Saudi Airline Considering Separating Passengers By Gender
[su_right_ad]Saudi Arabia still doesn’t know what year it is.
Saudi Arabia’s national airline, Saudia is allegedly considering seating male and female passengers apart from each other, according to Emirates247. The airline has cited complaints from male passengers who don’t like unknown men being seated next to their wives when they fly. Saudia assistant manager for marketing Abdul Rahman Al Fahd said, “There are solutions to this problem…we will soon enforce rules that will satisfy all passengers.” The airline will supposedly begin having airport staff assign separate seating for men and women, unless they are closely related.
It’s not only Muslims that are concerned over seating assignments, but also Orthodox Jews. An El Al Airlines flight in September from New York to Israel was delayed because some men refused to be seated next to women…
According to a post on Mashable, a marketing manager for the airline is denying their plans to segregate passengers. However, we should be cautions here — companies often deny they’re working on a new product or procedure, and then all of a sudden it’s introduced as a “surprise.”
Please “like” us on Facebook. [su_csky_ad]
granpa.usthai January 3rd, 2015 at 7:28 pm
Don’t much matter who is sitting beside me inside a cylindrical tube of thin aluminum when it’s 30,00 feet up. The best way to fly if you absolutely have too is to be as drunk as a speeding Tundra driver with a DRY blanket over your head and a symbol of every known religion on a chain around your neck.
whatthe46 January 3rd, 2015 at 8:30 pm
that was stupid funny.
rg9rts January 4th, 2015 at 3:24 am
When the jews tried it on El Al the gothamist had a pic of and orthodox jew sitting next to a woman dressed in a plastic bag over himself…
whatthe46 January 3rd, 2015 at 8:32 pm
what’s it matter really? they are all getting to where they have to go at the same damn time. maybe different heavens’ or the same hell, if you will, but all at the same time. i just wouldn’t want to sit next to someone that takes up two seats squashing me and snore like a choking cow.
Jake January 3rd, 2015 at 10:47 pm
The last people i think who should be telling us who should and should not be sitting on airplanes are the Saudi Arabians.
Robert M. Snyder January 3rd, 2015 at 11:48 pm
Maybe the Saudi women requested this. There are 47 US colleges and 19 British colleges that accept only women. Apparently a lot of highly educated women prefer to be separated from men at various times and for various reasons.
whatthe46 January 3rd, 2015 at 11:57 pm
“The airline has cited complaints from male passengers who don’t like unknown men being seated next to their wives when they fly.” its right there in the article.
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 12:15 am
The article made no attempt to find out what the Saudi women think. Maybe they told their husbands that they are uncomfortable sitting next to strange men. It’s a patriarchal society, but women have ways of making things happen. You shouldn’t assume that Saudi women are powerless, or that they hold the same values that you do.
“In nearly two-thirds of American mosques, women pray behind partitions or in separate areas, not in the main prayer hall”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_segregation_and_Islam
whatthe46 January 4th, 2015 at 1:02 am
the Saudi Arabia’s national airline is making the claim, not the author of the article. and your quote is no surprise as these are rules made by men. get it?
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 1:36 am
How do you explain the fact that in 2/3 of American mosques women and men are segregated? Many American Muslim women have successful careers, and many are unmarried. They have it within their power to rent buildings, start their own mosques, and make their own rules. Yet most of them freely choose to keep attending mosques in which women and men are segregated.
It’s really no different than American women who keep attending Catholic churches that don’t allow women to become priests. Women who don’t like it are free to become Protestants, but millions choose to remain Catholics. Nobody is forcing them. Sure, the Catholic Church is run by men, but these men have absolutely no power over American women.
Any woman can leave at any time, yet millions choose to stay and make weekly financial contributions to the patriarchal system. These women are literally voting for patriarchy with their wallets.
That’s the funny thing about freedom. Sometimes free people make choices that we don’t agree with.
You’re asking me to believe that no Saudi women are in favor of gender segregation. Yet millions of American women freely choose to support a church that limits the roles of women. And thousands of American women freely choose to attend colleges that do not admit men.
Face it: women don’t all think alike, and they don’t all want the same things that you want.
