4 ms·

It really is a case of some being too easily offended. One woman was offended that a Hasidic Orthodox Jew would not sit by her, thinking it was hatred of women

by judah 11y ago

It really is a case of some being too easily offended. One woman was offended that a Hasidic Orthodox Jew would not sit by her, thinking it was hatred of women. In reality, the man is following his convictions to avoid touching women other than his wife.

sib 11y ago
In that case, then he should follow his convictions and move, not request that the woman be moved, which is what has happened in many of these situations.
- goldbrick 11y ago
  Can you point to exactly what makes you think that's a particular sticking point?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    First example: > the man assigned to the adjoining window seat arrived and refused to sit down. He said his religion prevented him from sitting beside a woman who was not his wife. Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move. Second example: > She was in a middle seat — her husband had the aisle — when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions. Ms. Heywood, offended by the notion that her sex made her an unacceptable seatmate, refused. Third example: > “But this Hasid came on, looking very uncomfortable, and wouldn’t even talk to the woman, and there was five to eight minutes of ‘What’s going to happen?’ before the woman acquiesced and said, ‘I’ll move.’ It felt like he was being a yutz,” Mr. Newberger added, using a Yiddish word for fool. The forth example is one where the man moves; the fifth example is ambiguous.
    - goldbrick 11y ago
      Well, you appear to have a point. I was thinking that since, you know, planes tend not to have a bunch of unused seats lying around, the situation may just have not reached that point, but that's definitely not true.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- judah 11y ago
  Agreed. He should be the one to move in order to follow his conviction.
kordless 11y ago
Actually, it seems to be an external blaming behavior in that at least one of the people involved said he didn't want to be tempted when his wife wasn’t there. That would imply that, by either touching or being near the woman, that she would become desirable to him by some behavior. It's that behavior that is being judged (and frequently pre-judged) by these people based on their beliefs, which is at the root of the problem.
- philh 11y ago
  Do you mean blaming someone else's behaviour? If so, I disagree. If there was porn on the back of the seat, I think the guy could reasonably say "I don't want to look at that, I don't want to be tempted". That's not blaming some behaviour by the porn, he's just saying "in this situation, I will react this way, and I don't want to". (I don't like the way they're acting, but I don't think "they're blaming other people" is what's wrong with it.)
  - kordless 11y ago
    > in this situation, I will react this way, and I don't want to If the "situation" involves another person, then that person has a right to participate (or not) in whatever emotional response that is happening. If I'm attractive to you and you don't mind sitting next to me, I'm not required to show interest in you. If you continue with unwanted advances, you are liable for sexual harassment. Conversely, if I'm attractive to you and you do mind sitting next to me because I am attractive to you, I'm not required to help solve it because you are attracted to me yet are unable to manage your emotional responses. It still involves me, so I get a say in whether you can show that attraction in a specific way, including discriminating on me. So is anyone else, for that matter, given it's cognitive dissonance believing it's someone else's problem to deal with your inability to contain and manage your own "purity", which is really a fear of attraction to someone else.
- vacri 11y ago
  I've always found it amusing that strongly religiose people seem to think temptation is so easy. I think it speaks to the lack of effect of their religion that they have to go to these extreme lengths to "avoid temptation", rather than just being mature and dealing with temptation appropriately like most adults do. In short, if you have to go to these ridiculous lengths, then the religion isn't really giving you the internal strength to behave maturely. Time to look for a new moral code.
vessenes 11y ago
No, it's absolutely not. It's a case of someone engaging in deep sexism under the cover of their religion, and it should trouble anyone with a daughter or sister or wife. Whether that sexism is 'hatred' like you are holding out as a possibility, a patronizing/patriarchal "women should be protected", or a repressive "I don't want to sully a woman with my sexual thoughts about her", they are all deeply problematic beliefs for putting together a civil society that treats all people with equal rights. It is doubly objectionable because he is putting the onus on the woman who does not share his perspective to solve his problem. He could have traveled using another conveyance, or purchased seats around him if he had preferred a different seating setup.
- judah 11y ago
  The man should be the one to move, that's true. But it has nothing to do with patriarchal society or repression of women, nor any other Tumblr-esque negative view of people of faith. I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected.
  - gohrt 11y ago
    Using "Tumblr" as a slur undermines your sensible defense of personal beliefs and religious attitudes.
  - vessenes 11y ago
    I respect your conviction. I do feel it has elements of sexism in it, but that doesn't mean I think you can't have it, or even that you shouldn't hold on to that conviction. What I think you're conflating or ignoring is who should be responsible for respecting it. You are responsible for respecting it; businesses like airlines are not, and members of society who conform to our general norms are not. In a free and open social engagement, like meeting at a party, it would be respectful for you to courteously ask an overly 'touchy' woman to stop, and I don't think very many people would find that sexist. (Although consider if you didn't want to touch black people because of your religion..). In this case though, a member of society is participating in not only a normalized way (sitting in an assigned seat), but in a restricted way (she is not allowed to move without airline consent, and similarly she is not required to move without an airline directive). I don't think it should ever cross someone's mind that the onus would be on the woman to 'fix' this situation. It's just not; there is an outside party trying to impose his beliefs on her. That's why there's such a strong 'liberal' societal response to situations like this -- much of liberalism has been concerned with removing these impositions on members of society with less personal power. It feels like a regression to have educated people argue otherwise.
wlievens 11y ago
> In reality, the man is following his convictions to avoid touching women other than his wife. I don't get how that works. Just because you sit next to someone doesn't mean tou have to fondle them, right?
- judah 11y ago
  Have you sat in an airplane recently? They're practically cattle cars. You will be coming into contact with the person next to you.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Defining 'fondling' as 'contact with a person' is pretty extreme. It'll be interesting to see what you think of businesspeople shaking hands, police handcuffing suspects, parents hugging their children, or politicians kissing babies...

