“You don’t understand, women are holier than men.”
September 27, 2014 11:47 AM   Subscribe

"I'm not sure whether it mattered. One young man very kindly said to me, 'You don’t understand, women are holier than men.' I said, 'That’s rubbish and it doesn't excuse the insult,' and then I added that I spent 13 years in yeshiva and there's nothing he could tell me that I haven't already heard. Then the original man, the one who refused to sit next to me, muttered to another man as he was walking away, 'She doesn't understand.' I said, 'I understand everything, and don't talk to me as if I'm not here.' He ignored me, and all the other men turned their backs and did not respond or even look at me." [Similar version at JewFem blog.]
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome (61 comments total) 31 users marked this as a favorite
 
That's a powerful little essay; thanks for posting it. Here's the conclusion:
If there is one thing that I would like to change in the world, it is this: I would like women to respect themselves enough to say no to all this. I want women to allow themselves to feel the impact of the silencing. I want women to be honest with themselves and to look at their lives and the places where they are powerless or oppressed, and to acknowledge that. Better yet, I want women to say no, I will not be silent or servile. I will not continue to absorb the insult as if this is all OK. I want women to say that they deserve better. I want women to believe that they deserve better.
Amen to that!
posted by languagehat at 11:53 AM on September 27, 2014 [23 favorites]


This is an awesome little essay. But I don't know what to make of the fact that the guy still moved and the people on the plane accommodated him.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:39 PM on September 27, 2014


I've seen some other articles about this, but it's really interesting to hear a first-person perspective. I hope El Al offers a more through response (and possibly a set of airplane rules to prevent future issues?) in the future.
posted by jetlagaddict at 12:50 PM on September 27, 2014


Eventually, people just want the plane to take off.
posted by boo_radley at 12:50 PM on September 27, 2014


It sounds like this flight.

There's a lot to unpack. Being told "you're holier" as a consolation, when you know as well as they do that they don't want to sit near you because you may be ritually unclean. Hasidic women on a plane may have asked others to move as well - but how many of those women are traveling without men? When does you right to practice religion as you see fit impugn on my right not to experience discrimination?

Separate but equal isn't an impossible accommodation under a lot of circumstances, if others cooperate. But should they? I may have switched seats in order to avoid spending hours next to men who were so obviously hostile to me, but I am sure I would have felt the same sense of being demeaned as the author. I probably would have felt much differently about switching for the sake of a Jewish woman who didn't want to sit next to a man.
posted by prewar lemonade at 12:51 PM on September 27, 2014 [1 favorite]


[A few comments removed. It would be great to not have this go downhill immediately.]
posted by cortex at 12:56 PM on September 27, 2014


The "ritually unclean" thing isn't relevant here; it really is just because they think men and women shouldn't be in physical contact unless they're married.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:15 PM on September 27, 2014 [1 favorite]


Then perhaps they shouldn't fly? Or are we to accommodate all religious extremists and their bigotry in every way?
posted by el io at 1:17 PM on September 27, 2014 [36 favorites]


It's the age old question. Modern society is by-and-large fairly tolerant - but should we tolerate intolerance? Should we make concessions to groups of people because they have fringe beliefs that make them intolerant of a majority of all humans (woman being slightly more numerous than men)?

My answer is, "Hell, no." In the case of this flight, you have a group of people committing felonies, literally endangering an entire plane to impose their own intolerance. If I were drunk and did one-tenth of that, they'd divert the plane and jail me - if a couple of Muslims did one tenth of that, they'd jail them and throw away the key.