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 2:36 am
According to a 2010 article in the Washington Post:
King Abdullah, crowned in August, called for increased work opportunities for women and started including female journalists, professors and business leaders on his trips overseas. And during regional tours last year, both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes said Saudi women needed broader political rights to make changes in their lives.
But the new atmosphere has alarmed conservative women who are suspicious of U.S. interference and warn that changes in their status could destroy the country’s Islamic framework. Though no figures are available, conservative, religious women seem to constitute a sizable portion of the country’s female population, belying notions that most Saudi women are unhappy with their lot and waiting to be liberated. On the contrary, the black veil and the prohibition against women driving are embraced by many women here as a form of protection and an integral part of their religion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101994_pf.html
whatthe46 January 4th, 2015 at 2:59 am
All Saudi women require permission from their male guardian to
travel; Saudi girls can’t even play sports in school, but boys can. And, if the women
divorces her husband, she loses custody over her children six or older; Saudi officials continue to require women to obtain
permission from male guardians to conduct their most basic affairs, like
traveling or receiving medical care or even grocery shopping. Saudi doctors have confirmed that Health Ministry regulations still require a woman to
obtain permission from her male guardian to undergo elective surgery. In late June, Saudi border guards
at the Bahrain crossing refused to allow a women’s rights activist to leave the
country because she did not have her guardian’s permission;If a [pregnant] woman comes in to the hospital with a
guardian, then she can leave with anyone, even the driver. If she comes in
without a guardian, it becomes a “police case,” and she’ll need a guardian to
come to the hospital in order for her to get discharged. She stays there if no
one picks her up.
and remember they still cannot drive. although they are fighting for that right.
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 3:33 am
The article was about seating arrangements. That hardly rises to the level of a human rights abuse. It is a cultural issue. There are probably some countries where it is illegal to have a women’s only college. Those countries probably regard American women’s colleges as an outdated vestige of male patriarchy.
In America we have separate restrooms for men and women, and women frequently end up waiting in long lines while plenty of seats are available in the men’s rooms. Men are allowed to go bare-chested in public, while women are prohibited. Why have separate rest rooms? Why not let anyone use any available stall in any restroom? Why not allow women to go bare-chested if they so choose? I don’t hear very many women asking for unisex restrooms or the legal right to go bare chested.
rg9rts January 4th, 2015 at 3:22 am
No he doesn’t just another troll looking for trouble..
bpollen January 4th, 2015 at 2:05 am
“The article made no attempt to find out what the Saudi women think.”
Of course you’re right. One must ALWAYS take a poll before reporting on business news. “Hey, Harry, Sony just decided to stop selling ‘The Interview” again. Call Nielsen. We gotta take a poll of all North Koreans before we can publish anything about it.”
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 2:45 am
Polls have already been taken, and could have been referenced by the article. For example, a 2006 Gallup poll involved face-to-face interviews of over 8000 women in 8 predominantly Muslim countries. According to a NY Times article:
Concerning women’s rights in general, most Muslim women polled associated sex equality with the West. Seventy-eight percent of Moroccan women, 71 percent of Lebanese women and 48 percent of Saudi women polled linked legal equality with the West. Still, a majority of the respondents did not think adopting Western values would help the Muslim world’s political and economic progress.
The most frequent response to the question, “What do you admire least about the West?” was the general perception of moral decay, promiscuity and pornography that pollsters called the “Hollywood image” that is regarded as degrading to women.
In other words, THEY don’t approve of the way that WE treat women.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08women.html?_r=0
bpollen January 4th, 2015 at 3:22 am
Okay, first we have an article that states that the COMPANY cites that men have complained. You then assert, with no more information that you have presented, that it could well have been women. It also could have been The Rolling Stones, alien cheese, Gypsies, Raelians, or Pat Robertson. The article doesn’t say, and you have presented nothing to corroborate your assertion (the article at least could cite the company in question, and they say it was because of men’s complaints.)
When this was pointed out to you that the company is the one who said it was men, you said that didn’t mean it couldn’ta been women, cuz “women have ways.” Please cite where you learned this insight into the mystery that is woman. You’re the one using it as a means of proving that men might not be actual instigator of the complaints.
Then you veer into wondering why Muslim women in Muslim countries might be complaint to the restraints placed on her by her religion and her society. Well, we don’t actually know. We can guess, but we simply can’t predict just how brainwashing will work on any specific individual. In any event, a woman’s personal reaction to her society isn’t really pertinent to discussing a freakin’ business decision.
