We talk a lot about misogyny, and rightfully so, but what about gynophobia — the fear of women? That seems to be a factor, though surely not the only one, in these two stories. In the first, a woman is suing El Al airlines for forcing her to change seats because an ultra orthodox Jew refused to sit next to a woman.
A Florida woman is suing Israel’s El Al airlines, apparently in an Israeli court, for gender discrimination after a flight steward on her flight to Israel moved her to a less desirable seat further back in the plane. As reported by Israel Hayom, Digital Journal and Arutz Sheva, Debra Ryder boarded a flight in New York and found that her assigned seat was already occupied by an ultra-Orthodox Jewish man who had moved to it to avoid sitting beside a woman passenger who was next to him in his original seat. The man refused to move back, and a crew member asked Ryder to instead take the man’s assigned seat so the flight could take off. Ryder had chosen her original seat so she could be near a rest room to facilitate her taking medications. The seat change also resulted in her not getting the vegetarian meal she had pre-ordered.
OMG! I can’t sit next to a woman! I might get cooties!
And here’s the Muslim version. A reactionary Islamist group is demanding that Tunisia strip a woman who won a silver medal in track of her citizenship because — egads! — she wasn’t covered from head to toe.
Radicals on social media networks called on the government to strip Habiba Ghribi, the first Tunisian woman to win an Olympic medal, of her nationality because her running gear was too revealing. She won the silver in the 3,000-meter steeplechase.
We could see her legs! Now how will we ever control ourselves? Save us from our own gynophobia and make all women dress like beekeepers!
57 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
jeremydiamond
August 17, 2012 at 11:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How about this similar story with some role reversal?
Larry
August 17, 2012 at 11:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And here in the US, we have a political party controlled by xtian fundies that believes its their duty to force a woman to have a vaginal probe inserted into her if she wants a perfectly legal medical procedure performed.
eric
August 17, 2012 at 11:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What are those tunisian men doing watching women’s track and field, anyway?
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 11:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Good luck getting an Israeli court to say no to an ultra-orthodox jackass. Those special little snowflakes get all kinds of special group rights in Israel, including the right not to serve in the army that protects their OT fantasy-camps from the people whose land they stole. They’re an entrenched class of parasites, and Netenyahu’s governing coalition is on their side.
didgen
August 17, 2012 at 11:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes Jeremy, that was a stupid and discriminatory action by Virgin airlines. It was talked about quite a bit here when it happened. Does it lessen the problems that these sort of prejudices cause to our societies?
ema
August 17, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What, no hoods and shields that block peripheral vision on the El Al flight?
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 11:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
eric: it was pure research, nothing more he had to watch those improperly-dressed women very closely, the whole time, to be absolutely sure he got his facts hard — I mean straight. That’s what proper skeptics are supposed to do, innit?
Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)
August 17, 2012 at 11:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@jeremydiamond, #1:
ZOMG WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ?
Is it not allowed to talk about women without mention of men?
slc1
August 17, 2012 at 11:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Raging Bee
I really enjoy bursting Israel basher Bee’s bubble but the Israeli Supreme Court actually is not dominated by ultra orthodox assholes. As a matter of fact, that court recently ruled that the exemption from military service for the Haredim is illegal and that they are subject to the draft just like everybody else. Disagreement about what to do about the ruling caused the breakup of Bibi’s coalition he had formed with the Kadima party.
Israel, including the right not to serve in the army that protects their OT fantasy-camps from the people whose land they stole
Written by an individual currently residing on land stolen from Native Americans. Mr. Bee should remember that when he points a finger at someone else, the other three fingers on his hand are pointing in the other direction.
Reginald Selkirk
August 17, 2012 at 11:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Beekeepers are sexy.
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 11:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jeremy: as stupid as it was, the Virgin incident you cite was not at all comparable to the incidents Ed cites here. At the very least, Virgin’s policy was intended to address a REAL problem, the victimization of unaccompanied kids in an environment where they had little mobility and no power (and where men sometimes get REALLY upset at being seated next to noisy kids). I don’t think it’s a reasonable policy (it would make more sense to put the kids in rows where access is easier for flight attendants if they have to intervene, such as the foremost row of the coach cabin); but it serves a larger purpose than placating some moron’s delicate religious sensibilities.
