El Al responds, ineffectually, to a woman reader objecting to the airline’s catering to misogynistic Jews

On June 24 I reported that El Al Airlines, the national airline of Israel, once again made several women change their seats so that Haredi (ultra-orthodox) Jewish men didn’t have to violate their religious scruples of not being in the position of touching women. This is after El Al, in a lawsuit brought by an outraged woman who had to move, settled the suit by paying her and then stating that they “agreed to never again ask a passenger to move seats based on a request that involved gender.

El Al lied, for in this latest incident they did ask the women to move, and even if the women moved voluntarily, it still violates the airline’s promise to simply not ask.

I had previously written El Al over the earlier incident and got a similar promise. This time an outraged woman reader wrote the airline expressing anger over this sexism. Here is her letter:

Dear El Al Airlines,

I was shocked to hear of the mistreatment of women by your airlines when I discovered that women were asked to change their seats due to the religious sensitivities of a few men.
I was further shocked to discover that your airline was already sued for this type pf misconduct and that you had promised to never do it again. The proper response to the men who are causing the disruption is to KICK THEM OFF THE PLANE! This will set the precedent that these misogynists need to prevent further disruptions and hurt. Accommodating them will do nothing but encourage more of this behavior in the future.
I hope you will appropriately apologize to the women you have deeply offended – I know that if this were to have happened to me, I would have a very hard time getting over it!
Sincerely,
[Name redacted]
Here’s the response from El Al, just arrived:

Dear [name redacted],

Thank you for taking the time to write to El Al Customer Care and thank you for your patience with our response.

While in the air, we remain sensitive to current issues that stir daily life in Israel on the ground.

Discrimination against women could never be part of El Al policy, nor could preference of one sector over another.

El Al, as Israel’s national airline, strives to accommodate the entire gamut of passengers that choose to fly with us. We do everything possible to ensure that both non-religious and religious needs are respected.

I do hope that you will continue to choose to fly with us and give us the chance to demonstrate that we are fully committed to all our passengers. Thank you for caring.

Sincerely,
Aviva Lavi
El Al Customer Care

I, and the woman involved, considers this a non-response.  If “discrimination against women could never be part of El Al policy”, then why do they go on to imply that discrimination against women may be part of their policy to ‘respect the needs of both the religious and the non-religious”?  It looks as if they’ll continue to ask women to move if the Haredi men make a fuss.

This reminds me of the ACLU’s new policy to balance legal free speech against the possibility that certain people could be offended by free speech, and to ratchet down their defense in the case of the latter. Free speech is a non-negotiable, as is equal treatment of women by airlines.

El Al is weaselling here, and I urge readers to avoid flying them until they make a firm commitment that women will never be asked to move because of religious sentiments that are misogynistic.

As the writer noted, “Is this a temple or is this an airline?”

El Al apparently wants to play it both ways.

85 Comments

  1. Mike
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    The Captain ahould throw them off, he is the one in charge.

    • Posted July 8, 2018 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      Or she, as the case may be.

      • Posted July 8, 2018 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        That would be really funny.

      • Blue
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

        hehhehhehheh! nice nota bene, Mr Peter N !

        Blue

    • Posted July 8, 2018 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      She. She should throw them off. All El Al flights from the US should have all female crew.

  2. Marilyn
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Why doesn’t the airline just make the men change seats instead of the women?

    • Blue
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 9:03 am | Permalink

      Exactly, Ms Marilyn. But … … the
      “apparent” INability to actually come up with
      this solution ? This INability is actually
      UNwillingness. And is precisely
      THE instantiation of p a t r i a r c h y.

      So cheap and soooo easy to do it would be … …
      b u t it would be giving humans who are
      the female ones, the DEhuman ones … …
      The Power and The Control.

      O ! .THAT. can soooo NOT happen.
      NOT within … … Patriarchy.

      Blue

    • Gabrielle
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      I have wondered a about this a great deal. Why not ask men who don’t mind sitting next to the women to change seats with the haredi men? Though this still encourages the perception that sitting next to women is somehow ‘wrong’, it at least inconveniences men as well as women.
      I think it’s because in our Western societies, we expect women to be accommodating and care about others, and to be pleasant about it as well and not make a fuss.

