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.

These threads always end up as a spectacular example of the lack of empathy and insight into the reality of children's lives and the lives of their families that a few posters hold.
Airlines trying to make lives easier and safer for children - confronted by adults determined to make them more difficult and less safe. And on Mumsnet as well

The risk of child molestation is statistically reduced by seating next to a woman. But there is still a risk. Some airlines have introduced kids-only zones. That is the only realistic way to remove the risk. That is what airlines should be doing.

But what about unaccompanied male passengers and the risk they pose to women? Might it not make more sense to have a seating area for unaccompanied men? That way women and children don't have to be put at risk. It seems like the logical conclusion. Isolate the risk.

Airlines trying to make lives easier and safer for children - confronted by adults determined to make them more difficult and less safe. And on Mumsnet as well

How is saying that a child should be accompanied by a parent, guardian or some other responsible adult making it less safe for children? It is the opposite. The right safeguarding approach is not to accept unaccompanied minors.

And before I go to bed...the reason why I responded on this thread:

A point on another 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.

Snappit 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!

Snappity, who is a vocal trans-right advocacist on many other threads here, seems to think it's important that children's safeguarding rights are eroded so other people can cheer that the 'boundaries are shifting'.

Exactly enough

enoughisenough12
This!

Pratchet I'm not sure whether I've disqualified myself from flowers and lovebombing for flaming this thread but just in general to you for helping us all through this bog peat (and ducks).

Just for the record I completely blame pom

She led me astray...

Rufus shivers up the back of my neck.

Sitting at the head's desk.

You're right, I led you astray.

But after our bollocking, let's do a Thelma and Louise - we're off!
(Though not off a cliff in the end, this time, we'll be transitioning films at the end and going for the Grease car....we're flying over them all!)

It's late. I'm tired, been at work all day. But I love all you gender critical women.

Pombear nails it
Thank you Pom

When i was 6 or7 pom i got the cane at school

The crime was talking in assembly

Now to be fair to the head i think the caning wasnt for the crime itself

But Michelle blamed me and i blamed Michelle

(It was absolutely michelles fault...i want to make that clear)

*Just for the record I completely blame pom

She led me astray*

I think in future we must all blame Michelle

@Snappity I was not at any point required to be a nursemaid to the child next to me. The cabin crew checked on her at intervals, they were the nursemaids, not me. Stop making assertions that aren't true.

Now theres an idea pratchet

Bloody Michelle

@Snappity How is saying that a child should be accompanied by a parent, guardian or some other responsible adult making it less safe for children?

Some kids don't have an adult who can fly with them. As people said upthread, their parents are dead, or deported, or incapacitated in hospital. If a child is abroad with one parent and that parent dies or is arrested or imprisoned, who will look after that child whilst the other parent arranges visas etc to fly out to escort the child home? Visas can take weeks to process. It is far far safer to fly that child home alone as an unaccompanied minor.

Most men I know would be delighted not to have to sit next to an unaccompanied child. I do wonder about the men who object to being moved.

Should also point out that military families quite often need to do the same if posted abroad

@Snappity How is saying that a child should be accompanied by a parent, guardian or some other responsible adult making it less safe for children?

The law of unintended consequences applies here. Whereever something is a) mandatory and b) hard to regulate supply of, a black market of dodgy suppliers springs up.

In Snappity's world, all children fly with an adult escort, but the airline have no way of knowing whether the adult is related to the kid. Result: people hire themselves out as escorts to the desperate (the parent whose spouse died whilst taking the kids to see grandma and needs to fly the kids back ASAP and grandma doesn't have a UK visa) or uncaring (I can foresee step-parents not giving a shit). Result: escort-for-hire becomes an attractive job for paedophiles and human traffickers, especially as the airlines would no longer have the rule that they only release a child to a named adult. The hired escort could easily divert the child to a paedophile ring or human trafficking gang, e.g. at a connecting airport, instead of making the connection, just leave the airport. The UM rules mandate chain of custody from check-in to hand-over to a named adult at the destination.

For all you know, that child alone next to you is a recent orphan, flying to live with relatives. Shame on you for resenting your part, as a woman, in keeping that.child safe.

(I can foresee step-parents not giving a shit).

Based on my highly scientific sample of three post-divorce partners of my parents. Obviously NASPALT.

Flight attendants have been instrumental in rescuing more than a few trafficked children because they know what to look for and how to recognize what they see.

Aye, cabin crew aren't "trolley dollies" (as a pilot I once knew used to call them), they have vital safety roles.

I read this as I thought it was about religion. Turns out to be about something that is uncommon and isn’t even allowed by many airlines now. BA stopped their solo child skyflyers service a while ago as have several others.

Yes thats right, in response to being sued by disgruntled men.

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.

No, they expect that there's a statistically much lower chance of the female passenger molesting the child than of a male passenger doing so, and they're trying to avoid getting sued by angry parents. HTH.

I read this as I thought it was about religion. Turns out to be about something that is uncommon and isn’t even allowed by many airlines now. BA stopped their solo child skyflyers service a while ago as have several others.

Actually I think the general point is that if a group A of people object to being next to group B, then it is group A who should be inconvenienced, not group B.

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.

Quite. What sort of dickhead would object to a policy that has safeguarding of chilkdren inmind for fucks sake. Yes, NAMALT and such, but enough are that it is statistically a lot safer for children to be next to female people than male. I genuinely cannot understand people who object to this. If women were more likely to be a risk to children, I certainly would not take it as an insult if random children who I did not know did not sit next to me.