Also, the man’s reaction was just over-the-top stoopid. No, they’re not calling all men potential pedophiles, they’re trying to protect powerless children, or at least make them (and their parents) feel safer.
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 11:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Mr. Bee should remember that when he points a finger at someone else, the other three fingers on his hand are pointing in the other direction.
And your hands are configured differently from mine?
As a matter of fact, that court recently ruled that the exemption from military service for the Haredim is illegal and that they are subject to the draft just like everybody else. Disagreement about what to do about the ruling caused the breakup of Bibi’s coalition he had formed with the Kadima party.
In other words, the court ruled against special rights, but the government can’t bring itself to enforce the ruling (which is why the secular party left the Likudnik coalition). So my criticism still stands.
Blondin
August 17, 2012 at 11:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wonder what would have happened if the lady stood her ground and refused to take a different seat. Would they ultimately throw her or the orthodox twit off the flight?
I had a similar experience on a Turkish bus last year. I had an aisle seat at the front of the bus. My wife and I were woken up at 3:00AM and told we had to move because a single young lady was getting on and they don’t allow single young ladies to sit beside males (any males) even across an aisle. Why my wife and I couldn’t just swap was not clear to me but it was made very clear that I could get up and move where they told me or I could get off the bus.
And the movie was crap, too.
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 11:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Further to jereny’s comment: the problem is not that only men are pedophiles; it’s that men tend to be physically stronger then women, so if a man was assaulting or otherwise causing trouble for a child, the flight attendants would have a harder time intervening than they would if a woman was doing the same thing.
lancifer
August 17, 2012 at 11:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If the Orthodox gentlemen had a problem he should have been the one to move.
Preferably out the emergency exit.
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 12:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Would they ultimately throw her or the orthodox twit off the flight?
Her. If there was any doubt about that, the twit would have kept his mouth shut.
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 12:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If the Orthodox gentlemen had a problem he should have been the one to move.
Which he would have done if he was, in fact, a gentleman.
Trebuchet
August 17, 2012 at 12:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not wishing to defend our resident “Israel can do no wrong” troll, however: I have four fingers per hand. The other one is a thumb. I find that when I point, three fingers point back at my body, the thumb points at my face.
slc1
August 17, 2012 at 12:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Raging Bee @ #12
So my criticism still stands.
Mr. Bee claimed that the Israeli Supreme Court would rule in favor of religious nutcases. I provided a counter example. Therefore, Mr. Bee’s criticism does not stand.
And your hands are configured differently from mine?
Not a bit of it. I’m not the one pointing the finger at Israel.
matty1
August 17, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If Tunisia does this, and they may well not – governments don’t always listen to their extremists, they should be banned from future international sports until the policy is rescinded and the citizenship restored. I see it as analogous to the sporting boycott of apartheid South Africa. In fact I wonder more generally if we shouldn’t be imposing sanctions on nations that have gender apartheid written into their laws.
TxSkeptic
August 17, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A few years ago flying from London to New York, we had the same problem with an orthodox jew. Two of them were traveling together, but instead of thinking ahead and booking two seats together on the 2-5-2 seating configuration where they would be guaranteed to not have a problem, they left it to chance. One got a window seat next to another man, the other got an inside isle seat next to a cootie carrying female.
He refused to take his seat, but instead of asking very nicely if the fellow next to his companion would switch seats, he through a fit with the flight attendants. He made such fuss, nobody would switch seats with him and he was even escorted off the plane.
It would have been great if that was the end of it, but a few minutes later he shows up again, still being an ass. Someone eventually swapped seats with him, probably in exchange for a free round trip ticket.
The whole affair, after being late out of the gate and losing takeoff slots, we ended up being late to NYC by two hours. That was two hours out of our two and a half hour layover for our next flight. After doing immigration, pick up luggage, customs, recheck luggage and running to the far opposite end of the airport, we were only 30 minutes late for our flight, and sweating like a pig. Luckily, the airline had held the flight for the 15-20 people doing the same transfer, and that flight was only delayed for one and a half hours.
If I had had some scissors available, a certain someone would have lost his ringlets while waiting in line at immigration. If I’m ever in the situation again, I’ll volunteer to be the seat switcher, and by the time the flight is over, he’ll certainly wish I hadn’t, ’cause I’ll give him a whole flights worth of diatribe against their stupid religion.
