My husband loves to travel and always pays or upgrades to a first class cabin. If we are traveling with our children, buy a first class ticket and put us in Economy or Economy Plus. He even recently arrived in Paris on an overnight flight. Justify the first class solo flight with the cost and our kids (12 and 16) might get lonely if I fly with him first and leave them in the back cabin. I find it unfair.
I don't think our children would mind if it was Economy Plus and my husband and I sat together in first class. Is it unfair to ask me? My husband had previously suggested we fly ourselves on another flight so we wouldn't feel bad about the disparity, but that doesn't add to the selfishness behind his thinking. I am wrong? We like to travel and we like to go together, but it's still very strange. - called
ethical:
The institution of marriage always assumes the characteristics of the society in which it arises. But a modern marriage refers to an equal couple, where each spouse treats the other with respect, consideration, and dignity. Everyone has a say in important decisions, and everyone cares about the comfort and preferences of others. Her husband disagrees. Being the ticket-buyer in the family, you obviously feel that your preferences take precedence.
"We are comparison machines," writes social psychologist Susan Fisk, and the comparisons we routinely make are with our loved ones. Her husband is completely unaware of this, hence the offer to enjoy her warm cashews and recliners on a different flight than hers. But the best way to address feelings of inequality in intimate relationships is to create more equity.
Indicate if your husband cites a specific physical or medical issue (for example, having to lift his legs) to justify choosing the seat, which means the reason he flies forward probably applies to you. And your kids get to be away from you all day at school, so they definitely get to spend a few hours on the plane without you. However, if your husband thinks only one adult should fly per trip, why not suggest he go back?
The question in the previous column came from a reader asking how his local community theater should stage its musical Fiddler on the Roof. He wrote, "The director proposing the production has made a commitment to cast color blindness. Other contributors say they would view this as cultural appropriation given the Jewish community's perspective on the play. How do you handle this conflict of values?"
In response, the Ethicist noted, “Unconventional casting has special value where jittering is traditional; Known works or historical episodes can be experienced in a new way. I like that an open access approach to the classics has prevailed for a long time, even at an amateur level...it's a violinist's attitude. When a show is over, the job is to bring it back to life." (Re-read the full Q&A here .)
⬥
What a great response to both of you. Rather than fall for the "good" side of the letter writer's dilemma, the ethicist examines the potential challenges of each approach and raises other considerations, such as context and purpose. Complex issues on many levels, such as cultural respect and cultural humility, require consideration from multiple angles, which in itself is an integrative practice. - heather
⬥
"Fiddler" has become a universal favorite because the themes appeal to all cultures: religious values, assimilation, generational differences. Also, the original producers had no qualms about letting it be set in a predominantly black school, and they didn't want royalties. In this case, the roles should be given to the most qualified actors, regardless of their caste or religion. -Marsha_ _
⬥
The characters are supposed to be played by Ashkenazi Jews , because that's what Fiddler on the Roof is about. As much as diversity in arts events should be embraced, when it comes to Ashkenazi Jews, their portrayal by black actors shouldn't do justice to the story of Sholom Aleichem or the cultural heritage the show focuses on. -Sara_ _
⬥
While I agree with the ethic's main point that a performance of "Fiddler" would benefit actors of all stripes, it misses an opportunity to remind readers of the broad spectrum of Jewish identity. Jews are not single and another benefit of any sort of "blind" casting for this production is that roles can more easily be cast for people of different Jewish or Judaism-related backgrounds, who may be offered as ethical. I mean, it's already a polygonal (emphasis on "ish") Jewish-American show. -Julia_ _
⬥
As a 40-year theater practitioner and educator with a focus on Jewish theater, I would like to express my full support for The Ethicist's thoughtful and concise response. I have endless questions about moving forward with inclusion, diversity and access. What is "authentic", what is historical and what is fantastic is not only an aesthetic question but also a political one. We are here to explore, yes to honor and acknowledge, but also to embrace change. Jewish Tevyes are great, but so are the other options. came _
