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.

Ba was sued by a man who made him move so that he was not sat next to an unaccompanied minor. BA said at the time they would change their policy so unaccompanied minors have their own row and not discriminate re who can sit next to them. I think that’s about right. Not all men are paedos (and not all women aren’t).

Last What a great statement.

I want the child to be put where they are safest and not where they will pleae some petty, selfish and ignorant activist.

This.

With bells on.

Not just for flights, but just for life.

The implications of this conversation and the fact that it still exists on a platform for mothers and children is truly heartbreaking. Of all the awful things that have gone on, this is very, very bad.

Actually as a woman I would complain if an unaccompanied child was sat next to me because I am a woman but men escape. As I said before, airlines should not accept unaccompanied minors.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/kirstie-allsopp-kids-in-economy-flight-business-class-controversy-working-class-mum-a8384551.html

As a woman why should I become free nursemaid to the kids of a woman who seats herself in business class? If parents feel safeguarding is important - and they should - then they should jolly well sit themselves next to their children not expect all the other passengers to move around to suit their entitlement.

Surely people don’t actually want to sit next to unaccompanied minors. Lots of people would prefer not to have to sit next to their own children on flights, they hardly want to sit next someone else’s.

Yaay, zsazsjuju what a great result. Yep, soo many women are paedos.

(Hint- look at stats)

But thanks for your input in safeguarding minors.

Oh god...there is no point to this but never mind

The parents of Unaccompanied children are usually (not always but usually) NOT ON THE AIRPLANE

The reasons children travel alone include loss of one or both parents.

Minors are sent on flights because its considered so much safer than the train or bus. There are no stops, they cant get off and wander off or be taken from a rest room.
They are accompanied from check in to check out, and there are cabin staff around during the flight.

The airline staff cannot background check everyone who they seat next to an unaccompanied child. A risk assessment says place a low risk passenger next to them. The lowest risk of harm comes from a female passenger.
No one is forced to do it, they ask.

Its the same thing parents do when we need someone to watch the buggy for 2 minutes. Pick another parent and hope.

I just don't really see how it's different (except in severity of effect) to saying male teachers are higher risk, so let's ban male teachers. After all dbs only shows you've not been caught it doesn't make you risk free.

The men who complained were annoyed they got moved. Some said they were humiliated at being told loudly they couldn't sit next to a child and others were annoyed they weren't allowed to sit near their companions. I wouldn't go to papers but I'd be a bit annoyed if I'd booked a long haul flight and then my partner wasn't allowed to sit with me for 8 hours because a teenager was placed near us .

Ikr panda my goodness the looks I got when I flew long haul single parent, three kids under 7

This was the case that resulted in BA changing their policy;

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11061577

A man travelling with his wife. He was sat by the window. His wife asked him to swap seats. This resulted in him sitting next to the kid. Obviously it didn't occur to her that statistically her husband was far more likely to molest the child than she was. Then the BA staff stepped in. He gave the money he was awarded from the lawsuit to charity - Schrodinger's philanthropist

Personally, I don't want to sit next to someone else's kid. But I'd expect the airline to move the child, not me - unless I'm being offered an upgrade.

I feel it is the moment to lovebomb or can someone do it to me

Hearts and flowers for all the feminists on this thread

As they say, it takes a village

10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.

But I'd expect the airline to move the child, not me - unless I'm being offered an upgrade.

Exactly. It is possible to book empty seats on most airlines to be next to a passenger - no tax is paid. If someone really must send a child without an accompanying adult, then they should book empty seats for safeguarding purposes. It's all very well saying how important safeguarding is - and it is - but the responsibility should start with the parents.

pratchet

I don't think this view is even very feministy...

Always puzzled by threads like this

Why don't those dead or deported parents do their job and buy all the seats on the plane so a man won't be inconvenienced or embarrassed by having to change seats.
What is the world coming to.

Hangs head in shame.

Sorry for igniting thread. Off to wander the streets of summer warmth, reflecting on my error. (though a teeny tiny bit glad it threw a light on some people on it!)

The original post was regarding certain male passengers forcing women to be moved from their seats on a plane just to satisfy some arcane religious law. How can this example of male privilege not be feminist-y? It's outrageous.

Just as well i was referring to the children derail rather than the OP

But i can see that i wasnt clear about what i was referring to as 'not particularly feministy' so apologies for that

Just to make it clear...refusing to sit near a womyn - feminist issue
Suing an airline because they asked you not to sit next to a random child - twat issue

Sorry that was for jurgen

I don't think this view is even very feministy...

The expectation that women should act as free nursemaids to someone else's kids just because we are women and men are excused isn't feminist? It's a classic feminist issue. Assuming that all women are happy to provide free childcare so the parents aren't inconvenienced isn't on. The least parents could do is pay for the seat of the woman who gets landed with kids.

The expectation that women should act as free nursemaids...

It has been explained more than once that that is not the case but if you are committed to burning that straw man to the ground by all means do not let the reality of the situation interfere.

Yeah what thebewilderness said

I know you have quite a tenuous grasp on the truth snappity

And i know we have the same ideas about sex segregation so its awesome that we are being able to errrrmmmm...understand each other

Its fine

snappity I, as a female bodied person, can absolutely understand why the airline may need me to swap seats with my male bodied person fellow traveller due to safeguarding issues.

I'm not expecting to be a free 'nursemaid' (interesting phraseology you use there, cos, they aren't toddlers on this type of flight arrangement)

And, you know, quite a lot of us parents have experienced flights with kids. This is really not 'classic feminism' grounds. This is 'classic humanism' grounds for behaviours. Flights in airplanes force us all into small spaces which demand stronger humanity than normal small spaces, otherwise shit falls apart.

And all the children I've ever encountered on unaccompanied minors-type flights tend to the sort who don't need 'free childcare' as their parents have nurtured and raised them to be independent and confident children who are OK to go on flights on their own, regardless of the complex reasons they may need to be on that flight.

The more you post, the more I don't think you understand about parents/kids.

But I'm sure you'll tell me why you do!