      • Ken Phelps
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

        Or, it may be because the response from normal men would likely be a bit more…colorful. I *dream* of the day someone asks me to accommodate some religious a**hole.

        • Gabrielle
          Posted July 8, 2018 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

          I think this is exactly it. We don’t expect men to be accommodating to others. We don’t look askance at them if they are not willing to accommodate others. We do still expect women to be so, or at least if a woman stands up for herself in public, she’s more likely to get openly negative responses, from both men and women.

          • Harrison
            Posted July 8, 2018 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

            I don’t think that’s what was meant. It’s just that in a scenario where literally every other passenger thought the religious guy was a bigot and an asshole, it is more likely that a woman would prefer to move away from him even if it happpened to comply with his wishes than that a third party would volunteer to swap seats just to make him comfortable.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted July 8, 2018 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

              I agree there.

              As a third party, not immediately concerned, I’d be unlikely to volunteer to get mixed up in it. Particularly if it meant volunteering to sit next to the Haredi plonker.

              Now if I was asked to move *away* from the plonker, I would balance the inconvenience of moving against the desirability of NOT sitting next to him and I might well agree.

              cr

      • Posted July 8, 2018 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

        Why should other men be inconvenienced?

        I wouldn’t swap seats just to validate some religious nutjobs fear of cooties.

    • Marilyn
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      I mean why doesn’t the airline ask the religious guy to move? After all he is the one complaining! I didn’t mean that other men on the flight should be asked to move.

      • Blue
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

        I answered that query, Ms Marilyn. Above.

        And to Ms Gabrielle’s points and
        for millennia ( but n o t for .always before
        in re ~12,000 years BCE. ), the human beings
        who are the female ones have been expected,
        in particular, to be always ( and
        at the very east ) two things:
        … … i) patient and
        … … ii) apologetic.
        with and to … … any others. Worldwide.

        Blue

    • darrelle
      Posted July 9, 2018 at 8:58 am | Permalink

      I think that would be better. Women should not have to put up with sitting next to an asshole that has just demonstrated a lack of respect for and rudeness towards women. So requiring the Haredi to take his assigned seat or get off the plane is not a fair resolution.

      Asking the woman to move is also not a fair solution. I’m undecided about asking another person to switch seats. But the best solution I think, the most fair to all parties, is to simply remove the Haredi from the airplane as soon as they ask / demand to be separated from a woman passenger. Start doing that and perhaps they will modify their behavior, find another solution (buying multiple adjacent seats?) or stop flying.

  3. Graham
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    “We do everything possible to ensure that both non-religious and religious needs are respected.”

    You can’t always do both. Sometimes you have to pick a side. Being successfully sued should have given you a clue as to which side to choose.

  4. BobTerrace
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    How about making the heredi pay for anyone who voluntarily changes seats. That way they can pay for 2 other people to fly free for switching seats. If no takers, then they can sit and shut up or leave the plane. Give the process a five minute time limit.

    • Posted July 8, 2018 at 9:26 am | Permalink

      This is an excellent suggestion. Their problem, their cost.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      I don’t see why we can’t give them their own seats, ones that are lashed onto the wings. Then they have the choice of either

      a. staying where they are, inside the plane, and getting minus god points due to girl-germs, or

      b. taking their place on one of the wings at thirty thousand feet and trusting in their god’s ability to protect them from getting sucked into a jet-engine.

      _That_ would be an impressive display of religious devotion.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

        Getting sucked into the engine would only happen with rear-engined airliners, of which there aren’t many left. On a conventional airliner with engine intakes below and ahead of the wings, it would be impossible. Also, of course, it would certainly make the engine flame out, with adverse effects on the safety of the flight.

        Rather worse, the presence of the seat on top of the wing would have drastic aerodynamic effects – huge drag, and it would kill the lift over a significant part of the wing, could shift the centre of lift, and might easily render the aircraft uncontrollable.

