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.

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    Honestly I think in most cases segregation is just not the answer.

    The more far away we become based on fairly arbitrary characteristics, the less there is opportunity for a meaningful dialogue that would change the status quo around the issue.

    On a practical side, I wish there were proper passenger safety measures and procedures against harassment. A man is trying to do that to you? Record it and report to the crew immediately, and let them deal with the perpetrator and call police on the ground when applicable.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I get what you’re saying, but we don’t fix the issue of men sexually assaulting women, especially in a country that has such profound issues with this like India, by forcing women to remain vulnerable.

      If allowing women to avoid being seated next to men on flights reduces the chance of sexual assault from taking place during flights, then I am all for it.

      It just needs to be understood as a harm reduction technique, not the solution to the overall societal problem.

      This is like saying cars shouldn’t have seatbelts because it isn’t discouraging people not to crash their cars. Seatbelts don’t solve this issue, they just reduce harm. Think of this airline’s decision as implementing a sexual seatbelt for women.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        3 months ago

        My concern is that the same men, frustrated at being unable to do this on flight, will do it somewhere else anyway. Also, some could be pissed off by this measure just enough to have a negative shift in mentality towards women (see incels that are driven by alientation). So does it really significantly reduce harm? I’d love to see numbers if anyone has got them.

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          What the fuck? You think that men are just hardwired to assault women, and if we stop them from doing it in one place they’re just going to do it somewhere else?

          What a self-report…

          • Allero@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I’m saying those particular men who find assaulting women acceptable find it acceptable everywhere, on a plane or outside. Or should we isolate women from men in all spheres of life? This in itself can’t be the solution. Also, alienation that comes with such segregation is a common driver for violence, and I’d love to see how it might translate to more abusive sexual behavior, too. I don’t have the numbers, and would love to see if someone does.

            The rest is your emotional outburst. I hate to see Lemmy going in this direction and I hoped we won’t have this bullshit here. Try to understand another person’s take first and judge later, not the other way around. And don’t make it personal, this immediately degrades the conversation.

            • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              This in itself can’t be the solution.

              That’s exactly what I said, you just countered with something that sounded suspiciously defensive of sexual assault.

              • Allero@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                I never defended sexual assault; I just said that:

                If allowing women to avoid being seated next to men on flights reduces the chance of sexual assault from taking place

                Is a big “if”. In your original sentence, on the plane, yes, it might reduce the risk of assault. But life doesn’t end outside the plane, and I wonder whether such restriction could just lead to increased risk of sexual assault elsewhere, due to a)frustration of the same men who didn’t do it on the plane and can probably still do it in any other place; b)influence of such measures on how abusive men treat the status quo and resist it - thereby negating all the benefit.

                Which is why, if you feel my take “sounds” like something, I ask to clarify first and attack later. This is not a ragebait dumpster, and people are generally acting in good faith around Lemmy.

                • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  This isn’t ragebait, you are just very easily enraged. Apparently the topic of women’s safety really sets you off.

                  Another self-report.

    • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      What you’re describing is a big hassle, and at the end of the day a confrontation and poor customer experience still happened making that customer think twice before flying again.