El Al (Airline) will no longer make women move

[Snappity]

gateb3.com/2018/06/26/el-al-policies-have-shifted-around-in-regards-to-religiously-inclined-seating-requests/

This is a great example. Not only will women no longer be moved from their seat the entire balance is shifting and those who object to sitting next to a particular passenger will be removed. It is a really great development IMO.

I would find this a really uplifting share Snappity to be included in feminism chat.

If only it wasn't directly relevant and linked to your participation in another thread about airlines needing to know sex-specific details of passengers to ensure that those minors were sat next to female-bodied people.

Where you seemed to think it was wrong that sex should be specified on passports to ensure this.

Given that you seemed to think that was also a 'balance that needed shifting', your perspective is clearly conflating this El Al news about 'those who object to sitting next to a particular passenger' with your previous comments.

And given that the other thread was very much about safeguarding issues and children.

I find your clear conflation of the two concerning, throwing up not just red flags, but a whole line of red flag bunting...but sadly not a surprise.

Just to clarify,

The point on a thread (about non-binary passports) was made that airlines need sex-specific passports to ensure that unaccompanied minors were sat next to female-bodied people.

Snappity seemed to think that this was a) unnecessary and b) that anyone allowing minors to fly unaccompanied demonstrated poor parenting anyway.

Snappity then comes here to cheer about the 'balance is shifting' away from 'those who object to sitting next to a particular passenger'.

NB: It's not the children who 'object to sitting next to a particular passenger'. It's the airline who are putting safeguarding measures in place.

But Snappity seems to want these safeguarding measures blurred because 'trans-feelz'.

But hey, if they do get blurred, and an incident occurs - hey, parents, it's your fault anyway!

I'd rather have left this thread alone, to get no responses, but I thought it was important to highlight this, given various posters' positions on many other threads.

I was ignoring this thread for exactly those reasons. I read the other thread and it's very clear what this is about.

I know OvaHere - I'm sort of sorry for bumping it (and here I am doing it again).

I just wanted to explicity lay it out for any fence-sitting lurkers who didn't see the other thread in all its glory!

Not everyone will have read every thread on here.

Sometimes it's helpful to shine the light brightly on what's going on.

Not at all. It was a very good and concise explanation.

@pombear - am I misunderstanding your post or are you saying unaccompanied children should only be sat next to female bodied people? Why? Do you think every man is a potential pedophile who will assault an unaccompanied minor or a plane?? That's bonkers.

Thank you for the heads up pom

Shame on you snappity after you were doing so well with your sex segregation comments on the other thread

Not my policy outofmymindbebacksoon. Airlines have obviously done some sort of risk assessment, ooh get them, and decided the lower risk (not no risk) is female-bodied people next to unaccompanied minors. So go tell them it's bonkers and to redo their risk assessment that informs their safeguarding procedures!

See other thread for wider discussion.

Or pretty much the whole of FWR section for discussion on NAMALT.

am I misunderstanding your post or are you saying unaccompanied children should only be sat next to female bodied people? Why? Do you think every man is a potential pedophile who will assault an unaccompanied minor or a plane?? That's bonkers.

🙄

OK, couldn't resist coming back again. To be honest, I'm not sure which airlines still have unaccompanied minors as I haven't done full research, and a lot of them have cut a lot of options due to costs. But to those who still have the policy and seat accordingly, I'm loving the potential complaint:

"Dear Airline,
I am furious that you will not allow unaccompanied minors to only be seated next to female-bodied people.
Are you assuming every man is a potential paedophile?

Have you looked at the statistics comparing male-bodied abuse and female-bodied abuse?
Well, have you?
Oh. You have.
Erm, well, it's still not faaaiir. Let men sit next to children"

(As per the discussion on the other thread - a lot of pretty standard men that a lot of us know will not be offended, will just go 'erm, yep, it's a shame, though given the statistics I can understand why they have to put that type of safeguarding measure in place, and I don't feel personally slandered''. It's the ones who shout very loudly about it not being fair that most of us side-eye!)

