Friday, August 27, 2010

And all it took was a lawsuit to tell this is was sexist...

If you recall from earlier this year about British Airways straight up sexist policy of not allowing men (and only men) to sit near unaccompanied children on flights.

Well it looks like it only took a high profile for them to get rid of it.

But as with most ingrained sexist presumptions people try to hold on to them and justify them.
"The end of discrimination is good news but most business travellers usually want to sit as far away as possible from unaccompanied children so this is unlikely to have a big impact on where people sit on-board."
If that is the case then why institute a policy that pretty much forces businessmen to move away from unaccompanied kids? Based on that they couldn't have just left those men alone and they would have just avoided those kids. Problem is not all of the men on those flights are businessmen. And if its "unlikely to have a big impact on where people sit on-board" then why make the policy in the first place?
A spokesman for BA said: "We carry tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors every year and take great pride in the service that we provide to them and their parents.
Wow. Sexism against male travelers is a service?
"We have recently changed our internal advice to our seating and airport teams to ensure that the seating of unaccompanied minors is managed in a safe but non discriminatory manner."
In other words they have finally realized (or finally have been forced to admit) that being male is not a criteria for being a threat to unaccompanied minors.

Good. Now they can get back being on the look out for actual threats rather than thinking they could discriminate against all male travelers and call it a day.
-->