Then you get into Christian religions, talking about how Catholic women can escape from the bondage of the Holy Roman Church by becoming Protestant. It may surprise you to know that they both use the same holy book. And, according to that book: First Timothy 2:11-12 – “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Then we have Pat Robertson who says that women are responsible for men’s adultery; that feminists want to kill babies, destroy capitalism, practice witchcraft, and become lesbians; and that husband has dominion over wife. Escaping from the frying pan only to end up in the fire is not much of an escape, and also isn’t pertinent to a Saudi airline contemplating business decisions.
And all of this to somehow discredit a short article on Saudi company and what decisions it makes.
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 3:48 am
Repeating what I just said to rg9rts:
Sure, Saudi Arabia is repressive. But the article was about seating arrangements. That’s a cultural issue, and there are probably plenty of Saudi women who would prefer segregated seating.
I attended a liberal arts college for two years back in the eighties where I learned about cultural relativity. Something that violates cultural norms in one society might be perfectly normal in another society. We can’t go around criticizing other cultures just because we don’t like their seating arrangements.
bpollen January 4th, 2015 at 8:57 am
One, your perception of Saudi women’s preferences is just that: your perception. Two, the article did not mention women’s preferences, nor did the article criticize other cultures. Three, the issue of seating arrangements has not been decided yet, so the issue is about FUTURE actions. Four, cultural relativity isn’t relevant to Saudi Air because… wait for it… they of the SAME culture! You can’t be relative to yourself. Five, this is about Saudi Air, not Moroccan Air or Lebanese Air, so polling from other countries which have other cultures (culture is more than simply religion) really isn’t even an issue here. For instance, Saudi Arabia requires the woman to be fully clothed to the point where hands and eyes are the only thing visible. In Lebanon and Morocco, dress codes are much less restrictive. Now, if cultural norms differ between cultures, you certainly can’t use the other cultures’ norms to extrapolate that ALL other cultures sharing a religion follow those same norms. Is est quis is est. So there goes the multi-country polls as really being informative to this issue. Six, even the polls you cited didn’t address the issue. Didn’t address whether or not Saudi women WANT equality. According to you, they equate equality with the West. And, when you get right down to it, the fact that they don’t want moral decay or promiscuity or pornographer has nothing to DO with their perception of personal freedom. With the current contretemps over women driving, it’s pretty obvious that some Saudi women DO want more freedom.
So, you are lecturing people about judging cultures by other cultures’ norms while bringing in still MORE countries’ norms. You cite polls that don’t address the issue and use them as proof that Saudi women like it that way. Did that liberal arts college teach you about false equivalence? Hypocracy?
Sounds more like you are shilling for the Saudis than attempting to show us the true way to cultural sensitivity (which your diatribe about Christianity shows is not something you are well versed in.)
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 12:57 pm
In my region, there is an Amish community located several miles from a state park. During the summer, Amish teenagers visit the park in horse-drawn buggies. There are typically three or four buggies in a group. Each buggy contains either boys or girls. We never see boys and girls in the same buggy unless an adult is also present.
The first line of this article says “Saudi Arabia still doesn’t know what year it is.”. I suppose the same could be said of the Amish. I have seen many Amish teenagers at the park, but I have never seen any of them swimming in the lake. No matter how hot it gets, we never see Amish teenagers exposing any skin between the knees and the neckline. And we never see unmarried men and women riding in the same buggy without a chaperone.
What would you say to the Amish about their gender-segregated seating and their dress codes? Do you really think it’s any of your business?
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 1:59 pm
“One, your perception of Saudi women’s preferences is just that: your perception”.
Agreed, and that’s the point I’ve been trying to make from the beginning.
In the first sentence of the article, Alan says that the Saudis don’t know what year it is. He seems to think that he knows more about what’s right for the Saudis than the Saudis themselves. What does he know about what Saudi women want? What do any of us know?
You’re right about the survey not being about this one specific question and not specific to Saudi women only. But the reason I referenced the survey was to illustrate that women in historically Muslim countries do not always want the same things as women in historically Christian countries. I do not pretend to know what Saudi women want. It is Alan Colmes who is pretending to know that. He apparently finds it difficult to imagine that a significant percentage of Saudi women might actually prefer a segregated seating arrangement. I don’t.