They have passenger records - they need to identify the culprits and prosecute them.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:27 PM on September 27, 2014 [13 favorites]


(Oh, and will they? Hard to believe. But if they don't, there's a clear message - "Air safety takes second place to accommodating the prejudices of religious groups." Is this really a message that a twenty-first century airline should be sending?)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:32 PM on September 27, 2014 [1 favorite]


That’s what women are accustomed to doing. We give all kinds of reasons—we say we don’t mind, we like sitting in the back of the bus, we don’t want to “be like men,” this is what God wants, we don’t want to make a fuss, we like their lives.
Great essay; vivid and succinct -- but I don't understand that part I bolded of the last sentence unless she meant to write 'we like our lives' in which case she'd be repeating the sentiment a few lines later with "Maybe we generally or genuinely love our lives," or she meant to write 'we don't want their lives' which would essentially be restating ' we don’t want to “be like men... .”'
posted by jamjam at 1:39 PM on September 27, 2014


Raising women above men is equally as damaging, dangerous and unsustainable as putting men above women. We as a species need to move past this stuff.
posted by bleep at 1:47 PM on September 27, 2014 [4 favorites]


They have passenger records - they need to identify the culprits and prosecute them.

While I agree that society should never tolerate intolerance, I find your solution rather extreme. It is enough to make them aware that the airline may assign them seats next to women and if they refuse to take those seats they will be asked to leave the plane. Intolerant people should, at most, be let to excuse themselves, rather than force their intolerance upon others.
posted by Thing at 1:49 PM on September 27, 2014 [4 favorites]


In the case of this flight, you have a group of people committing felonies

The article said they were standing in the aisles in order to avoid their seatmates. I do that with fussy babies, sometimes for practically the whole flight. I didn't see anything about endangering/threatening other passengers or the plane.

But anyway, of course the answer is for them to buy as many whole rows as needed for the group to travel in a way that accommodates their religious practices. Or not fly.
posted by palliser at 1:51 PM on September 27, 2014 [4 favorites]


> While I agree that society should never tolerate intolerance, I find your solution rather extreme.

I'm sorry - why is this at all "extreme"?

A group of passengers deliberately interferes with the safety of an aircraft because of their beliefs. If you or I or anyone else did this, we would go to jail.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:07 PM on September 27, 2014


> The article said they were standing in the aisles in order to avoid their seatmates. I do that with fussy babies, sometimes for practically the whole flight. I didn't see anything about endangering/threatening other passengers or the plane.

You think it's OK for a group of passengers to seize control of the aisles in an airplane and resist all requests to go back to their seats. And you don't see how this endangers everyone on the plane?

Luckily, the world disagrees with you. Refusing instructions from air crew is a felony almost everywhere in the world. If you or I did it, we'd rightfully go to jail. They should too.

Yes, flight crews sometimes allow individuals the ability to walk around - as long as they don't block the aisles - under the understanding that they will take their seats when ordered. If you somehow think a mother walking her fretful baby is the same as a group of people deliberately preventing movement in an airplane for their own neurotic purposes...?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:14 PM on September 27, 2014


I didn't see in the article refusals to submit to in-flight air crew instructions. When the pilot told them to sit at the beginning of the flight, it seems they complied ("The pilot pleaded for them to sit down and the flight finally took off"). I saw that fellow passengers were annoyed, but I saw nothing about the air crew instructing them to sit during the flight and them refusing.

It would of course be still consistent with the article if they did refuse in-flight instructions to be seated, which would be a felony.

Again, I don't think anyone should accommodate their absurd and insulting request, and that if this is so important to them, they should buy extra seats. I just don't see throwing them in jail based on what's in the article.
posted by palliser at 2:25 PM on September 27, 2014


No orthodoxy is good orthodoxy.
posted by scratch at 2:32 PM on September 27, 2014 [2 favorites]


palliser, did you read the articles that were linked to in the comments, as well as the main post?

The pilot pleaded for them to sit down and the flight finally took off. But after takeoff, chaos erupted.

“I ended up sitting next to a … man who jumped out of his seat the moment we had finished taking off and proceeded to stand in the aisle,” a woman passenger identified only as Galit told Ynet. The man had asked her to move from the seat beside her husband to accommodate his religious beliefs, but she refused.