Ok I understand your point with namalt. The idea that a stranger who happens to posses a vagina is safe and man is less given the public nature of a flight makes me uncomfortable but on the other hand, I think telling a child to find a lady when they're lost is sensible so I guess it does make sense.

But the person the unaccompanied minor is sat next to has not volunteered themselves as baby sitter. They are not in a position of care for a child or in a sex segregated space so I'm not sure how it's the airlines business whether or not their appearance matches their chromosomes. What next, dbs checks for the person booked in next to the minor?

I think as well the fact that they are only sat near women also makes me think they DO expect a level of babysitting from the stranger, which would really annoy me as a passenger.

How about you go and find out what the system is, how its put into practice, and what a risk assessment is.

The lowest risk person is a mother with children who has her partner with her to look after them. Those are the people they ask first. They aren't forced to comply, and they arent babysitters.

I think they have to be of a certain age. Certainly old enough to manage themselves. My daughter flew alone to visit her grandparents when she was about 13/14.

It is the porn watching and the masturbating that the airlines need to keep the kids away from. Safekeeping requirements, yanno?

outofmymindbebacksoon
Safekeeping children requires a preventative Schroedingers rapist approach to seating children when they fly unaccompanied.

@UpstartCrow I have done a bit of googling actually and found im not the only one who thinks this is possibly discriminatory. In fact British airways have change the policy after they were sued for sex discrimination because of their no unaccompanied children sat next to men policy. A couple of other airlines have stated they are "reconsidering" their policies after someone has gone to the papers after feeling humiliated in being told to move.

So yes I did sound a bit namalt and the child's welfare is more important than a mans feelings , but I don't think it's fair to imply anyone who disagrees with s policy such as this just needs to think a bit.

Safeguarding
Safeguard that's not very fair
Safeguard how about the men/non-binary
Safeguar really interesting, but what about the men
Safe gau but why should men be penalised for other men's stuff
Safe g come on, let all men sit next to children,you're mean.
Safe stop asking us if we're men, we may be non-binary
Saf we're everywhere, you lost, enjoy your erasure
Sa oops, that's not us though, just some people
S no really, stop stigmatising us for the male-bodied behaviour of some. Let us in. Let us in. Or we'll blow your house down. You biological essentialist, separatist female-bodied people.

I didn't imply you need to just think a bit, I stated you need to do some research.
The conclusion you and other men came to is the one that means people will no longer be able to send their children unaccompanied on airlines, as they won't accept the risk.

a couple of other airlines have stated they are "reconsidering" their policies after someone has gone to the papers after feeling humiliated in being told to move

Seriously....you have to wonder about people like this

In fact British airways have change the policy after they were sued for sex discrimination because of their no unaccompanied children sat next to men policy.

Anyone who would go to those lengths when an airline is trying to safeguard unaccompanied minors is sick. Even if they don't agree with the policy. How does it affect them, other than meaning they don't get to sit by an unaccompanied minor? Massive red flag.

Outofmymind

Discriminatory ?

Men MUST be allowed to sit beside unaccompanied children. What paralllel world have we entered where male-bodied people would shout 'discrimination' because they're not be able to sit next to unaccomapnied minors (eg chidren)

Erm? This is why I flagged this thread.

This is fucking bonkers! I live, breathe, love alongside the men who I hope live and demonstrate the 'NAMALT' response. But none of them would protest this policy.

Who on earth would protest it and start to identify it as 'discriminatory'.

Waves to sitting-on-fence lurkers, to I-won't-post lurkers, to anyone who reads this and goes 'WTF'.

And yep, to those lurker who think, yep, that's right, throw safeguarding out of the window, this is a crap issue that gender critical women are focusing on for no good reason - come on, tell me why.

I'm a man. I want the child to be put where they are safest and not where they will please some petty, selfish and ignorant activist.

Just the fact that someone would work to change the rule should forever disqualify them as suitable company for children (or suitable company for decent human beings)

Exactly last and pom and natural

Oh fuck, I was just going to post once here!

(Hey everyone - sorry to those who are going, 'fuck, why did you open this debate up again!)

But it's very illuminatory to me of some very, very strange viewpoints.

Will step away soon, as I'd like to keep my MNHQhymen (aka my MNHQ deletes intact!)