the monks will sit next to women when they have to.

[Odin2005]

138. The most infuriating thing about this is...

...that the Buddha explicitly said that minor monastic rules could be added, altered, or abolished as needed, and IMO this certainly counts as "minor".

[icymist]

140. Doesn't matter. People will always rewrite religion to support their bias and bigotry.

Just look at the RW in this country.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

6. A slippery slope!

[Nevernose]

7. Buddhist monks will "endure" a woman's touch

Even if they have to cleanse themselves afterwards.

Either these guys were Buddhist lunatics (not impossible), were actually Muslim (since they were from Pakistan and there ain't many Buddhists left there), or the entire story is bullshit.

I've spent a little time in a strict, actual, Theravada monastery. With female accompaniment. So I call probably, though not certain, bullshit.

[Warpy]

8. Theravada is the sect I'm most familiar with, also

It's quite comfy and very accessible to western blockheads like me.

I don't know of any monks who won't put up with contact with women in places like crowded transportation. They will simply control themselves and some, as you noted, with cleanse themselves afterward.

I tend to call bullshit, also.

[ripcord]

13. I'm more upset with United

I would bet that the monks asked if they could be accommodated and in an effort to appear PC the airline went overboard.

[athena]

132. I'm upset with United, too.

Apparently, the needs of sexist males count more to United Airlines than the needs of women to be treated equally to men.

[kristopher]

115. alternatively you could be making a sweeping generalization about a half billion people.

[Nevernose]

116. I didn't realize that there were half a billion Buddhist monks

I also used words like "might" and "could be."

[kristopher]

119. It's still a sweeping generalization

ETA: I know monks that are married. Not the norm, true, but that's the point - both extremes exist in a group as large and diverse as the Buddhist religion.

[Exilednight]

124. I call bullshit too.

I'm a Buddhist and have never heard of a form that completely prevents any form of contact with women.

Some sects do require a monk to never be alone in a secluded place with a woman, but never heard of a sect that prevents complete separation.

[demigoddess]

9. they should have moved the monks to the absolute rear seats of the plane.

bumpy ride extra.

[Donkees]

63. Tell them the pilot is a woman, and put them on the next bullock cart to Houston

[davidn3600]

10. Should have just gave the monks a cooties shot

[Dr. Strange]

43. Cooties shots have thermisol.

They cause autism.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I think the rule is that if you are the one with the religious or other restriction

you should be the one doing the accommodating, not everyone else.

[apcalc]

30. You hit that squarely on the nose!

Their problem not hers.
How about THEY make the accommodation.

This has given me an idea...if I get people beside me I do not wish to be near, just cite my sincerely held religious belief that I can't sit near them because of x, y, an z.

[Skittles]

14. STOP CATERING TO THESE WOMEN-HATING PIECES OF SHIT

Last edited Sat Oct 1, 2016, 05:32 AM - Edit history (1)

FUCK WHATEVER REASONS THEY HAVE

IF THEY CANNOT SIT NEXT TO A WOMAN TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO LEAVE

[apcalc]

31. I'm with you.

Get over it buddy boys, this is PUBLIC transit.

[SusanCalvin]

33. There you go. They should not have been accommodated. Period. nt

[Skittles]

66. THANK YOU

OMFG, these people with their "other solutions" - would they say this if the men refused to sit next to black folk? WHY is misogyny tolerated EVEN by so-called PROGRESSIVES on a DEMOCRATIC WEB SITE?

[SusanCalvin]

67. Yep. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

126. Yeppers...misogyny is the safe prejudice.

Very little backlash if you treat women badly.

Why, that's the reason most customer service reps are women...low pay, taking abuse from irate strangers, and management wants people who won't make their customers feel threatened.

[Oneironaut]

88. That would make too much sense!

But noooooo, we have to be "culturally aware," and cater to every culture, no matter how ridiculous.

[Amaril]

136. My thought exactly

If you have a problem sitting next to 50+% of the population on a plane, then YOU should not fly commercial.

[Thor_MN]

15. The whole thing is stupid, but moving two people is more efficient than moving four.

I don't think there is necessarily a sexist component to what the airline did, other than accommodating a sexist request.

By far, the least disruption would be to bump the woman to first class. But if there weren't any open seats available, having the woman trade seats with a man is the simplest solution, if people are going to be moving.

[Skittles]

19. LOL WTF

ACCOMMODATING A SEXIST REQUEST IS SEXISM

if they refused to sit next to black folk and the airport assisted them would you deny it was racism?

[Thor_MN]

32. Did you read what I said?

I swear some of you are like the dead people in The Sixth Sense... You only see what you want to see.