“People stood in the aisles and refused to go forward,” said Amit Ben-Natan, a passenger who was on board the plane.

“I went to the bathroom and it was a mission impossible, the noise was endless,” Galit said of the men crowding the aisle and praying loudly.


The "refused to go forward" part certainly implies that once they got in the air, they stopped obeying instructions from the flight crew.

If I was stuck on an 11 hour flight with a group of men blocking the path to the bathroom while loudly praying, I think it is safe to say I would FLIP OUT. I'm a nervous enough flyer to begin with, without that kind of nonsense taking place. They should have been arrested. I find it astonishing the plane wasn't turned around.
posted by instead of three wishes at 2:45 PM on September 27, 2014 [13 favorites]


Unfortunately, we're getting the same article from all the reputable news sources for the moment, which only mentions the pilot asking them to sit down before the takeoff.

So all we know for sure is that the aisles were completely blocked for the entire flight.

So I imagine, yes, there's some vague possibility that the flight crew never asked the passengers standing in the aisles to sit down - that they didn't attempt to give any sort of food or beverage service for the whole trip and never said a word.

But if so, that's a massive safety violation. This airline should not be allowed to fly if they cannot enforce safety rules.

Ever read up on air safety? Ever chatted to an air professional?

The crashes are what gets people's attentions, but in fact the vast majority of serious injuries happen because of turbulence - when people who aren't belted in go flying around the cabin.

Sometimes there's a lot of notice before you reach turbulence - sometimes there's almost none. It's one thing if you have one or two people you can hurry back to their seats - it's quite another when you have a large number of people who are deliberately refusing to return to their seats. When the turbulence hits, you won't be able to get them back to their seats, these people are going to be flying through the cabin and many people will be injured.

Since 9/11, there are other rules preventing people from congregating in quantity in a plane. While I agree that some of it is overblown, it is not entirely unreasonable - and regardless, it's the rules of the air, which translate into legal rules.

In the twenty-first century, we shouldn't have to be explaining to people why it's for everyone's safety that they sit down when they're in a machine traveling half the speed of sound that's subject to semi-predictable perturbances that send people flying around like missiles if not belted in.

These laws are for our safety, they have evolved from studying many terrible crashes and other accidents, and people who deliberately flout these laws because they believe that they are above all temporal laws are criminals who need to be made an example of - because otherwise this will continue to happen and one day a lot of people will be hurt. (And this equally applies to rich, drunken Caucasians as groups of fundamentalists.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:49 PM on September 27, 2014 [8 favorites]


Also, I have a very tiny bladder.
posted by instead of three wishes at 2:50 PM on September 27, 2014 [2 favorites]


I wonder what the Torah says about flying around in metal tubes.
posted by klanawa at 2:50 PM on September 27, 2014


I wonder what the Torah says about flying around in metal tubes.

If you're ultra orthodox it's OK, as long as it's not IDF.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:15 PM on September 27, 2014 [9 favorites]


Perhaps they could affirm their preference for bronze age behavioral standards by making the trip in a wooden cart, drawn by an ox. They'd have more leg room that way, too.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 3:28 PM on September 27, 2014 [8 favorites]


Yet another traditional culture that I hope gets destroyed by modern imperialism.
posted by umberto at 3:34 PM on September 27, 2014 [9 favorites]


This link shows a picture of men standing in the aisles during the flight. The fasten seatbelt light appears to be lit. It is a Federal crime to ignore this sign.

I don't know what the jurisdictional issues are since this was an El Al flight, but without consulting the Googles I imagine that international agreements have the same rules concerning the seatbelt light.
posted by Warren Terra at 4:30 PM on September 27, 2014


Then yes, it seems they were ignoring in-flight instructions to be seated. The airline should have called ahead and had them arrested once they landed, or turned around if this mass exit of their seats started early enough in the flight.
posted by palliser at 4:38 PM on September 27, 2014


I'm pretty happy about how the women reacted to the demands.
Galit, another traveler on the flight, said the ultra-orthodox passengers suggested she and her spouse split up to better accommodate their desired seating arrangements: "Why should I agree to switch places?" she said with anger.
I think if I was a women I might go further and antagonize them - ie: touching them, maybe exposing some skin for them to see. Hell, I'd pull up the internet to figure out what buttons to push that would upset them further.

