India’s largest budget carrier, IndiGo, is the first airline to trial a feature that lets female passengers book seats next to other women to avoid sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with a man in a move designed to make flying more comfortable for female passengers, according to a CNBC report.
The airline’s booking process is fairly standard except for the seat map which highlights seats occupied by women with the color pink. This information is not visible to male passengers, according to the airline, CNBC reported. IndiGo did not immediately respond to CBS MoneyWatch’s request for comment on the new feature.
This is a terrible take.
If he’s saying “normalize people being next to one another so anti-social nutjobs can get over themselves instead of being violent” then I can see where he’s going. It’s like the “co-ed bathroom” craze we had for a while.
I’m not sure whether it’ll help aggressive incels actually talk to gurls like people instead of sublimating from “I can list all the dinosaurs” to “you frigid ho” themes, but it could place other comfy male-company people in range or just someone burly to slap the actual shit out of someone who steps outta line. Equality has two sides.
I think either that solution or the segregation or the actual fix to the issue, they’ll all take a lot of emotional growth, though; and we lack the people to help us do that here, let alone in places where misogyny creeps ever closer to the default.
I think it’s terrible because the take treats women as things that defuse incels. Like sacrificing some women is worth it. Feel gross and dehumanizing.
I’m not ever saying women are dispensable tools in this fight (something you imply I said) or that we should “sacrifice” someone - the safety of every person is hugely valuable - I’m just saying that going separate is not gonna make things safer in the long run. There are other factors at play here that will show up, and we should not strive for knee-jerk solutions.
I doubt that separation alone is gonna help much, and I’d love to see comprehensive evidence for or against my take, if any exists. I want to see what is the best evidence-based solution that would actually improve safety of everyone.
If anything, I want to make sure as little women as possible are ever victims of such accidents, I’m just concerned over whether this is a best approach.
You just speak about women in a dehumanizing way that removes agency. It feel gross. Reminds me of doctors from the 90s that said we need studies to tell if inserting IUDs causes pain.
Thanks for pointing it out. I will see what I can do to correct it.
Is it something about the way I put it, like if I decide for women how it would be better for them?
Because my real position here, outlined clearly from my point of view but maybe not from someone else’s, is that we should better study the consequences of that approach to make a more informed decision.
One could come from a strictly individualistic approach, to allow and empower people to act as they see fit, but the moment we set examples of things already resolved, people start thinking otherwise.
I’m gonna get another hate wave for this comparison, but this is just illustrative example, so hear me out first: should we allow white people to make separate white-only spaces on the same planes? We can absolutely try and justify it by the same “giving agency” argument, all while pointing out people of color do more crimes and can be, on average, more “dangerous”.
All of which would be complete bullshit that omits any nuance that the very segregation puts people in conditions that promote such behavior and there is nothing about being black or hispanic or whatever in itself that promotes it. So we should absolutely fight back against any such idea.
Similar themes here, except the conditions here are less material (in fact, men even have somewhat of an advantage here) and more purely social. Externally isolated communities often promote dangerous behaviors, and to combat that, we should avoid forming such communities by not alienating them by the arbitrary category of gender in the first place. Otherwise, we are gonna see communities similar to incels grow and get more dangerous.
I just suppose that the risk of alienating men and them getting more violent may outweigh the immediate benefit of increased plane safety, eventually turning against women themselves. But to prove or disprove that point, I’d love to see more numbers. Before that, I do not welcome radical solutions that are not informed by a solid body of evidence, as they often carry questionable consequences.
This is actually reasonable. If you explained it this way in the first place maybe people would have stopped being pissy and taken you seriously. Before this comment your position seemed flimsy, but comparing it to racist practice made it make a lot more sense.
While I don’t agree with the idea that isolating someone from women on a plane will make them rape someone else somewhere else, I think your point about alienation driving extreme views is very pertinent. The more you try to vilify a group the more that group will try and make it a self-fulfiling prophecy, or otherwise go against the people vilifying them.
Thanks - in any case, I’m happy I’ve got my point across to someone.
Correct on interpretation, and solid wording :)
I am going to ignore the weird race stuff. I don’t agree with it but don’t want to spend the energy.
I will speak about this:
This again dehumanizes women and removes agency.
You are saying that women are the tools that are used to prevent male violence. By treating women as a means to reduce violence without considering the women themselves as people you are dehumanizing and removing agency.
Women are people just as men are people. Women are not the tools to reduce male violence.
You also say giving women the choice to sit with women is radical. Women having the chose to protect themselves is not radical. It is a basis for a moral society.
You shouldn’t need studies to prove how effective or not using women as tools to reduce male violence is.
Women are not tools.
Women are not tools - and I never said that. Women, as all people, may have to sacrifice this short-term benefit for the long-term effect and actually lasting safe environment - that’s my point. In a world where people radicalize and suggest knee-jerk solutions, I want to step back to see if evidence is there to back them up.
I say that sometimes people make irrational decisions that hurts the bottom line for themselves and others, and game theory means sometimes we have to all sacrifice something to maintain a better position than we could achieve individually - in this case, a world where we don’t have to isolate ourselves to be safe and live in fear of someone.
If allowing women to “protect themselves” by letting them choose male-free spaces is gonna cause the rise in male violence, this will undermine the very purpose of this initiative. And since individually every woman is still better off separated, this will perpetuate even further, even if collectively women lose big time.
I’m concerned about this particular risk. Should it be about men instead of women, I’d be same kind of concerned. This is not meant to be misogynistic (or misandric for that matter). This is rather collectivist, choosing a solution that could bring people together and let them actually solve the problem that requires both ends to solve. And a suggested initiative only makes this goal father away, proliferating the general issue that causes the concern in the first place.
Separating people based on inherent traits is never the solution, which we somehow understand in any case but this one.
Until you see:
I don’t think this discussion is worth having. I hope you are never used as a means to an end.
Big, “People will call me racist for this” energy. You knew what you were gonna say was gonna be racist and shitty, but you said it anyway…
Do you have a humiliation fetish or something? It’s like you want the downvotes…
Bruh they are making at least one good point here. Meanwhile you are trying to do a character assassination and make baseless accusations. Fucking stop it.
Not that I care of downvotes when I’m right.
Yet you don’t seem to listen, instead going for labels and trying so so hard to make it personal in several threads at once.
I don’t think this kind of conversation can remain productive.
Yeah that’s part of what I mean.
Another part is that this proliferates the issue on both ends - aggressive men don’t learn to behave well as they don’t confront the situation and don’t learn self-control, and women turn more to fear and loathing, severing more and more contacts with men and alienating them, which ends up hurting men and limiting their exposure to women side of the story, making them more violent.
It’s not the job of women to put themselves in potentially dangerous situations for the betterment of men. Women not wanting to be easily assaulted is “hurting men” is a disgusting take and says some truly awful things about you.
My take is exactly that the suggested approach might not improve women’s safety overall. The “betterment of men”, as you put it, is the key ingredient to a sustainable solution on male sexual harassment and violence, and segregation is a patch that can come with unintended consequences that will undermine this process and directly hurt women.
We may not ignore the social and psychological consequences of such actions for men, as their mental wellbeing is directly related to the probability of committing assault, thereby again, directly affecting women.
I’m trying to make a point to counter the immediate knee-jerk approach, and call to collect evidence on the efficacy of such measures to promote women’s safety. Any policy should be driven by what actually works, not what we feel of it.
I urge you to stop assuming bad faith in everyone you disagree with, and to clarify first. Lemmy is very much a people-driven platform, and absolute majority of people here are well-intentioned. Thereby, if another person shares a different opinion, they probably come from a position of care as much as you do, they just have a different consideration in mind.