Yes, the request (I don't know that it was a demand, but you sure seem to want it to be) from the monks was sexist. The airline moving two people instead of four was not necessarily sexist. A lot of posts on this thread seem to really want it to be.

Do you understand? Overall, sexist motivation. But the action of moving two people instead of four is more easily explained by, duh, moving two people instead of four. So, it shouldn't have happened, but asking two people to trade seats is an easier task than having four move. Moving the two monks to a row that left only males in that row would have still been a sexist request, but that is exactly the solution that some proposed.

[Skittles]

65. NO ACCOMMODATING THIS SEXIST GARBAGE

it should NOT BE TOLERATED - END OF STORY

[Thor_MN]

69. I thought so. Dead. Only see what you want to see.

Continue shouting if you want, but you should know that there are many decaffeinated brands today that taste just as good as the real thing.

[Skittles]

74. OK here you go

"it shouldn't have happened"

no but after that

end of story

done here

[LanternWaste]

101. you are rationalizing sexist behavior as efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

"Only see what you want to see..."

I apply the same to you; as you are rationalizing sexist behavior as mere efficiency and cost-effectiveness, regardless of the allegations of your Real Thing.

[smirkymonkey]

118. +1000

This!

[Bradical79]

108. I think you're being understood perfectly fine -nt

[Brickbat]

44. Yes, the potential disruption to airline operations is the key point here.

Thank goodness they had an option that made it easy for them to accommodate bigotry and keep the planes running on time.

[Thor_MN]

50. Your sarcasm instead of logic is noted.

Every time a woman is asked to anything, it is automatically sexist, got it.

[Brickbat]

52. Which is not what I said.

But when a woman is asked to move because another passenger has a problem with her being a woman, that IS automatically sexist.

[Thor_MN]

53. Which is what I said, but that doesn't matter, because you want to be outraged.

[Brickbat]

56. Outrage is exhausting, which is why I stick to sarcasm.

And here we are.

[Thor_MN]

61. Suit yourself.

[RelativelyJones]

55. This is clearly sexist

She was asked to move because of her gender. Just as if a passenger was asked to move because they were black it would obviously be racist.

[Thor_MN]

62. Reading comprehension is at a premium these days.

The reason for the move was sexist from the monks. The actual move (performed for a sexist reason, stop knee jerking) by the airline wasn't necessarily. Moving 2 people is easier than moving 4.

[SusanCalvin]

68. The actual move was sexist,

since it was in response to a sexist, totally unacceptable, request.

I don't care what their religion says - they were on public transportation.

Requesting to be apart from another human being is not the same as, say, requesting a kosher meal.

[Thor_MN]

70. God, does anyone know how to read?

All I am talking about is the actual move itself. The people complaining that the two monks should have been moved are forgetting that moving them would also be done for a sexist reason, and involve moving at least FOUR people instead of two. Realize that a man probably had to be moved as well...

Just because an action involves a woman doesn't mean that it is necessarily sexist. Can you explain why moving four people would be better than moving two? With all things equal (I have said all along the overall effect was sexist) all I have gotten in response is inane comments that the whole thing was sexist. I'm not arguing that, every post I have made on this thread said that it was sexist. I've even noted that the move my have be done by a sexist asshole, but none of us know anything about that.

But since you decided to chime in, please explain how this would have been better by moving 4 people. You have chosen to take that side, that it would have been better to rearrange all the seating instead of having 2 people switch seats.

[SusanCalvin]

71. I've chosen to take the side that the request should not have been accommodated.

At all.

And that even attempting to accommodate it was in fact sexist.

The monks should have been told to deal with it or leave.

As far as explaining what you ask me to explain, no. It is irrelevant from my point of view.

[Thor_MN]

73. Then you are not even on the same page as what I have said.

And irrelevantly shouting into the breeze, I usually leave the people that are rambling to themselves on the sidewalk along to consult with their demons. Have a good night, perhaps some sleep will will get you on topic.

Please reply if you want to discuss why moving 4 is better than 2, otherwise find someone else to bother.

[SusanCalvin]

75. 1) I am not shouting.

2) Your wanting to argue about an irrelevant point (the efficiency of a move that should not have been made in the first place) is, well, irrelevant.

3) I replied only because you contended that while the request was sexist the actual move might not have been sexist. I disagree. Attempting to comply with a sexist request is sexist.

4) If I bother you, you're welcome to stop replying.

[Thor_MN]

76. Again with the baying at the moon?

You are more than welcome to try and find some else to discuss how offended and outraged you are.

And yes, you are shouting, even though you are not using all caps.

BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, you are replying to me...

[SusanCalvin]

79. Yes, I am replying to you. You're amusing. Sort of.

So I'll keep doing it until I'm no longer amused, or until you're no longer amused, whichever comes first.

And, no, this does not mean I find your arguments cogent. I'm arguing one point, you're arguing entirely another, and I find your point irrelevant. Do I really think it's possible for me to get this across to you? No, not really.

[Thor_MN]

85. So you admit that you are a bully and are trying to force me to accept your viewpoint.

I understand your point. All results of an interaction that involve a woman are sexist.

Those monks could learn from you as you are their exact opposite. All they need to do is figure out what you think and do the same in reverse.

I don't find you amusing.

[SusanCalvin]

92. No, you don't understand my point.

And I don't care whether you find me amusing or not, of course.

[SusanCalvin]

94. *I'm* a bully?

[Thor_MN]

97. Kind of hard to face reality when you have to bend it so much, huh?

[demigoddess]

81. there is also the idea that these sexist guys should have made their request at the

time of booking not when everyone was seated. Then they could have arranged people and not slapped the woman in the face with the fact that they didn't like women to touch them. Or be near them. That at least would have been less sexist.

[Thor_MN]

86. Granted, and totally irrelevant to what I said.

I think I and others have already said that, so do you have anything to say that isn't already addressed elsewhere?

[athena]

133. Why should their request be accommodated at all?

Their request denies women's humanity and equality to men. Their request is based on the age-old idea, still prevalent in most if not all religions, that women are inferior, dirty, and dangerous and should either be hidden under shapeless clothing, or kept in a separate room, to avoid enticing and thereby sullying men.

The request, in itself, is deeply offensive to women. The only reason United accommodated it, and the only reason so many people in this thread don't see a problem with what United did, is that we still live in a disgustingly sexist society.

[RelativelyJones]

84. Since I have decided to chime in...

You keep talking about the efficiency of moving two people over four, which is about as relevant as what they are serving for lunch....yet you accuse others of being dense. I don't understand why you are trying to take the edge of an incident that was sexist from start to finish.

[Thor_MN]

87. My point was narrow, which I said from the very begining.

Yet a lot of people want to hit it with a sledge hammer and say over and over that the entire incident was sexist. Well, duh, I have said that in all my posts. So do I think the people responding to me are dense? I don't know, they all kind of resemble people who can only say Benghazi and email in a conversation about Hillary Clinton, but dense? They seem to be able to read, but want to let outrage rule over any logic.

I addressed the people saying "Why didn't they move the monks?" Which would have been a more elaborate way to handle an equally sexist situation. And got a bunch of people with their undies in a bunch outraged that even a small aspect of the situation might not have necessarily been sexist.

[SusanCalvin]

90. Uh, you just said, in the single post I am replying to,

1) "Yet a lot of people want to hit it with a sledge hammer and say over and over that the entire incident was sexist. Well, duh, I have said that in all my posts." (Italics mine.)

2) "And got a bunch of people with their undies in a bunch outraged that even a small aspect of the situation might not have necessarily been sexist." (Again, italics mine.)

Contradictory, I submit. And, I submit, not the first time, although I believe it's the first time in a single post.

ETA: Oh myyyyyyyyyy......

I came in in the middle of this brouhaha, so I just noticed this in the post that started it all, good 'ol #15:

"I don't think there is necessarily a sexist component to what the airline did, other than accommodating a sexist request." (Once again, italics mine.)

Ladies and gentlemen, the root of the righteously bunched panties.

Accommodating a sexist request is sexist. The point that followed about how to do it efficiently is deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Thor_MN]

91. Really?

So absolutely everything connected to a an interaction that involves a woman is completely and totally sexist in your mind.

Like I said, those monks have nothing on you, you are their equal. It must be tough, bending reality into to such an absolutist worldview.


" And, I submit, not the first time, although I believe it's the first time in a single post. " (Italics mine.)

I have to believe that is a typo, as I find it hard to believe that you have ever submitted on a single oint in your life.

[SusanCalvin]

95. Good grief.

I quit. You don't win, I just quit.

Several people have tried, and you not only don't get it, it appears, you attack in a personal manner.

I feel sorry for you, sort of, but grateful that I don't have to interact with you if I don't want to.

I am officially no longer amused.

[Thor_MN]

98. Good, because you are the one trying to bully.

Apparently, the mere possibility that a small aspect of a incident might not necessarily have been sexist enraged you enough to post nine times the functional equivalent of "But Benghazi!!!"

[smirkymonkey]

120. Wow, some people just won't back down when they are beaten with reason.

Sorry you had to be his punching bag. He didn't win any points here with his ridiculous "argument".