        So, I’m sorry, but your suggestion is unacceptable. 😉

        [/geek]

        cr

        • Saul Sorrell-Till
          Posted July 9, 2018 at 6:55 am | Permalink

          Well, I feel very silly now. 🙂

  5. Historian
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    The ultra-orthodox are a major political force in Israel. If El Al were to get tougher with them it could create a major political upheaval in the country, possibly jeopardizing the airline’s financial viability. El Al is in a no win situation. It is trying the impossible task of threading the needle between two groups with diametrically opposed views. It is hoping to weather the storm and that the issue will eventually go away. This is not likely.

    • Posted July 8, 2018 at 9:34 am | Permalink

      You could have designated men only and women only rows, like the old smoking and non-smoking designations. You could mark them with same signs used to designate men and women toilets. A traveler can indicate a preference when booking a seat, like a preference for a vegan meal. There must, of course, be equal numbers of such rows for men and women to avoid charges of discrimination.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 9:49 am | Permalink

        What about couples who book their seats so they can sit together? Why should they have to sit in separate rows?

        • Posted July 8, 2018 at 10:19 am | Permalink

          I didn’t say all rows should be segregated. Probably very few would be needed.

          • Harrison
            Posted July 8, 2018 at 11:11 am | Permalink

            Sounds sensible to me.

        • Posted July 8, 2018 at 10:21 am | Permalink

          BTW, the women only rows might prove popular. I’ve read accounts of women being groped by men sitting next to them.

          • Saul Sorrell-Till
            Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

            This is the same kind of non-solution Jeremy Corbyn proposed when the subject of women being groped on the tube was brought up. It’s an abdication of social responsibility, and it’s an implicit ‘go ahead’ sign for creeps and bullies everywhere.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted July 8, 2018 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

              So you would oppose, for example, backpackers’ hostels that offer separate mens, womens and mixed dormitories?

              cr

              • Saul Sorrell-Till
                Posted July 9, 2018 at 7:06 am | Permalink

                I would oppose it if we had spent the last however many years with mixed dormitories, and suddenly, due to some incidences of sexual harassment, decided to segregate them. That would be a step back, and a clear signal of societal apathy towards the problem of sexual harassment.

                I’d also point out that backpackers’ hostels are often in foreign countries with very different standards of sexual conduct to ours, which is why segregation seems sane in those cases.

                If there are hostels in western countries that segregate – then yes I’d oppose that.

                Even having said that, I’d still argue that there’s a large difference between a place where people go to stay, and sleep, wash, shower, etc., with all the associated vulnerabilities that that entails, and a plane, where people generally sit and eat for a few hours and then get off.

              • Posted July 9, 2018 at 9:23 am | Permalink

                Except for overnight flights. That is when more problems occur.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

            Some Garveyites preferred not to sit next to white people, too — did that justify segregated seating on buses in the Jim Crow south?

            • Posted July 8, 2018 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

              Do you know the difference between de jure and de facto? Fact is, people may choose to segregate, whether we like it or not. Government laws mandating segregation are another matter.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted July 8, 2018 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

                Rosa Parks was free to sit in the front of the bus until it filled up and a white man asked for her seat. Then the bus driver did his best to try to persuade her to move to the colored section. Do you know the difference between voluntary segregation and segregation enforced by government or business practice or social custom?

                Why do you think that religiously based bigotry should be accommodated to an extent greater than garden-variety bigotry?

                All racism and misogyny either has a religious source or has had a religious justification slapped on it at one time or another. You ask me, the religious aspect makes misogyny and racism only worse — more insidious, more difficult to extirpate.

              • Posted July 8, 2018 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

                I am not advocating. I was responding to Historian about El Al being between a rock and a hard place. If it were me, I’d tell the Haredi to f.o., but El Al does not have that luxury.

