3 ms·

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 siste

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.
- vacri 11y ago
  > I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected. So rubbing elbows with men on a flight is fine, but rubbing elbows with women is some sort of unfaithfulness? Oh, please. I don't wish to touch anyone on a flight, but hey, we're crammed in there like sardines, shit happens. The gender of the sardine next to you has exactly what effect on the elbow-sized contact patch you share with them? You're also reading this situation as being solely confined to the event of the flight, rather than the overall social movement. Any single action can be stripped of context and sterilised that way. Take a racist who is always rude to blacks and no other: every single incidence of rudeness could be explained away with "oh, maybe that guy deserved it", but when you look at the overall pattern, it's clear what's going on.
- kaitai 11y ago
  I'd be happy to sit next to you, then, if you kept your arm off the armrest :)

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.
vacri 11y ago
> I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected. So rubbing elbows with men on a flight is fine, but rubbing elbows with women is some sort of unfaithfulness? Oh, please. I don't wish to touch anyone on a flight, but hey, we're crammed in there like sardines, shit happens. The gender of the sardine next to you has exactly what effect on the elbow-sized contact patch you share with them? You're also reading this situation as being solely confined to the event of the flight, rather than the overall social movement. Any single action can be stripped of context and sterilised that way. Take a racist who is always rude to blacks and no other: every single incidence of rudeness could be explained away with "oh, maybe that guy deserved it", but when you look at the overall pattern, it's clear what's going on.
kaitai 11y ago
I'd be happy to sit next to you, then, if you kept your arm off the armrest :)