“Did that liberal arts college teach you about false equivalence? Hypocracy?”
I get that “false equivalence” charge a lot in Liberaland. I guess it’s because I like to use analogies to make my points. Analogies can certainly be misused, and false equivalences are a real thing. But analogies can also be very useful, because they help to expose inconsistencies. If we apply a certain principle to one group of people and it seems to make sense, we should ask what happens if we apply the same principle to other groups that are similar.
For example, if we are going to condemn the Saudis for their segregated seating, then why not condemn the Amish? It would be hypocritical to condemn the Saudis while giving the Amish a pass for the same behavior. So, yes, I like to use analogies because I think that they help us to avoid hypocrisy. No two situations are exactly alike. Any time we make comparisons, someone can always say “apples and oranges”. But that’s a cop out.
American men and women are legally required to use the restrooms designated for their sex. Women waiting in long lines will sometimes use the men’s room, and this is generally overlooked. But if a man walks into a women’s room, he is asking for trouble. Why? To paraphrase Alan, don’t people know what year it is?
Why do people think that women need to have a “safe, private place” where they are segregated from men? We expect men to behave themselves on airplanes where they are in close physical proximity to women. Why can’t we expect men to behave themselves in unisex public restrooms? Why don’t we just remove the MEN and WOMEN signs and make all restrooms unisex?
Isn’t it hypocritical to have segregated restrooms while condemning people who want to have segregated airline seating? I know, “apples and oranges”, right?
bpollen January 5th, 2015 at 12:54 am
I’m critical of any group, including our own “awesome” country, that marginalizes anybody based upon the genetics they were gifted with when they were born. So, yes, I am critical of how Christians, Mormons, Amish, Hutterites, Muslims, and many other groups and religions treat and describe certain people.
How’s your cultural sensitivity work when the subject isn’t gender equality, but slavery? Can’t be critical of that? Can’t ask what millenium they think it is? Isn’t it hypocritical to decry slavery when we don’t have full equality in any tangible sense in this country? Especially when it’s condoned and even supported in the bible. Please explain to me how it’s wrong to make value judgements about slavery?
Or, how about human sacrifice? Some cultures have found it to be acceptable so who are we to judge?
Your argument boils down to an argument both of my children used: How come I’ve gotta be grounded for misbehaving when you misbehaved when you were young? My answer to them and my answer to you: over time, you see the error of your ways.
Robert M. Snyder January 5th, 2015 at 2:02 am
I completely agree that genetic factors should not be used to justify treating people differently in American workplaces and in the American civic realm.
One of my son’s best friends is roughly the same height as Robert Reich. The poor guy can never get a date because women are looking for “tall, dark, and handsome”. I wouldn’t want the government to regulate dating, but I have a hard time believing that female manager are completely unaffected by a male job candidate’s height.
What would Robert Reich need to say or do in order to get elected in this country? I think he would need a leg transplant. So, yes, short men and women who look like Susan Boyle are routinely discriminated against, and I agree with you that this is wrong.
It is interesting to note that short men and unattractive women often find greater acceptance in religious communities than they do in the average workplace. A short man or an unattractive woman has a real good shot at becoming a pastor.
Amish women are attractive not so much for their looks, but for the fact that they are comfortable in their own skin. Amish women don’t spend two hours primping in front of a mirror every morning, and they don’t have bad hair days. Given the fact that Amish girls are allowed to leave the community, I suspect that very few Amish women have a problem with their gender roles. Amish gender desegregation is a solution in search of a problem.
You mentioned slavery and human sacrifice. Of course, like you, I would condemn those practices in any society. I never meant to suggest that there are no universals, or that everything is relative. But this article was about proposed seating arrangements. That’s not in the same league. Aren’t you the person who mentioned “false equivalence”?
If the Amish want to send their sons out to drive the plow and their daughters out to milk the cows, I don’t think it’s any of my business.
