Woman sues easyJet

[Letmegetthisrightasawoman]

www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/27/woman-sues-easyjet-after-being-told-to-move-seats-due-to-ultra-orthodox-jewish-men

Seriously, why can't these men move??? Surely they're aware that not everyone shares their beliefs and that there would be no problem if it weren't for these beliefs? As in: most women wouldn't have a problem sitting next to an orthodox Jewish man, but the reverse does not apply. Surely the onus must therefore be on them to move? It's bad enough that they believe women are so inferior/ dangerous that they can't sit next to them, but they then insist that they must accept this sexism and accommodate it. I bloody well hope she wins!!!

My DH was on a flight, a middle eastern airline with a stopover in a middle eastern hub.

He was asked to move by crew due to the fact a woman was assigned the seat next to him. This was in the middle of the business section, 2 seats abreast. He specifically chose this seat as it has even more legroom (he is very tall), so said no. She kicked up a huge fuss as she was travelling with a male relative and wanted him to sit there and refused to sit next to a strange male.

He just put his headphones on and ignored her, she was found a seat at the back next to the bar (380) one of the worse seats in business, split up but next to a woman. So it also happens the other way as well.

I have also had a male who refused to sit next to me (same airline) and demanded to be moved shouting and making a scene, yes he was moved, to first class.

QUOTE
Three years ago, Renee Rabinowitz, an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor, won a landmark ruling against El Al. The Israeli judge hearing the case said that “under absolutely no circumstances can a crew member ask a passenger to move from their designated seat because the adjacent passenger doesn’t want to sit next to them due to their gender”.
ENDQUOTE

gender ? Or Sex ?

Religions should be compassionate.

What a curious notion - you clearly aren't religious.

The TL;DR of the past 2000 years has been one religion or another trying it's best to eradicate or eliminate all traces of any competitors. Probably best avoided at all costs.

OK, so I don't go around breaking into churches to piss in the fonts, but generally I have a low tolerance of respect for anyone who'd rather do what an imaginary friend tells them than listen to their own conscience.

(I also have a vanishingly low tolerance for the rather dim atheists who can make such a huge fuss about being invited to a Christening or the like. Acting as if they could "catch God" or some similar nonsense.)

Several men have sued airlines for sex discrimination because they felt insulted by the safeguarding policy that means lone children shouldn't be seated next to men they aren't related to. Personally I think safeguarding should be the priority, but the courts dont agree.
So it will be interesting to see how they treat this case.

There will be sooner or later an attempt to challenge and remove faith based belief as a reason for female people to not be able to access mixed sex spaces, as this is one of the lingering barriers. And this agenda is well served by the culture of religion being all a bit silly and 'other', not helped at all when entitled men behave like this.

So would like to state, for the record, there is a radical difference between demanding to control a mixed sex public space to fit with your beliefs and someone who will not be able to use a designated single sex space where they will be getting undressed if that space is turned to mixed sex. Particularly when a call to the airline in advance to discuss this probably could have ended in planned arrangements that meant no hassle for anyone.

Women get it coming and going don't they? They must be moved to avoid offending males, and I bet no one asked those women how they identified and what their gender was: because this is a sex based issue. Females whose beliefs and cultures will mean they can no longer access loos, changing rooms, gym sessions etc are also not only representing their own beliefs but may have partners, relatives, communities who will not accept or even punish them for not maintaining sex segregation. Many single sex things like yoga, swims, were created to enable these women to have more participation in the community, to have more independence and freedom, and as male people identify into those single sex sessions they push those females back and cause them losses.

And I've heard the let them eat caking from a certain women's officer, who said in essence that those women should just leave the religion and stop believing in patriarchal stuff like that..... words fail at the sheer privilege and naivety. Women are caught on both sides, between males wanting to serve their own interests. It's a sex based problem. And its one that male people don't get and can't understand because it doesn't happen to them.

@Thelnebriati

Several men have sued airlines for sex discrimination because they felt insulted by the safeguarding policy that means lone children shouldn't be seated next to men they aren't related to. Personally I think safeguarding should be the priority, but the courts dont agree. So it will be interesting to see how they treat this case.

But that's rather the point of it, isn't it.

If you want to take a stance that people shouldn't be judged a priori on their sex, then you can't really take the stance that "all men are a risk to children" without pretty much invalidating your own argument.

And if you are saying that safeguarding trumps notions of equality between the sexes, then you really have to be prepared for other things - like religious views - to also take precedence over equality.

We lived in Stamford hill years ago which has a large community of orthodox Jewish people, we rented off a guy that made it clear he didn’t/couldn’t deal with me blah blah but he had to if he wanted his money every month as we had serious repair issues regularly, so he begrudgingly occasionally did- after saying ‘ I must deal with your husband’. I found it a huge culture shock though to live amongst them, the women acted like I was invisible and when out with my baby wouldn’t even move aside when gathered on the street together, so often I had to take my buggy into the road to pass. Doors to shops shut in my face- money accepted if I purchased though. It was a very strange experience particularly as a woman. I can’t understand an airline going along with their beliefs in this way. I would stay in my seat until security arrived!

Safeguarding doesn't say ''all men are a risk to children''. Thats not how a risk assessment works.

Insurance companies say that as a group, women drivers are a lower risk than men. That does not mean they are secretly saying ''all men are dangerous drivers''.

Safeguarding children is not comparable.

These men were not at risk from the woman, were they.

And the woman who kicked up a fuss was using it as an excuse to sit with her OH when she hadn't arranged to do it in advance.

In the end she was the one who was moved, not the man.

I mentioned other cases where passengers have successfully sued because the airline asked them to move. I'm not saying this is a safeguarding issue

The other point with where to seat children is probably more than about risk.

It's about who is more likely to put up with a random child next to them, and help them if something goes wrong etc. Really it's about children being women's work and we're more likely to follow the socialisation to be nice, help etc. How true that is on a plane I don't know but I suspect there's some underlying sex role bias going on there.

I was responding to serendipity, not you.