What I find weird is that this is a relatively new phenomenon (or at least the press coverage of it is). Did they recently change/re-interpret their religious rules?
posted by el io at 4:59 PM on September 27, 2014


Their intolerance shouldn't allow them to flout regulations, they should comply with the seat belt sign like everyone else. Just as bad is their attitude towards women, they are not second class citizens to be avoided.
posted by arcticseal at 5:01 PM on September 27, 2014


unmensches.
posted by notreally at 5:04 PM on September 27, 2014 [3 favorites]


Did they recently change/re-interpret their religious rules?

I can attest, having been raised Orthodox, that we were emphatically taught not to act like this, that respect for human dignity outweighed concerns about casual physical contact between the sexes. (That is, e.g., an Orthodox Jewish man wouldn't shake hands with an Orthodox Jewish woman, and that would be fine because both knew and upheld the system, and no offense would be taken. But if an Orthodox Jewish man were greeting a woman who wasn't Orthodox Jewish, and who would presumably take umbrage, he would be required to extend his hand to her and shake.)

That said, I gather that some Chassidic groups see things differently.
posted by Shmuel510 at 5:57 PM on September 27, 2014 [28 favorites]


I think if I was a women I might go further and antagonize them - ie: touching them, maybe exposing some skin for them to see. Hell, I'd pull up the internet to figure out what buttons to push that would upset them further.

Would you do that if they were an observant Muslim? Would you make a point of eating meat in front of a Buddhist? Making an active effort to offend someone's religious belief seems like kind of a dick move.

If an Orthodox Jewish man were greeting a woman who wasn't Orthodox Jewish, and who would presumably take umbrage, he would be required to extend his hand to her and shake.

That's definitely not the case with the genders reversed at present---I socially know an Orthodox Jewish woman who frequently tells people at social gatherings that she cannot accept their proferred handshake.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 7:13 PM on September 27, 2014 [1 favorite]


Would you do that if they were an observant Muslim? Would you make a point of eating meat in front of a Buddhist? Making an active effort to offend someone's religious belief seems like kind of a dick move.

In general, I agree, it's a dick move one shouldn't do. In the particular case where they are holding up an entire airplane of people so they don't need to sit next to you and pretending you don't exist, I have sympathy.
posted by jeather at 7:17 PM on September 27, 2014 [1 favorite]


> Would you make a point of eating meat in front of a Buddhist? Making an active effort to offend someone's religious belief seems like kind of a dick move.

One can choose whether or not to eat meat. One cannot choose(*) whether or not to be female. To claim someone is making a "dick move" simply by being the gender they were born with is completely ridiculous.

(* - modulo many questions about gender identity - but the fact remains that judging someone by their gender is the "dick move", not being that gender.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:22 PM on September 27, 2014 [5 favorites]


Would you do that if they were an observant Muslim? Would you make a point of eating meat in front of a Buddhist? Making an active effort to offend someone's religious belief seems like kind of a dick move.

Yup, I agree it's a dick move. And I certainly wouldn't go out of my way (nor have I) to offend a religious conservative person if unprovoked. But I have gone out of my way to provoke religious people that scream on the streetcorner 'God Hates Fags' and I have gone out of my way to provoke people that think showing pictures of aborted fetuses on the sidewalk are a way to convert people to their viewpoint.

Those people are going out of their way to be publicly offensive with their religion, and so I'm happy to oblige them back. They are going out of their way to make me feel uncomfortable.

And I probably would confront a Buddist that was making a scene in a restaurant about how meat was offensive.