Personally, my wife and I attempted to keep things more equal for our son and daughter. Both were required to wash and dry the dishes, take care of the family’s pets, help with lawn maintenance and snow shoveling, etc. I bought hand tools for my daughter and even built her a workshop in one corner of the basement with a workbench, vise, and task lighting. I bought her a couple of electronics kits, taught her how to solder, and helped her to build those kits. I did the same things with my son as well. It wasn’t fifty-fifty, but we made sure that both kids knew that they were free to engage in nontraditional (for their gender) activities.
Do you really think that today’s Amish would prevent their daughters from doing traditionally male activities, or vice-versa? I see Amish using cell phones and calculators. They are evolving just like everybody else.
A good friend of mine retired from his career as a UPS driver. He bought a large van and transports Amish families for hire. One family had a son who was afflicted with a serious disease. They hired my friend to drive them from PA to southern CA where they crossed the border and purchased medication in Mexico that they could not get in the US. It was a last-ditch effort to save their son, but he died a few weeks after they returned to PA. My friend, who is Protestant, was invited to attend the Amish funeral service. He was honored and he has a very high regard for the Amish. I don’t know if the seating at their funeral services is gender segregated, but I certainly wouldn’t make a stink about it.
My friend does not put the Amish on a pedestal. Some of them don’t have the best personal hygiene, if you know what I mean. And my friend, who always eats heart-healthy foods, can’t believe the stuff that the Amish eat. But he admires their humility and serenity. Maybe they could learn something about gender roles from us, but maybe we could learn something about the pace of life, the value of family, and many other things from the Amish.
And maybe, just maybe, we could learn a few things from the Saudis, if we took the time to learn more about them. Don’t ask me for specifics, because like most Americans, I know almost nothing about the Saudis or Arabs in general. I only know that when you look more closely at another society, you may find things that surprise you.
bpollen January 5th, 2015 at 2:50 am
WTH??? We were talking about a Saudi business decision. We weren’t discussing gender roles and their implementation around the world. Saudi. Business. Potential. Decision.
Yes, we never know a man until we walk in his shoes. Everybody has something to teach. Different strokes for different folks. Cogito ergo sum. Ad infinitum.
I fail to see how the AMISH have any impact on a decision by a Saudi airline. I seriously doubt that there are any Amish in Riyadh. Nor do I see how I can’t have a negative opinion on the Saudi marginalization of women, nor do I see how the Amish treatment of any member of their community precludes me or anyone else from having and expressing an opinion about said marginalization.
Your argument is largely sophomoric and specious and of no further interest to me.
Robert M. Snyder January 5th, 2015 at 2:55 am
“Your argument is largely sophomoric and specious and of no further interest to me.”
Classy.
rg9rts January 4th, 2015 at 3:21 am
Ask the orthodox Jews what happens to them at JFK …what is the matter with you…that is a male dominated society run by misogynists with a deep fear of women….their superiors.
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 3:41 am
Sure, I agree that Saudi Arabia is repressive. But the article was about seating arrangements. That’s more of a cultural issue, and there are probably plenty of Saudi women who would prefer segregated seating. I attended a liberal arts college for two years back in the eighties where I learned about cultural relativity. Something that violates cultural norms in one society might be perfectly normal in another society. We can’t go around criticizing other cultures just because we don’t like their seating arrangements.
rg9rts January 4th, 2015 at 3:50 am
Delta wasn’t too impressed as the left the orthodox jews on the tarmac when they tried that crap about seating arrangements.
Robert M. Snyder January 4th, 2015 at 5:23 am
If a woman is waiting in a long line outside a public restroom, and she is missing a concert she paid good money to see, and there are only two guys in the men’s room, why can’t she just use the men’s room herself? In Scandinavian countries, it’s probably okay to do that. But in America, it’s against the law.
It seems to me that the American woman stuck in line trying desperately not to wet her pants is at a greater disadvantage than a Saudi woman who is sitting among other Saudi women on a plane.
If we’re going to criticize other cultures, maybe we should look in the mirror. The Scandinavians probably think we’re stuck in the past. But it’s really none of their business, just as Saudi seating arrangements are none of our business.
rg9rts January 4th, 2015 at 3:18 am
Apples and pears….
lafrique January 4th, 2015 at 1:49 am
It’s safer for women subjected to religious subjugation to be separated from men.
rg9rts January 4th, 2015 at 3:17 am
The orthodox jews tried the same shait on Delta….Delta left them on the tarmac