Who Knows?
August 17, 2012 at 12:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@jeremydiamond, similar story? Not in my book, since you know, men make up the majority offenders and the policy was likely made with reality in mind.
Doug Little
August 17, 2012 at 12:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
matty1 @20,
Hell, how about banning all those countries who have laws violating the rights of gay people as well.
jamessweet
August 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Let’s not pile on jeremydiamond too much and/or be too kind to Virgin Airlines. While it seems pretty likely jeremy was indeed pulling a “what about teh menz???” move, that Virgin policy is indeed really, really dumb. I don’t think it’s sexist so much as just hopelessly impractical and pointless. It’s true that men are far, far more likely to be pedophiles. But it’s not clear what exactly is hoped to be accomplished by, uh, not having them in physical proximity to children on a plane.
As to Raging Bee’s point that men are physically stronger, I don’t really understand how this factors into it. If the concern here is that a man is going to physically overpower the flight attendants, then I think the particular seat he is sitting in is kind of irrelevant, dontcha think? And why just focus on that one problem, if that’s the idea? Shouldn’t men then be banned from sitting next to other passengers (regardless of gender) who are wearing expensive jewelry? ZOMG, what if the man overpowers the flight attendants and steals my laptop! No men sitting next to people with personal electronics…
As others have pointed out, the Virgin incident doesn’t quite make the blood boil to the same level, because it doesn’t stem from a deep-seated historical oppression. This misogynistic bullcrap is really infuriating, far more than the Virgin incident. And it’s true the Virgin incident was less a result of some imagined “misandry”, and more the result of moral panic combined with very poor reasoning and planning. (It’s not misandric to be concerned about unknown men being in a one-on-one situation with unaccompanied children, it’s just fucking stupid to think that rearranging the seating on an AIRPLANE has any bearing on that)
Nonetheless, the Virgin incident was pretty wrong, and I suppose it’s loosely relevant in that it perhaps shows a trend of airlines being short-sighted and foolish when it comes to seating arrangements. jeremy deserves a wristslap for implying it has anything to do with gender politics, but it’s still crap, and not completely irrelevant…
dingojack
August 17, 2012 at 12:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My Dear Mr. Raging Bee.
Sir: -
You posted: “… it’s that men tend to be physically stronger then women, so if a man was assaulting or otherwise causing trouble for a child, the flight attendants would have a harder time intervening than they would if a woman was doing the same thing”.
And of course no flight attendants are ever male, no siree bob!*
Nope, no sexist assumptions there!
your humble & obedient servant,
Dingo
—–
* and even if they are they’ve just got to be limp-wristed gays, right @@
matty1
August 17, 2012 at 12:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Doug Little – good point, I wonder if there is a list anywhere to use as a starting point.
jesse
August 17, 2012 at 12:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Y’know, even Orthodox Jewish people acknowledge that there are situations where strict adherence to rules is silly.
For example, if the choice is between driving on the Sabbath and letting grandma die because there’s no available ambulance, they’re supposed to chose the former. If you are starving and there is no other choice you can eat pork. You have to atone and all, bunch of rituals after, but it’s cool.
Sitting next to a woman, where you are causing a potentially life-threatening problem for someone (medications, though I don’t think these were quite so extreme in this case) falls in this category. Or, what if someone on the plane was wanting to get to Israel for medical treatment? He just caused a delay.
The orthodox dude was violating the prime directive: DBAD, which is what the exceptions to Jewish law are for in a lot of cases, and as a “silliness exemption.” (i.e. don’t follow the letter of the law if it’s patently absurd or would actively cause harm). At least for people who don’t think the whole universe revolves around them.
In fact, one could make the case that he gave up the chance for a mitzvah by being such as ass. This guy decided to be a dick. He didn’t have to. And now he’s got an even chance of costing El Al a lot of money.
Yeah I know, he wouldn’t acknowledge this kind of thing. Maybe Jews in New York are less twitchy about that kind of stuff.
dingojack
August 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And of course then incident is actually worse than you think. The flight attendant (of undetermined sex) apologised to the women who was forced to move from her seat for the man who was moved, but not to the man himself.
I guess that it was just assumed that because he is a male therefore he must, automatically, be a pedophile.