If these people wanted to buy two seats to ensure they wouldn't sit next to someone they found offensive, fine. If they don't and sat next to me and started to make a scene (demanding to be moved away from me because of their religious beliefs) I would feel no compunction to make them feel comfortable, and would potentially intentionally antagonize them further.
posted by el io at 7:34 PM on September 27, 2014 [12 favorites]


> And I probably would confront a Buddist that was making a scene in a restaurant about how meat was offensive.

I remember a charming chat I had with a young lad of about eight taking me around a Buddhist temple in Korea a decade ago (he was wanting to practice his English). I told him I didn't eat meat and he said, "That's right! They tell us in temple that it's not right to eat meat! But often I don't do that." I asked him what they told him when he did eat meat, and he said, "They said it's OK, but I must try harder."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:55 PM on September 27, 2014 [18 favorites]


A group of passengers deliberately interferes with the safety of an aircraft because of their beliefs. If you or I or anyone else did this, we would go to jail.
posted by


*yawn*. You are invoking laws that in any other thread you would decry as bullshit security theater. Don't apply a different standard to them just because they're being assholes. There are plenty of ways to punish assholes for being assholes without being a hyperbolic hypocrite.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 8:37 PM on September 27, 2014 [5 favorites]


if an Orthodox Jewish man were greeting a woman who wasn't Orthodox Jewish, and who would presumably take umbrage, he would be required to extend his hand to her and shake.

My former landlord, an orthodox Jew, refused to shake my wife's hand.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 8:41 PM on September 27, 2014 [3 favorites]


What I don't get is why they're making such a big deal about ritual impurity. Can't they just do whatever washing ritual they need to do after the flight? I thought being unclean was more of an inconvenient circumstance than some kind of moral failure. I'd think inconveniencing other people in this way would be seen as a greater sin than letting yourself become unclean.
posted by straight at 8:47 PM on September 27, 2014


yeah, it isn't required. I'm not Orthodox Jewish, and don't know how I could require a man to shake my hand under any circumstances. I also wouldn't be offended by their lack of handshake and definitely wouldn't expose myself to horrify them. I think the only reason these things seem plausible to people is because they don't have a lot of exposure to Orthodox people? I live in NYC and have a lot. I'm not offended by their beliefs, but wouldn't want them as part of my life and think the differences in Jewish observances are interesting.
posted by sweetkid at 8:48 PM on September 27, 2014


> You are invoking laws that in any other thread you would decry as bullshit security theater. Don't apply a different standard to them just because they're being assholes. There are plenty of ways to punish assholes for being assholes without being a hyperbolic hypocrite.

Standing the aisles in an airplane for a six hour journey is objectively and provably dangerous to yourself and to others. Even though this should be common sense, I explained in detail why this is so.

I don't see you addressing that - instead I see you calling me names. That speaks poorly of you.

And what are these other threads?

We had the thread where a single African-American man minding his own business was taken off a plane for reading a book about WWI airplanes.

At least he got a sort-of apology, but in the thread where one dark-skinned Israeli woman minding her own business happened to be sitting next to one dark-skinned Arab man minding his own business, they both got taken into a back room and interrogated after their plane was diverted by a fighter jet, and no one apologized to either of them - indeed, you'd pretty well have to believe that their names were permanently on the TSA shitlist after that, which makes their lives a misery if they ever want to fly again.

Now let's compare this to the current situation - where dozens of angry men occupy the aisles of a commercial jet for an entire flight, presenting a very real danger to everyone on the plane, and nothing happens to them - no one makes them do anything, takes their names down, charges them with the felonies they blatantly committed or does the slightest thing from discouraging them from doing it again.

See the difference?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:22 PM on September 27, 2014 [7 favorites]


I wouldn't want to shake hands with someone that doesn't want to shake hands with me.

Every religion has extremists, and religious extremists will do/say unreasonable things. We should be respectful of people with deeply held religious beliefs, but not of extremists.