by judah 11y ago

sib 11y ago

In that case, then he should follow his convictions and move, not request that the woman be moved, which is what has happened in many of these situations.

goldbrick 11y ago
Can you point to exactly what makes you think that's a particular sticking point?
- DanBC 11y ago
  First example: > the man assigned to the adjoining window seat arrived and refused to sit down. He said his religion prevented him from sitting beside a woman who was not his wife. Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move. Second example: > She was in a middle seat — her husband had the aisle — when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions. Ms. Heywood, offended by the notion that her sex made her an unacceptable seatmate, refused. Third example: > “But this Hasid came on, looking very uncomfortable, and wouldn’t even talk to the woman, and there was five to eight minutes of ‘What’s going to happen?’ before the woman acquiesced and said, ‘I’ll move.’ It felt like he was being a yutz,” Mr. Newberger added, using a Yiddish word for fool. The forth example is one where the man moves; the fifth example is ambiguous.
  - goldbrick 11y ago
    Well, you appear to have a point. I was thinking that since, you know, planes tend not to have a bunch of unused seats lying around, the situation may just have not reached that point, but that's definitely not true.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
judah 11y ago
Agreed. He should be the one to move in order to follow his conviction.

kordless 11y ago

Actually, it seems to be an external blaming behavior in that at least one of the people involved said he didn't want to be tempted when his wife wasn’t there. That would imply that, by either touching or being near the woman, that she would become desirable to him by some behavior. It's that behavior that is being judged (and frequently pre-judged) by these people based on their beliefs, which is at the root of the problem.

philh 11y ago
Do you mean blaming someone else's behaviour? If so, I disagree. If there was porn on the back of the seat, I think the guy could reasonably say "I don't want to look at that, I don't want to be tempted". That's not blaming some behaviour by the porn, he's just saying "in this situation, I will react this way, and I don't want to". (I don't like the way they're acting, but I don't think "they're blaming other people" is what's wrong with it.)
- kordless 11y ago
  > in this situation, I will react this way, and I don't want to If the "situation" involves another person, then that person has a right to participate (or not) in whatever emotional response that is happening. If I'm attractive to you and you don't mind sitting next to me, I'm not required to show interest in you. If you continue with unwanted advances, you are liable for sexual harassment. Conversely, if I'm attractive to you and you do mind sitting next to me because I am attractive to you, I'm not required to help solve it because you are attracted to me yet are unable to manage your emotional responses. It still involves me, so I get a say in whether you can show that attraction in a specific way, including discriminating on me. So is anyone else, for that matter, given it's cognitive dissonance believing it's someone else's problem to deal with your inability to contain and manage your own "purity", which is really a fear of attraction to someone else.
vacri 11y ago
I've always found it amusing that strongly religiose people seem to think temptation is so easy. I think it speaks to the lack of effect of their religion that they have to go to these extreme lengths to "avoid temptation", rather than just being mature and dealing with temptation appropriately like most adults do. In short, if you have to go to these ridiculous lengths, then the religion isn't really giving you the internal strength to behave maturely. Time to look for a new moral code.

vessenes 11y ago

No, it's absolutely not. It's a case of someone engaging in deep sexism under the cover of their religion, and it should trouble anyone with a daughter or sister or wife. Whether that sexism is 'hatred' like you are holding out as a possibility, a patronizing/patriarchal "women should be protected", or a repressive "I don't want to sully a woman with my sexual thoughts about her", they are all deeply problematic beliefs for putting together a civil society that treats all people with equal rights. It is doubly objectionable because he is putting the onus on the woman who does not share his perspective to solve his problem. He could have traveled using another conveyance, or purchased seats around him if he had preferred a different seating setup.

judah 11y ago
The man should be the one to move, that's true. But it has nothing to do with patriarchal society or repression of women, nor any other Tumblr-esque negative view of people of faith. I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected.
- gohrt 11y ago
  Using "Tumblr" as a slur undermines your sensible defense of personal beliefs and religious attitudes.
- vessenes 11y ago
  I respect your conviction. I do feel it has elements of sexism in it, but that doesn't mean I think you can't have it, or even that you shouldn't hold on to that conviction. What I think you're conflating or ignoring is who should be responsible for respecting it. You are responsible for respecting it; businesses like airlines are not, and members of society who conform to our general norms are not. In a free and open social engagement, like meeting at a party, it would be respectful for you to courteously ask an overly 'touchy' woman to stop, and I don't think very many people would find that sexist. (Although consider if you didn't want to touch black people because of your religion..). In this case though, a member of society is participating in not only a normalized way (sitting in an assigned seat), but in a restricted way (she is not allowed to move without airline consent, and similarly she is not required to move without an airline directive). I don't think it should ever cross someone's mind that the onus would be on the woman to 'fix' this situation. It's just not; there is an outside party trying to impose his beliefs on her. That's why there's such a strong 'liberal' societal response to situations like this -- much of liberalism has been concerned with removing these impositions on members of society with less personal power. It feels like a regression to have educated people argue otherwise.

wlievens 11y ago

> In reality, the man is following his convictions to avoid touching women other than his wife. I don't get how that works. Just because you sit next to someone doesn't mean tou have to fondle them, right?

judah 11y ago
Have you sat in an airplane recently? They're practically cattle cars. You will be coming into contact with the person next to you.
- vacri 11y ago
  Defining 'fondling' as 'contact with a person' is pretty extreme. It'll be interesting to see what you think of businesspeople shaking hands, police handcuffing suspects, parents hugging their children, or politicians kissing babies...