                And I don’t think voluntary segregation with some men and women rows is anything like the American Apartheid.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted July 8, 2018 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

                I would certainly support segregating babies and very young children. Somewhere at least several rows away from me…

                cr

      • Posted July 8, 2018 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

        How about just No.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        If you’re gonna accommodate misogyny, why not racism or other bigotries? Maybe white rows & black rows, separate rows for goyim, separate rows for Sephardim & Ashkenazim?

        • BobTerrace
          Posted July 8, 2018 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

          And first class for Atheists, of course.

    • Gabrielle
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

      This is correct. I’ve just checked the current make-up of the Israel parliament, and religious parties hold 23% of the seats, and have been part of the ruling party’s coalition government for some time. This makes it impossible to ignore them.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

        The Haredi have been keeping Netanyahu in power for some time. They’re also a big part of the reason peace with the Palestinians is impossible at the moment. They’re as opposed to accommodating Muslims in any way as right-wing Muslims are to accommodating Jews.

        I think the Haredi should have to indicate their need for a seat away from women at the time of booking in the same way anyone with special needs has to e.g. mobility issues, dietary requirements, extra legroom (I have a friend who always requests an aisle in advance seat because of his height) etc.

        • Posted July 9, 2018 at 9:27 am | Permalink

          No wonder they are still having problems. And we are supporting these people!

          • Posted July 13, 2018 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

            The USA is supporting the only Jewish-majority country in the world, created with UN mandate after the Holocause, which is also the only democracy in the Middle East.

            • Posted July 13, 2018 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

              Holocaust. I apparently have a problem with this word.

        • Posted July 13, 2018 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

          My impression is that the reason peace with the Palestinians is impossible are the Palestinians. The money paid to terrorists and their families and the hero status of terrorist moms (recently discussed here) are details in the picture.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted July 13, 2018 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

            You’re right imo – the Palestinians are the biggest barrier to peace. There have been several occasions in the past where peace could have been made. It’s only really recently that the Haredi have become a problem as their numbers have grown significantly since 1948 because they have so many children. They are now a much bigger proportion of the population and sometimes can be politically significant.

  6. Claudia Baker
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    religion poisons everything

    • W.T. Effingham
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      Yep. And this seating dilemma is just one of many examples of squeamish “men” getting a spotlight shone on their particular peculiarities.

  7. Jenny Haniver
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    I think El Al should take a look at the matter of the Mehadrin (gender segregated) bus lines) in Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehadrin_bus_lines.

    Seems that there was an outcry in 2011 after ‘Tanya Rosenblit, a secular Israeli woman, refused to move to the back of Egged bus 451 from Ashdod to Jerusalem, where women commonly sit in the back, when told to by a Haredi man, who allegedly called her a shikse, a derogatory word for a non-Jewish woman. A policeman called to the scene by the busdriver, instead of explaining the law to the offending man, asked Rosenblit to move to the back. The incident made headlines both in Israeli and international media, and Rosenblit was hailed as “Israeli Rosa Parks”.’

    This was the response by some Israeli leaders in defense of the woman’s rights: ‘On the Sunday after the incident on Egged bus 451 on December 17, 2011, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated at the beginning of the weekly cabinet meeting: “I heard about an incident in which a woman was moved on a bus. I adamantly oppose this. Fringe groups must not be allowed to tear apart our common denominator. We must preserve public space as open and safe for all citizens of Israel”.

    ‘Opposition leader Tzipi Livni made a personal call to Tanya Rosenblit and praised her for her “personal bravery”, stating that “her determination symbolizes the need for all of us who fear for Israel′s image to fight and not give in”…

    ‘Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger declared on a ultra-Orthodox radio station that “if we want there to be segregation, it would be most legitimate for us to create a special bus company for these specific lines, so that we can be their ‘landlords’. But as long as they pay as we do, and it is a public company that serves not only the ultra-Orthodox sector, what can we do?”‘

    Are these leaders speaking out now?

    Interesting re boycotts resulting from El Al’s wishy-washy response: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-tech-giant-boycotts-el-al-over-discrimination-against-women/. Who boycotts whom for what reason/s is quite a thorny problem in Israel.