[SusanCalvin]

122. Thanks. It was interesting.

I didn't see anything after I posted this, as I did something I seldom do - ignore.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

100. And if they didn't want to sit next to blacks

you believe it would have been ok to ask her to move if she had been black?

That's ok?

NO, it's not! They either deal with it, or get off the damn plane!

[RelativelyJones]

102. +1000

[athena]

131. Exactly what I was thinking.

It's amazing that so many people think it's OK to accommodate a sexist request.

Maybe planes should be divided in two, and women placed in the back of the plane. That way, all the needs of the sexist customers would be satisfied.

[LanternWaste]

103. Only you and your martyred state it would seem

"God, does anyone know how to read?"

Only you and your martyred state it would seem-- which can be the only possible answer to everyone disagreeing with your absolute accuracy on all counts. Heaven forbid you're simply wrong and being obtuse about it...

[Bradical79]

111. Your logic is pretty awful -nt

[Hekate]

16. Did they upgrade her seating? I wouldn't get mad at all if I got some kind of upgrade.

Even a free drink or free meal would do it.

Frankly, airline seating is awfully intimate these days.

I'm surprised at the Buddhist monks. There are so many out in the world these days who seem to feel it is no violation of their practice to interact with the residents of the world. There's even at least one ancient parable on this subject.

But males who get the collywobbles from being near females probably should wear bag on their own heads and stay home.

[uponit7771]

18. +1

[Bradical79]

113. Yeah, that wouldn't be so bad.

I'd probably have ended up telling them they could take another flight if they didn't like it though.

[athena]

134. I would not have accepted an upgrade.

The accommodation of the sexist request is unacceptable. If these men insist on viewing women as so inferior and so dangerous to their fragile male egos, they should not be flying, period. By accommodating their request, United is choosing to respect their misogyny, rather than respecting the equality and humanity of the woman.

[Hekate]

141. Flying these days is the pits. *Please* give me an upgrade.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

20. I'm shocked, just SHOCKED

that an airline would seat total strangers together! Oh, wait, they do that all the time?

Nevermind.

[spiderpig]

21. How do these misogynistic religious nuts think they came into being in the first place?

Maybe their mothers should have asked for another zygote.

[Albertoo]

22. The monks behavior was not even canonical; shame on the airline for caving in.

Tibetan Buddhist monks who have not yet fully realized sunyata of all forms would still avoid sitting next to women. And this is okay, although this inability should not ever be manifest in a manner that insults or offends another person. As a point of reference, there is a common Buddhist story that reflects the two levels of approaching the guidelines for monks:

Two monks were returning to the monastery in the evening. It had rained and there were puddles of water on the roadsides. At one place a beautiful young woman was standing unable to walk across because of a deep puddle of water. The elder of the two monks went up to her and lifted her in his arms, carried her over the puddle and left her on the other side of the road. Afterwards, he continued on his way to the monastery. The younger monk was both confused and slightly upset by the elder monk's actions.

Later in the evening the younger monk came to the elder monk and testily said, "Sir, as monks, isn't it true that we cannot touch women?" The elder monk answered, "Yes, brother." The younger monk then responded, "But then, sir, how is it that you lifted that women on the roadside?" The elder monk smiled at him and said, "Brother, I left her on the other side of the road, but you are still carrying her."

[SusanCalvin]

34. There you go.

Yet another reason the request should have been ignored.

[Odin2005]

139. I thought of that exact story when I saw this thread!

[Ex Lurker]

24. I guess Buddhophobia is acceptable

There's a marked difference in this thread and threads about a certain other religion.

[Skittles]

25. NOT FROM ME THERE ISN'T

[SusanCalvin]

38. Huh?

All I'm discussing is their request on the plane, which should not have been accommodated.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. If you meet the Buddha on the road

FEAR HIM

[Marr]

105. I noticed that, too.

If they turned out to be Muslims, the outrage would flip 180 degrees.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. we all agree, that forcing someone to move from an airplane seat they paid for due to their gender

is wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021130802

[opiate69]

47. Well, there's a blast from the past!

Good times...

[Warren DeMontague]

58. You know

I'm a stickler for consistency.

[SusanCalvin]

36. Better yet,

Tell them to stay right where they are, or get off the plane.

[ripcord]

48. If the airline decided they wanted to deal with this

they should have just asked if anyone was willing to help rather than forcing someone.

[SusanCalvin]

49. Very true - volunteer would have been preferable.

Still, in a rational world, nobody gets to reject another human being in a public accommodation, at least not for anything except publicly unacceptable *behavior*.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

28. The airlines cater to people that believe in invisible things that don't exist,

I'm shocked!