Dingo
jeremydiamond
August 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree with everyone who made the point that the stories aren’t comparable and that the guy’s reaction was over the top. I was just throwing it out there to see what everyone else thought. The similarity was that someone was made to switch seats on an airplane based on gender.
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 12:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, Likudnk Chickenhawk, I did not say anything about any Israeli court; my exact words were: “Those special little snowflakes get all kinds of special group rights in Israel.” So yes, my original criticism does indeed stand, at least until you can refute it without flat-out lying about what I actually said.
slc1
August 17, 2012 at 12:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Raging Bee @ #30
Mr. Bee is a liar. Here’s the first sentence of his comment at #4.
Good luck getting an Israeli court to say no to an ultra-orthodox jackass
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As to Raging Bee’s point that men are physically stronger, I don’t really understand how this factors into it. If the concern here is that a man is going to physically overpower the flight attendants, then I think the particular seat he is sitting in is kind of irrelevant, dontcha think?
My main concern was with an adult passenger assaulting the kids (which seemed to be Virgin’s rationale for keeping men from sitting next to them); and I speculated that putting the kids in a row with more room in front of them (like the foremost row in coach) would allow atendants to get around the adult to better help the kids. And I was merely offering that idea as a better response to what I thought to be the airline’s most legitimate concern WRT unaccompanied kids.
dingojack
August 17, 2012 at 1:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee – Yes agreed, what is needed is better levels of supervision.
But it’s the assumption that all men are pedophiles that is so insulting.
Dingo
—–
PS: Apparently the most common method of murder by women is poison.
‘Coffee, tea or Bonox?’ [/female flight attendant].
Who Knows?
August 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve never understood this. Recognizing that a majority of offenders are men, is not the same as calling all men offenders.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
August 17, 2012 at 1:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Which isn’t false. So, how is RB a liar?
Raging Bee
August 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
StupidLikudnikChickenhawk1: First, you accused me of making an assertion about the Israeli supreme court, and that is a lie. And second, if a ruling by Israel’s highest court against religious nutcases won’t be enforced by a government dominated by religious nutcases, then I’m perfectly right to say “good luck getting an unspecified lower court to rule against them.”
Seriously, dude, you’re nitpicking at the periphery of this issue and totally avoiding the core problem to which I was referring. Do you really think no one else here sees this?
Chaos Engineer
August 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree with everyone who made the point that the stories aren’t comparable and that the guy’s reaction was over the top. I was just throwing it out there to see what everyone else thought.
Yes, but the problem is that you’re still talking about airplanes. What about other modes of transportation?
I don’t mean to hijack the thread, but when I was driving to work this morning, the car in front of me braked suddenly and nearly hit me. I didn’t get a good look at the driver, but it was a blue car and I’m willing to bet that the driver was a member of a Certain Demographic Group. (And I think we all know which group I’m talking about.)
I guess what I’m trying to say is, I’m the real victim here, and sometimes I think people lose sight of that. Again, I’m not trying to hijack the thread, I just think it’s important to present this idea so that everybody can agree with it.
slc1
August 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Raging Bee @ #36
Mr. Raging Bee, the Fairfax fairy, moves the goal posts, now claiming that he wasn’t referring to the Israeli Supreme Court but to a lower court.
zmidponk
August 17, 2012 at 2:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Virgin’s policy is, indeed, also badly thought out and wrong. Even if it was true that, not just the majority, but all paedophiles were men, that would still mean only a small percentage of men are paedophiles. Take that, and factor in that the passenger cabin of your typical airliner is hardly a private space, and you get a policy that, in effect, starts with the assumption that all men are potential child rapists in order to try to protect children from a very unlikely scenario. Even if it was simple assault, not sexual assault, Virgin were concerned about, then they’re starting with the assumption that a man is going to beat up kids, whereas a woman wouldn’t.
Of course, one of the main things that makes that situation very different from the situation in the OP is that Virgin are now apparently reviewing that policy, with nothing more needed than a few people complaining, whereas this woman has actually needed to take legal action for anyone at El Al airlines to pay any attention at all, and it’s a very big question mark as to whether, in the end, it will actually lead to any meaningful change.
F
August 17, 2012 at 3:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
slc1
You mention one ruling (nothing on such being enforced) and you think this refutes a pattern. Raging Bee didn’t say it could never happen, but “good luck with that”. Sometimes, good luck is what happens.