  8. Posted July 8, 2018 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Haredi men should have to buy three tickets so they can guarantee having an empty seat on either side of them.

    • Posted July 8, 2018 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      Exactly. They, and they alone, should bear the costs of their irrationality.

    • nicky
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

      Yes, that was my idea too, ” we cannot guarantee the seat next to you will not be occupied by someone you do not want to sit next to, therefore we advise you to buy the whole row.” Would make some economical sense too. Extra tickets without extra fuel.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there’s a very simple solution to this problem, and that is compulsory ejector seats for all Haredi men. Controlled by the females on-board of course.

  9. Randall Schenck
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    I cannot speak for Israel. Do not know their laws, constitution, etc. But, this should not happen in the U.S. Freedom of Religion should not be defined as getting preference or to undermine any other liberties or laws that govt. the people. Examples such as refusing to bake cakes or provide women with all the insurance services provide should not happen. Hobby Lobby is an example of what should not happen in America.

    I would invite any to revisit Madison’s struggles in Virginia for and against assessment with particular attention to Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrations. The state should never get into bed with any religion to the detriment of others. In other words, if you want religion to be free it must be left out of politics and government. Although this concept seems strange to many it is actually quite old.

    • Jenny Haniver
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps it shouldn’t happen in the U.S., but it does. I mentioned above the brouhaha over segregated busses in Israel. Now I read that the MTA in Manhattan, a public utility, sub-contracts to a bus line for harediim. It’s not a private transportation service. So why is it permitted here, in the land of the free. What’s the diffeence between this and sub-contracting to a group that discriminates according to race or some other criteria? — No blacks allowed. No Jews allowed. No whatever allowed.

      • Jenny Haniver
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

        One source: https://brokelyn.com/welcome-to-the-magical-mystery-bus-tour/. More to be found.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

        I believe I said it happens here very clearly and even gave examples. Therefore I do not need your reminder.

        • Jenny Haniver
          Posted July 8, 2018 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

          Pardon me, sir.

          • Jenny Haniver
            Posted July 8, 2018 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

            I’ll move.

            • Randall Schenck
              Posted July 8, 2018 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

              As long as it’s your choice.

              • Jenny Haniver
                Posted July 8, 2018 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

                Look, I realize that I was very careless in my initial wording of my comment. It wasn’t my intent to tick you off or show you up or engender whatever sort of anger I piqued in you, but I do understand that I did and I understand why. I was trying to augment your observation by giving an example of something directly analogous to the El Al incident (public transportation), and I’d just found the reference to the haredi bus in NY, so I went with it in a rush. I see that I created the impression that I was ‘teaching’ you a lesson that needed to be learned. A lesson for me is not to write in haste. Whether I agree with them or not, I learn a lot from your comments, and value them.

              • Randall Schenck
                Posted July 9, 2018 at 6:31 am | Permalink

                It’s okay. I mean no offense as well. After my first comment it just caused a touch of surprise. Just consider it a bad day for both of us. We are both on the same side of this issue.

  10. yazikus
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    That response just screams “We don’t give a shit about your concerns!” to me. Poor customer service, at best. They didn’t even acknowledge her frustration or rage. The simpering ‘we hope you’ll still fly with us’ is just galling.

    • nicky
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

      I guess she won’t.
      The other point made: let him move if he’s not happy to sit next to me is pertinent. It is the Haredim men who have the exigence, so they should be the ones to move.

    • Mark R.
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

      It real like a form letter to me.

      • Mark R.
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

        ‘read’

  11. Saul Sorrell-Till
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    The very last thing I want when I’m thirty thousand feet up in the air flying in a Pringles can with wings, is any intrusion from the kind of religious fuckwit who thinks he can stave off woman-germs with a see-through plastic blanket.
    I’d be worried that their sheer stupidity might somehow affect the engine.

  12. Heather Hastie
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    As is so often the case, the attitude is that it doesn’t really matter when it’s women who are the ones being discriminated against. Many don’t even notice it happening, or that they’re doing it.