[treestar]

121. That's a good point

If they are so old fashioned, why are they riding in newfangled things planes?

[jberryhill]

29. The women should have simply offered to wear hijab

[Warren DeMontague]

59. I hear vanity fair says hijab is fashion

hijab is trend

[smirkymonkey]

35. That's bullshit! They should have been forced to pay for her plane ticket.

What if it had been someone of a different color, religion or someone gay? Would they have gotten away with it?

[SusanCalvin]

37. No, they wouldn't have. I hope. nt

[Iggo]

39. And people want me to respect their "sincerely held religious beliefs."

Not fucking happening.

[SusanCalvin]

41. I respect their right to hold the beliefs, not the beliefs themselves.

There are many religious beliefs that I disrespect intensely.

[Coventina]

42. At the risk of invoking "no true Scotsman" as an (admittedly bad) Buddhist, I have to point out that

their approach to this situation is completely wrong.

The Buddha himself would have been embarrassed by their behavior.
He would have certainly corrected them and told them that dealing with women is THEIR problem, not hers.

Buddhism is all about taking personal responsibility for your own spiritual health.
It certainly does NOT expect the world to do it for you.

I'm embarrassed for my faith.

[Glassunion]

45. Sorry. This is all I can think about.

[Coventina]

46. OK, thanks for making me laugh!

[Donkees]

51. Sounds like another case of ego impersonating spirituality

[smirkymonkey]

54. I have never heard it put that way before, but you just hit the nail on the head.

Perfect!

[Laffy Kat]

64. If they wanted to move her, it should have been to First Class.

First Class and a comped ticket.

[JI7]

72. they should make them pay extra for the tickets

and the women should only be asked to move if it's for upgraded seats. in fact make the guys pay for that also.

[SusanCalvin]

77. I am such a stubborn cuss

That even that wouldn't make me happy. I would have sat there and dared them to do anything about it.

[LuckyLib]

80. Unless you have airline folks among family or friends, you have no idea

what the airlines put up with. This is over the top, but between fights in first class over the window shade, drunks, and folks changing diapers, this is just one more example of the crazy idiots that expect to be "accommodated" when they fly.

Some males of some religious groups won't speak with female crew-members. At all. Screw 'em. Take the bus.

[Amaril]

137. I worked as a cashier in a grocery store for a while

There were men who would not make eye contact with me, speak to me or even put their money in my hand (they would throw it in my general direction). I always assumed they were just garden-variety assholes who look down on people who work in service industries, but maybe it was a religious thing instead.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

82. My religious beliefs require that I be provided with an entire row

without any surcharges.

God is my copilot.

[SusanCalvin]

96. .

[DFW]

83. I had the same thing happen to me on a flight from New York to Switzerland

A loudmouthed, obnoxious guy came up to the flight attendants demanding he be given a new seat because he was seated next to a woman. He had a strong New York accent, so doubt he was from another country. He was highly unpleasant and was yelling as if the airline had done him a deliberate wrong.

I hoped he would be tossed off the plane, but it seemed as if he was accommodated. His row was far away from mine, and the flight was full, so I didn't see how the issue was resolved. Seeing as how the toilets were not separated out by sex, I hope he had to hold it in for 8 hours and run for the toilet in agony once we reached Zürich.

The jerk's supposed grounds were also religious. Any religion that provokes such behavior should demand that its adherents either take a cruise ship or swim to Europe, and leave the rest of us in peace.

[6chars]

89. Next time I'm stuck in a middle seat

I will get the passengers on both sides moved. The I can lie down and take a nap.

[Orrex]

99. Maybe the monks should have been on a higher plane.

[appleannie1]

104. In front of the monks, she should have been upgraded to first class.

[HassleCat]

110. It will be my pleasure to help you, gentlemen!

We'll find you a flight with no women on board. Unfortunately, you will have to speak briefly with our reservation agent, Helen Waite. So please go to Helen Waite.

[athena]

135. LOL. Best response so far. (n/t)

[hamsterjill]

117. Utterly absurd that common sense flies out the window.

If the monks don't want to run the risk of having to sit next to a female, then they need to buy up the entire plane.

Then problem sol-VED.

[JanMichael]

123. at least she wasnt honor killed! bright side people bright side. nt

[WinkyDink]

125. Since when do airplane companies need to obey ANY passenger in this manner? Take back their tix and

tell them to have a nice day.

[Odin2005]

127. This Buddhist is facepalming.

Those monastic rules were never meant to be interpreted that strictly.