It's pretty easy to recognize extremists too - they often believe/advocate for theocracies, suppression of women's rights, intolerance for other religions, homophobia as public policy. It's important to not conflate religious conservatives with the extremists - but when religious conservatives start defending the extremists it becomes hard to tell them apart.

The thing is, if we *don't* confront religious extremists when they attempt to exert control over civil society, their extremist agendas start to impact those that aren't religious.

This is certainly taking place to various degrees in the US (witness modifications to history books, to biology schoolbooks, attempts to codify homophobia in law), all over the Middle East (most evident in Islamic countries, and to a lesser degree Israel).

Countries are pretty good at identifying and squashing religious extremism in their country when the religion is the non-dominant one (and often times they will also squash out the moderates of the non-dominant religion), and most countries have a much harder time squashing out religious extremism within the dominant religion of their country.

The subject of this post is someone attempting to fight the religious extremism of their faith - good on them for that. Personally I'm more concerned about Christian religious extremism - as that's more likely to go unchecked in north america. Christians in the US loudly complain that the followers of Islam do not enough to shout down the extremists in their midsts; while this may be true, it is certainly also true the non-extremists in the US do not address extremism within their own religion, within their own country.

It's a harder thing to do - to confront those that give your faith a bad name, but it's more important, otherwise you are engaging in inter-religious conflict - which rarely goes well.
posted by el io at 9:25 PM on September 27, 2014 [3 favorites]


If I pay for a seat on a flight, I'm sitting it it. If I passed El-Al security to sit in that seat, you damn well better bet I'll sit in it. If you don't like it, shove it up your ass and take a different flight. If you're going to be a fucking crybaby because you dont want to take a different flight and you want my seat, understand that people will view you as the mannerless 5 year old you are.
posted by SakuraK at 12:40 AM on September 28, 2014 [9 favorites]


[Comments deleted. Pudhoho, take a break.]
posted by taz at 3:10 AM on September 28, 2014


If your religion has a problem with women, if it sees them as unclean, untouchable, sinful, submissive, or servile, we don't need it. We need to get rid of that religion. It needs to be lost to the world. And I don't want your bullshit excuses of, "No, it's because we value women so much!" If women do not have the same rights and respect as men in your religion, then it's better off forgotten and unused with the rest of the stone age nonsense we've abandoned.

I've no use for religion of any stripe, but to me the absolute bare minimum it should accomplish is letting people know we're all in this together. If you can't do that with women, then you're not a religion, you're just a frat.
posted by Legomancer at 6:00 AM on September 28, 2014 [14 favorites]


Every religion has extremists, and religious extremists will do/say unreasonable things. We should be respectful of people with deeply held religious beliefs, but not of extremists.

These shitbirds holding up the aircraft are, by your definition, extremists. They deserve condemnation and scorn, as do their idiotic sect in general.
posted by amorphatist at 11:53 AM on September 28, 2014


If your religion has a problem with women, if it sees them as unclean, untouchable, sinful, submissive, or servile, we don't need it. We need to get rid of that religion. It needs to be lost to the world.

Judaism as a whole is an example of a better option: a general overhaul of the religion to meet mainstream values. The vast majority of Jews are part of movements that put egalitarianism at their forefront (Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative Judaism). Traditions and rituals that have lasted thousands of years are preserved, while attitudes like the ones displayed by these airline passengers are discarded.

Don't talk about "that religion" when you're really talking about how a tiny slice of practitioners of the religion observe it. And if you really don't know anything about Judaism as practiced by almost all Jews, you should probably learn something before making a comment that implies you support its eradication.
posted by palliser at 4:12 PM on September 28, 2014 [15 favorites]


If women do not have the same rights and respect as men in your religion, then it's better off forgotten and unused with the rest of the stone age nonsense we've abandoned.

Then there go most of the religions in the world. Because probably every single culture has a deep down core basis of "women are inferior," it's ingrained in the religions too. Religion just gives them an excuse.