    I’ve said this before. On average, no matter how badly a particular group of men are treated in a particular situation, the chances are women will be treated worse in the same situation.

    The only situations I’ve been able to think of where that’s not the case are rare ones in extreme circumstances like women and children getting the lifeboats first. However, I’m not sure that counts. That’s about rescuing men’s progeny. The women are only needed to look after them. It’s an evolutionary instinct kicking in, rather than an effort to treat women better.

    • Ken Phelps
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

      Or in wartime, when it seems pretty routine to round up the men and shoot them.

      • Posted July 8, 2018 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

        I have read that it is not uncommon for victors to murder the children and rape their mothers. It happened at Nanjing, I believe. Horrific, but I can see how this might be the result of a genetic fitness drive. Certainly no evidence of a loving God.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, that’s another one, and it’s a similar thing. Stopping the enemy from breeding. It’s the same thing that makes so many men, especially if they’re not properly disciplined, use rape as a weapon of war.

    • Posted July 13, 2018 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

      Actually, a study says this is an exception rather than a rule:

      “A study of 18 catastrophes over the past 300 years was carried out by Swedish researchers Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixon and shows that captains and their crew are 18.7 per cent more likely to survive a shipwreck than their passengers…
      Out of 15,000 people who died in 18 sinkings, only 17.8 per cent of woman survived compared with 34.5 per cent of men.
      In three of the shipwrecks, all of the women died, Elinder said…
      The researchers, from Uppsala University, called the Titanic an exception to their findings, mainly because its captain, Edward Smith, threatened to shoot men if they tried to board the lifeboats before women and children…
      The report says: ‘Evidence from the Titanic is not representative of maritime disasters in general.’
      Captains gave orders to prioritise the rescue of women and children in only five of the 18 disasters.
      Wide disparities between the sexes were found in the 1994 sinking of the MS Estonia in the Baltic Sea, which killed 852 people.
      Only 5.4 percent of the women onboard survived, compared to 22 percent of the men.
      The researchers noted that men, thanks to their physical strength, have better chances of surviving than women..
      Captain Christer Lindvall, president of The International Federation of Shipmasters’ Associations, said he was not surprised about the findings but stressed there are no rules stating that women and children should be rescued first…”

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130003/Study-sea-disasters-men-better-survival-rate-ships-down.html

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted July 13, 2018 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

        Interesting. Thanks for that mayamarkov.

  13. Jair
    Posted July 8, 2018 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    The situation is not ideal, but the word ‘misogynistic’ is way too strong here. Wouldn’t the women in this faith behave the same way towards men?

    It seems like the solution here would be for the airline to arrange seating ahead of time according to these requests, so they wouldn’t have to kick anyone off or force anyone to move. If the request is not made well ahead of time – well, too bad for that customer.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted July 8, 2018 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

      “Wouldn’t the women in this faith behave the same way towards men?”

      Interesting point, but I’m not sure if it’s true. I think the women are unclean already, so if they spread the deadly ‘disease’ to some heathen, the women don’t mind and the heathen don’t matter.

      That’s my guess, anyway.

      cr

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted July 8, 2018 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        (not that I’d want to sit next to a black sack…)

      • Posted July 9, 2018 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

        I was told once that the rules are symmetrical (i.e., don’t touch), but the outcomes are worse for men.

        • Posted July 9, 2018 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

          What, they have evil through?

  14. Posted July 8, 2018 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    “Eww, girls have cooties!” -Haredi men, apparently

  15. Posted July 9, 2018 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Hard to believe this is still going on. Time for all the people in the Middle East to catch up with the rest of the world.

  16. Andy
    Posted July 9, 2018 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Crazy tiy fonts never fly el al again

  17. Posted July 9, 2018 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    What other airlines fly to Israel?

  18. Karla
    Posted July 15, 2018 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    They could easily solve this. Make the ones demanding to be free from women pony up for 2 or 3 seats. Problem solved.

    • Karla
      Posted July 15, 2018 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

      Oops. Sorry. I didn’t read down the thread first to notice this had already been stated.


%d bloggers like this: