Jump to content

Talk:Airline seating sex discrimination controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possibilities for requested move

[edit]

I suggest that this article be moved for the following reasons:

  1. Various airlines have at various times had sex discrimination policies which were more significant than the ones described here, such as hiring discrimination against female pilots or against male flight attendants, or restrictions against female flight attendants who married or became pregnant.
  2. Some might not even consider the policy described in this article as sex discrimination per se, or at least would find it justifiable to protect children. Presumably the airlines could achieve the same effect by moving the unaccompanied child and allowing the male passenger to remain in his seat -- and in such case it's hard to see how the male passenger could claim to be harmed by not being allowed to sit next to a child whom he doesn't know and isn't traveling with. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what the title, the article, especially the intro, needs a lot of work. Having said that, I could not even remotely guess the subject of the article from the current title. At a minimum, the title should include the word "seating" and maybe exclude the word "sex" per User:Metropolitan90's comments above. How about Airline seating discrimination policies? Ideally, the material here should be merged with a larger article about seating policies in general, something like "Airline seating policies." — AjaxSmack 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with some of the suggestions above about alternative titles - however I really must take issue with some of Metropolitan90's comments - it is clear discrimination regardless of how you look at it. What if the policy (or any other policy) was actually based on race rather than gender? Even just moving the children so they don't sit next to an individual of one particular gender, race, religion etc is clear discrimination no matter how well the company involved (or the media) attempts to conceal it. It isn't necessarily the individual themselves who is harmed by this discirimiation - it is the male gender as a whole which is being demonised - just as blacks would be demonised if you segregated them from children or women etc. Additionally the policy harms children by turning men into strangers who you should have no contact with. Finally, there's also a safety issue here as the policy assumes women are never abusers and thus is creating a false sense of security. --Shakehandsman (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "policy" should be avoided. And no matter if the discrimination is on sitting or not, the discrimination is centered around gender. Hence Sex discrimination in airline industry will be appropriate title. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself cites policies and not only practices so "policy" seems to be warranted in this case. And, although this subject might be better included in a larger-scope article on Sex discrimination in airline industry, that's not the subject of the current article. Until such an article exists, the title should reflect the current reality.
I also understand why User:Metropolitan90 questions the use of "sex." It could just as easily be considered age discrimination as well. — AjaxSmack 03:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every single article written on this issue classes it as sex discrimination and discusses the issue completely in that context. A great many articles and a number of politicians and prominent people have suggested it is illegal due to breaches of sex discrimination laws. To view the issue in any other way without providing a source is Original Research - the main issue is that they are men - they are not discriminating against adult females. Seperating adults from children really isn't an issue - the problem is that they are only separating males = if females were banned from sitting next to boys and men next to girls there wouldn't be any real discrimination. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that there is more than one perspective on this. As one of the sources used states: Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she commended the airlines for putting thought into the policy and for endeavouring to keep children safe. Dr Kiro said she did not think it was intended to be a slur against men. [1] Thus, I would primarily question whether the word "discrimination" should be used in the title, not whether that discrimination should be listed in the title as sex discrimination or age discrimination. Certainly the article should include quotes showing that some consider these policies sex discrimination, but it should also include quotes showing that others do not consider these policies sex discrimination. Wikipedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view as to that question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off course it is discrimination, the article is not supposed to be written what Dr Kiro thinks. There are many people who think the earth is flat which does not make the earth flat. And the NPOV comes here when we represent the true fact. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(new indent) Two cents: This article reads like a news story and not an encyclopedia article. It sounds like it belongs on Wikinews. Boil it down to a paragraph or two and add it as a section of an article on workplace gender discrimination. - Keith D. Tyler 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a length of time, no clear alternative has emerged and got support, partly because the format has encouraged the discussion to go off topic. I'm removing the listing from the backlog of WP:RM, but feel free to relist with a clearer suggestion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not merge this into a sex discrimination? It's not as if that article is overly long anyways. How notable is this as a stand-alone article. Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is too specific for merging. Survived VfD earlier this year. I've removed the notability tag. --Nricardo (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for page move

[edit]

I changed the page title from "Airline sex discrimination policy controversy" to "Airline seating sex discrimination controversy". Justification:

  • Many airlines have sex discriminatory policies. For example, Emirates fires female flight crew who become pregnant in the first three years of employment. (In most Western countries, that would be illegal, but it's legal in UAE.) But this article is not about airline sex discrimination in general, it is specifically about airline sex discrimination in passenger seating. To make this clear, the word "seating" must be added to the title
  • The word "policy" in the title doesn't add much so I dropped it.
  • Using the phrase "sex discrimination" in the article title is neutral to the debate on whether this actually is sex discrimination, since the word "controversy" implies there is a dispute.

SJK (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airline seating sex discrimination controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gendered Language

[edit]

Changed the wording of "a male nurse" to "a nurse" to eliminate the idea that women can only be a nurse. Qrsx (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to eliminate the idea that only women can be nurses. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airline_seating_sex_discrimination_controversy&oldid=1204628110"