Now, we all know, and no one here is claiming, that all Israel is both ultra Orthodox and bigoted. But those who are hold far too much sway over the system. Just like in many other countries.
Every disagreement with crap when it happens in Israel isn’t part of some bigotry or conspiracy. Get the fuck past this.
Chiroptera
August 17, 2012 at 3:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You know, if I were the man sitting next to the other Orthodox Jew, I suspect I’d have a hard time suppressing a comment about how “respect for people’s religion” stops at the point the person starts making a fucking ass of himself in public and makes things difficult for everyone around him.
interrobang
August 17, 2012 at 3:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Also, let’s not confuse the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox, or Hasidic) with the merely Orthodox, please. They’re not the same, and, while there are certainly misogyny issues with regular Orthodox Judaism, they’re not a patch on what the Haredim do.
My quite observant Orthodox Jewish boss had no problems with sitting next to me in a restaurant (I’m female and not even Jewish, horrors!), in public no less, going out on a company dinner with our project group (me, another secular Jewish woman, him, and another Orthodox guy), riding public transit together, and he even grabbed my arm once when I stumbled. And this was in Jerusalem. (I’m not from there; I was over as a new hire at the time to meet the team and tour the main office for my division.) This has been the rule with all of them I’ve met before, and even the few Haredim who work with us are much more relaxed than that.
So yeah, jesse is correct — this is marginally less about Judaism than that the guy in question wasn’t following the DBAD rule.
footface
August 17, 2012 at 3:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s not that it was recognized, it’s that it was the basis of a policy.
The majority of domestic violence perpetrators are men, therefore… what? Airlines shouldn’t seat husbands next to their wives?
The majority of violent offenders are men, therefore… what? Airlines shouldn’t allow men on planes?
And why not extend this beyond the airlines!
The majority of drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes are white, therefore… what? Stricter supervision of whites in bars?
The majority of people convicted of drug offenses are black, therefore… what? Black people can’t be police officers?
Pierce R. Butler
August 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Somebody tell the Orthodox rabbis of whatever sect Debra Ryder’s unwelcome acquaintance adheres to: unless traveling in a group of just the right number to fill an entire row, their men need to reserve and pay for at least one seat next to them, to be sure it’s empty.
Why didn’t they work this out back in the days of horse-drawn coaches?
democommie
August 17, 2012 at 6:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“this is marginally less about Judaism than that the guy in question wasn’t following the DBAD rule.”
It’s all just a misunderstanding. He thought it was the “D-Bag”
rule.
bobaho
August 17, 2012 at 6:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How would these guys react if the first responder to their medical emergency was the Swedish Bikini Team? Tongue firmly in cheek here.
@Footface #43: +1
I also wish to thank the resident trolls for demonstrating that the DBAD rule is still the better option. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is better to not write a thing, and be considered to be a *dick*, then to write endless amounts of drivel and to prove yourself to be an ignorant *dick*.
jesse
August 17, 2012 at 7:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@bobaho–
Actually, a friend of mine is an EMT in NY City, and he works in a lot of Orthodox neighborhoods. Some are Haredim. Some not.
But he has run into the issue of EMTs (Orthodox) not being able to touch a woman in certain situations. As a non-Jew, it was OK for him to do it. And AFAIK they wouldn’t like, refuse to give CPR or something.
heddle
August 17, 2012 at 7:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chiroptera
I don’t think I could suppress it. I think I’d say it.
Pinky
August 17, 2012 at 10:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Are the mores of FTB such that males may never be mentioned when speaking about the debasement of women? Seems an odd protocol considering men are usually the cause of the problem.
Can a person still think and act to further women’s rights if they make the horrible mistake of writing “Men sometimes receive unfair treatment in similar situations?”
I fail to understand the sensitivity to the acknowledgment of men with analogous experiences.
Least you believe I’m disparaging women’s rights, disabuse yourself. My sense of what is offensive to women and how to combat the inequalities has been evolving since my teenage years. I’ve been mistaken and will make mistakes in the future, but I keep plugging along pointing out the necessity of equality in ballots and conversations.
The rights of women are human rights. Women’s parity in society should be pursued because, most importantly, it is the right thing to do and because women are our mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, etc. A welcome side effect of women achieving parity is it will make everyone’s lives better; I’m looking at you men.
All the men out there harrumphing with vile loathing about allowing women their birthright, I suggest you save it and use your deity as your agony aunt on judgment day. Safety tip; check first to see if your deity is a matriarch.
Don’t read into my writings things I did not say; No I do not think the discussion of women’s rights should allow vulgar slang terms or threats of violence. Other than identifying the commenter as a weak minded cretin who should be ignored, injections of infantile imaginings and stunted adolescent mutterings of violence as solution have no place in the dialog.
I have a question for the nattering nabobs of negatively who disparaged the comment about a man on a plane being reseated because an airline company’s mistaken policy of assuming each man is a possible pedophile; do you really think that remark was so terrible for the context of this discussion? Do you believe it corresponds with comments such as (paraphrased)
Discussions of women’s rights are important, but they are not sacrosanct ceremonies needing to be dogmatically monitored for utterance of non-approved thoughts.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
August 17, 2012 at 11:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here you go.
iangould
August 18, 2012 at 3:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Much as it pains me to side with SLC, even partially, Gentiles need to understand that when they start mouthing off about “special group rights” and speaking (jokingly I hope) about wanting to physically assault an Orthodox Jew in order to forcibly cut his hair, then they stir up all sorts of cultural memories and traumas which they really can’t fully understand and will provoke a defensive response from most Jews.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
August 18, 2012 at 3:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The hair-cutting part I’ll give you, but it seems to me that if “special rights groups” were connected to a legitimate cultural trauma the Haredim wouldn’t be, you know, actually demanding special rights (as opposed to what’s meant in nearly all other cases where the “special” means “equal.”)
iangould
August 18, 2012 at 5:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
First, you have to remember that Jews however much we fight amongst ourselves regard ourselves, in a sense, as a very large, very dysfunctional family. So any criticism directed at any Jewish group gets an authomatic “leave my brother alone” response.
Second, you have to realize that as the most visually distinctive group of Jews, the Haredim are the ones most targetted by anti-Semitism. Most of us grew up with at least some sort of stories of harassment or persecution – and more often tha not the victims in those stories were people who today would be considered Haredim. Cutting off a Jew’s prayerlocks was a pretty typical minor act of anti-Semitism in “The Old Country”.
Third, regardless of our degree of attachment to the Jewish religion just about all of us take a particular pride in our Jewish culture – and the Haredim preserve that culture in its purest and most vital form. I have no desire to live that way but I would be immensely saddened if the way of life died out.
Fourth and perhaps most importantly: most of the Haredim aren’t like the guy in this story. As others have said the problem wasn’t that he was a Haredim, it was that he was a dick. Most Haredim would simply have foudn another seat – and apologized profusely to the airlien staff for the invconveience.
dingojack
August 18, 2012 at 8:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ian – they seated the man next to a women – not Mittens.
Dingo
Who Knows?
August 18, 2012 at 11:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
footface @43,
What I don’t understand is taking things like this personally. To become outraged over things like this is kinda like asking people to ignore the 500 lb gorilla in the room.
It’s the reality, why not acknowledge it and see what we can do about it?
baal
August 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Pinky, pretty much anytime women (or other non-priviledged person in a given situation; first person) are receiving harassment, abuse or negative treatment and someone posts about it there will be a contingent of men (privileged person; second person) showing up and demanding equal time. It’s annoying that it happens with near 100% regularity. This is a bad thing and tends to derail threads and the harms aren’t usually comparable.
That said, it is feminist dogma (or at least here at FTB) that anytime a second person makes a parallel based on gender, they will get the dogma, goggely links of partial relevance, heaps of scorn and other abuse (though that’s been toned down recently; cf PZ’s three posts rule). I presume this is like getting the dog to not pee on the floor by putting their nose in it and yelling at them. My problem is that the dogma is dogma; 100% smack down is not rational. FWIW, dog training occurs more rapidly with other techniques.
I’m still confused why the guy from Hasidim wasn’t the one who had to move – also, if this was such an issue I’d like to know if he tried to get an all male row ahead of time, bought an extra spacer seat or took some other effort to solve the problem for himself.
Raging Bee
August 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why didn’t they work this out back in the days of horse-drawn coaches?
Chicks weren’t as hot back then, so it wasn’t as much of a problem.