My husband flies first class and puts me in economy class. Is that fair?

My husband loves to travel and always pays or gets a first class cabin upgrade. When we travel with our children, he buys himself a first class ticket and puts us in tourist or tourist plus. He even did this recently on an overnight flight to Paris. He justifies flying first class only because of the cost and the fact that our kids (ages 12 and 16) might feel lonely if I were to travel with him first and leave them in the back cabin. I feel this is unfair.

I don’t think our kids would care if they were on Economy Plus and my husband and I sat together in first class. Is it unfair of me to want? My husband has suggested traveling solo on a different flight than ours so we don’t feel bad about the disparity, but this doesn’t really address or solve the problem of selfishness inherent in his way of thinking. I’m wrong? We’re happy to travel and we love going places together, but it’s still very strange. — Name withheld

From the ethical:

The institution of marriage has always assumed characteristics of the society in which it arises. But a modern marriage is meant to be a couple of equals, with each partner treating the other with respect, consideration, and dignity. Each has a say in making important decisions, and each cares about the comfort and preferences of the other. Her husband has another opinion. Evidently, she thinks that since he is the ticket buyer of the family, his own preferences take precedence.

“We are comparison machines,” social psychologist Susan Fiske has written, and the comparisons we routinely make are with the people closest to us. Her husband is no stranger to this, hence his proposal to enjoy her hot cashews and his reclining seat on a separate flight from hers. But the best way to address feelings of inequity in intimate relationships is by creating greater equity.

You would have mentioned if your husband claimed a specific physical or medical problem (eg, the need to keep his legs elevated) to justify his seat choices, which means whatever his reasons for flying ahead presumably apply to you. And her kids manage to be away from you all day at school, so yeah, they sure could manage a few hours on a plane without any of you. Still, if her husband thinks only one adult per trip should fly up front, why not suggest they take turns?

readers respond

The question in the previous column was from a reader asking how their local community theater should stage their production of the musical “Fiddler on the Roof.” He wrote: “The director proposing the production has committed to a colorblind casting. Others involved say that, in view of the Jewish community the play is about, they would consider it cultural appropriation. How should we approach this conflict of values?”

In his response, the ethicist noted: “Non-traditional release is of particular value where there is a tradition that needs to be broken; familiar works or historical episodes can be experienced in new ways. I love that an open access approach to the classics has been common for a long time, even in the amateur realm… That’s the attitude you should take with your ‘Fiddler’. When a show has been made to death, the task is to bring it to life.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)

⬥

how wonderful both/and answer. Rather than fall for the “right” side of the letter writer’s dilemma, the ethicist explores the ways in which each approach may be correct and the potential challenges of each, raising additional considerations such as context and intent. Issues as complex and multi-layered as cultural respect and cultural humility deserve consideration from many different perspectives, which is itself a practice of inclusion. — Bramble

⬥

“Fiddler” has become so universally loved because the themes speak to all cultures: religious values, assimilation, generational differences. Furthermore, the original producers had no qualms about allowing a predominantly black school to perform her, and they asked for no royalties. In this case, the roles should go to the most qualified actors regardless of race or religion. — marsha

⬥

The characters must be portrayed by Ashkenazi Jews, as that is what “Fiddler on the Roof” is about. As much as diversity should be welcomed at artistic events, if the play is about Ashkenazi Jews, having them portrayed by black actors is not true to the story of Sholom Aleichem or the cultural heritage the play focuses on. — Sarah

⬥

Although I agree with The ethicist’s main point here that the performance of “The Fiddler” will benefit all kinds of actors missed the opportunity to remind readers of the wide variety of Jewish identities. Jews are not a monolith, and another benefit of any sort of “blind” casting for this production is that it can open roles more comfortably to people with a variety of Jewish or Jewish-adjacent experiences, such as the ethicist. said, an already polyglot-American-Jewish show (emphasis on the “ish”). — Julia

⬥

As a theater professional and educator for 40 years, with a particular focus on Jewish theater, let me express my full support for The Ethicist’s thoughtful and nuanced response. I have endless questions about how we proceed with inclusion, diversity and access. What is “authentic”, what is historical and what is fantastic are not only aesthetic questions, but also political ones. We are here to explore, yes, to honor and acknowledge, but also to face change head on. Jewish Tevyes are great, but so are other options. — Elena