"Better yet, I want women to say no, I will not be silent or servile. I will not continue to absorb the insult as if this is all OK. I want women to say that they deserve better. I want women to believe that they deserve better."

Good luck with making that happen. Because even when women do say that they deserve better, they run into...stuff like this. Because that is fine and dandy in Israel, I guess.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:30 PM on September 28, 2014


I've been on El Al flights out of NJ. There is a lot that is managed pro-actively before planes are boarded.
posted by childofTethys at 4:34 AM on September 29, 2014


That's what I've been wondering. Why doesn't this happen every flight? I presume, given ElAl's "soz was busy time of year" response that the offending passengers had been bumped? Or double-booked?
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:39 AM on September 29, 2014


And if you really don't know anything about Judaism as practiced by almost all Jews, you should probably learn something before making a comment that implies you support its eradication.

Speaking of condemning a whole without seeming to understand it, my comment didn't say anything about Judaism as a whole. The people in the OP have a religion that happens to be an extremist subgroup within another. The religion they practice can't handle the basic task of treating other people with respect, so it's something we're better off without.
posted by Legomancer at 6:26 AM on September 29, 2014


I do hope someone, somewhere has noticed that the refusal to sit next to women has nothing, zip, nada, zero to do with women being inferior. Orthodox Jews believe that men and women sitting next to each other risks inciting lust in either party, and therefore should be avoided. Superiority or inferiority doesn't enter into it.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 2:54 PM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]


Superiority or inferiority doesn't enter into it.

Whatever the reasoning is-- because women are holier, because women cause lust-- if the end result is that women are forced to move to the back of the bus, or away from their husbands on a plane, or when they are not permitted to accept awards they have earned, when girls are spat on because they are seen as immodestly dressed, when things are thrown at the women who prayed at the Western Wall-- is the conclusion really that inferiority doesn't enter into it? Haredi men are not asked to sit only in the back of buses; their wives are not asked to accept awards on their behalf, as far as I know. Of course, many of those are extreme incidents, and not at all supported by all Haredim. However, the author of this article has a book out with the title The War on Women in Israel: A Story of Religious Radicalism and the Women Fighting for Freedom. It sounds like she does think inferiority is a part of the issue.
posted by jetlagaddict at 3:27 PM on September 29, 2014 [6 favorites]


when things are thrown at the women who prayed at the Western Wall

Speaking of which: Women of the Wall are #SorryNotSorry

Last-ditch effort fails to secure egalitarian prayer space at Western Wall before new year
posted by homunculus at 5:19 PM on October 12, 2014


> [A few comments removed. It would be great to not have this go downhill immediately.]
posted to MeFi by cortex sisyphus at 12:56 PM on September 27 [+] [!]

posted by homunculus at 5:22 PM on October 12, 2014


NO YOU ARE THE SISSY-PUSS
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:15 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]


DAMN RIGHT!
posted by homunculus at 1:02 PM on October 17, 2014


> This link shows a picture of men standing in the aisles during the flight. The fasten seatbelt light appears to be lit. It is a Federal crime to ignore this sign.

I don't know what the jurisdictional issues are since this was an El Al flight, but without consulting the Googles I imagine that international agreements have the same rules concerning the seatbelt light.


El Al 'gender discrimination' may violate U.S. law, claims N.Y. activist rabbi: In wake of petition urging El Al to act on Haredi passengers who refuse to sit next to women, Conservative rabbi and attorney calls on unhappy clients to use U.S. Federal law to pressure airlines.
posted by homunculus at 2:11 PM on October 17, 2014




Both those links require logging in.
posted by jeather at 2:22 PM on October 17, 2014


You can read them if you follow the link from Google. Just Google the url or the title and click the link.

Actually, now that trick is only working for me with the second link. I read them both earlier but now it wants me to login to get the first one.
posted by homunculus at 2:37 PM on October 17, 2014


« Older Goys React!   |   Looking back on Bird Up, Charlie Parker filtered... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments