All men are paedophiles!
November 29th, 2005 at 8:07 am by David FarrarOr so Air New Zealand and Qantas seems to think, with news that it is policy to ban men from sitting next to unaccompanied children on flights.
It’s not that I personally mind – sometimes having a child next to you on a flight is like being on the 5th level of Dante’s Hell, and often the best seat of any plane is that with no-one next to you.
But nevertheless how fucking offensive, and yes I mean fucking. Think if Air NZ banned Muslims from sitting within the front ten rows of a plane, just to protect the pilots? I mean after all it is true that just as a man is more likely to be a paedophile, a Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist? Never mind that 99.xxx% of men are not paedophiles just as much the same percentage of Muslims are not terrorist?
And how about buses? Let’s have children and women only areas on buses, with men forced to sit down the back.
Oh and we better ban men from being teachers or youth leaders, because hey you never know when one of them might be a child abuser.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:16 am
OK, this is bizarre. Especially given the recent spate of women jailed for sexual offences with boys under the age of consent. The image of all women as perpetually sexually innocent and benign and all men as sexually corrupt and predatory has simply got no place in the world.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 8:27 am
Again, I fail to see how this is “PC”. It’s a logical result of the good old-fashioned hysterical paedophile paranoia so loved by the likes of the Daily Mail and so wonderfully parodied by Chris Morris on Brass Eye.
If you get paranoid enough about something that realistically is a statistically tiny risk (i.e, strange men raping children in full view of a crowded plane full of people) then this kind of thing starts to seem reasonable.
I think this is idiotic, but I don’t see how it is “PC” at all. It just strikes me as another occurrance of the right seeing something they don’t like in society and immediately blaming it on “political correctness”. The rabid frothing-at-the-mouth paedophile fear is not coming from the lefties this time, folks.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 8:29 am
What I don’t get is why didn’t they move the child? Or more appropriately if there is an unaccompanied child the parents have to pay for an entire row so the other seats can be empty.
What an extremely embarrassing situation. Being told to move AFTER take off because you are next to a child.
Vote:As someone wrote the other day.. “that
November 29th, 2005 at 8:36 am
Frankly with the levels of hysteria and the damage of any sort of accusation not being in the same row as snots is probably not a bad thing. Same reason many males wouldn’t be a kindy or primary teacher for quids.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 8:37 am
It makes you wonder who makes these decisons.Are the boards of these airlines governed by the feminist nazis,I quess you are realy in the shit if you are a single arab male on a plane load of kids.I suggest an email to these arilines stating how fucked off we are with their PC bullshit.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 8:39 am
“The rabid frothing-at-the-mouth paedophile fear is not coming from the lefties this time, folks.”
Bugger.. didn’t even get to post before the first mindbending drivel prattles forth claiming it’s nothing to do with the lefties… don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining! I mean radical feminists are so right wing.
Vote:Shit.. next it will be Nationals fault and all those that didn’t vote Labour.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:41 am
Surely the parents already consented to having the risk of the child sitting next to an undesirable person by sending them unaccompanied.
I see the Qantas spokesman said the airline believed it was what customers want.
Vote:To be insulted?
November 29th, 2005 at 8:41 am
If we’re goiing to go down this path, we may as well make Maori and Polynesians sit separate from others on buses etc due to their overrepresentation in crime statistics….
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 8:55 am
“I mean radical feminists are so right wing.”
Yeah, radical femenists are clearly the key readership of the Daily Mail. Piss off, if you’re going to insult me you need to at least make some fucking sense.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:02 am
Are the boards of these airlines governed by the feminist nazis?
Ah, the kiwiblog comments section. Never fails to put a contemptuous smile on my face.
strange men raping children in full view of a crowded plane full of people
I imagine they’re more concerned about strange men convincing the child to accompany them after the plane has landed.
In reality I suspect this has more to do with the airlines legal department than the board, or any mysterious covens of ‘feminist nazis’ (Feminist:’We’d like to have the same rights and responsibilties as men.’ Side Show Bob:’NAZI! NAZI!’). In my experience most corporate absurdity stems from attempts by the organisations lawyers to protect the company from potential lawsuits.
I’d be curious to know if there was an incident that prompted the policy (sounds like there wasn’t) or if this is just healthy hysterical paranoia.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:03 am
I would just be happy if they somehow managed to seat the single girls next to the single guys
Might make my flying experience much more enjoyable 
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:05 am
“I mean radical feminists are so right wing.”
Yeah, radical femenists are clearly the key readership of the Daily Mail. Piss off, if you’re going to insult me you need to at least make some fucking sense.
I have worked as a teacher. Teachers are for the most part an overwhelming bunch of lefties, and they are the people taking the brunt of this bullshit. You know who it comes from? Not radical “all-men-are-rapists” feminists, it comes from middle-income suburban mums who have nothing better to do than sit around their ever-so-tidy houses worrying about Black Fellas stealing their stuff and Evil Paedophiles attacking their kids. The fact that they’ve had no experience of either thing happening doesn’t tend to dent their impression that this is clearly an everyday occurrance.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:12 am
err..
Vote:I told you it would end up being Nationals fault and everyone that didn’t vote Labour.
You are seriously fucked in the head!
November 29th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Like many things referred to as “political correctness”, this is really just overweening risk-averseness. The idea that “radical feminists” are driving the corporate policies of the two airlines is beyond silly: this is a response to paedophile hysteria. They don’t want to be sued in the extremely unlikely event that something does happen, and they’re happy enough to remove that risk by mildly humiliating a male passenger.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
November 29th, 2005 at 9:16 am
I hadn’t caught up with this on the news. However I find it extremely offensive. For a start seats are allocated so presumably a pedophile couldn’t choose to sit next to a child. A friendly man sitting next to an accompanied child might be good company for him or her.
I’ve had men tell me thay are wary of talking to children they don’t know. That’s a sad situation especially when children are naturally friendly.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:17 am
“I imagine they’re more concerned about strange men convincing the child to accompany them after the plane has landed.”
That’s obviously a concern, but minors travelling alone are escorted around the terminals by airline staff anyway, who make contact with them prior to anybody getting off the plane and tell them in no uncertain terms to stay seated until collected.
This doesn’t so much need this kind of action against seating men next to kids as it does some education on the parental side – they have to make it very clear to their kids before letting them fly alone that they go nowhere with anybody who isn’t airline or airport services staff, in uniform. That’s standard practice, and it works just fine.
I mean, if something does go awry the seating plan is logged and the identity of everybody on the plane carefully checked before takeoff. If you’re going to abduct kids I can’t think of a more stupid place to do it than in an airport, particularly when you’ve just got off a flight and your name is all over everything.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:21 am
1) Unaccompanied minors on flights are the responsibility of the airline from check in, til disembarking the plane.
2) Airline staff monitor them on the flight at regular intervals and inform those closest to the unaccompanied minor that the child is unaccompanied, ie. everyone knows.
3) Airline staff proceed with said minor through disembarkation and customs (if necessary), out into the arrivals hall and make sure that relatives collect the child, asking for ID if necessary (or some form of airline proof given at check in). Sorry Dim, you obviously have no idea what goes on in this situation.
DPF is perfectly logical and correct in his statements. If you are going to ban men from one scenario it isn’t such a big push to ban them from others. Pure lunacy.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:21 am
>They don’t want to be sued in the extremely unlikely event that something does happen, and they’re happy enough to remove that risk by mildly humiliating a male passenger.
In the safe knowlege that the male is unlikely to cause a stink, and in any case, will never get supported by the Human Rights “jobs for your mates” quango.
Vote:Geoff
November 29th, 2005 at 9:35 am
“err..
I told you it would end up being Nationals fault and everyone that didn’t vote Labour.
You are seriously fucked in the head!”
Thanks for the insult without argument to even remotely justify it. You’re an arsehole. Really.
You have not responded to any of my points, so I’ll consider you incapable. Here’s a reference, should you wish to take a crack at it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1464848.stm
That’s a bunch of media response to a TV programme aired in the UK some years ago, satirising the asinine paranoia perpetuated by certain sectors of the media over paedophilia. Indeed, it was making jokes about exactly this kind of thing – at one point, the presenter opens a drawer to show his children hiding inside, explaining that it’s the only way to keep them safe from marauding paedophiles.
Which newspaper has the shocked and disgusted response at this filthy piece of work? Oh look, the Mail – the ultimate newspaper for suburban, moral-majority stay-at-home “think-of-the-children” mums. If this kind of paedophile paranoia is something that has been cooked up by the lefie media, why do you not see the Guardian and Independent up in arms eh?
The Mail also published a completely fabricated story about convicted sex offenders passing around a tape of the programme in prison. Promptly commented on by the prison service in the UK along the lines of “Not sure why they’d do that, they don’t have any access to VCRs”. So, please, I’d love to see how you think this is an issue to do with radical reminism. References, please?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:35 am
“err..
I told you it would end up being Nationals fault and everyone that didn’t vote Labour.
You are seriously fucked in the head!”
Thanks for the insult without argument to even remotely justify it. You’re an arsehole. Really.
You have not responded to any of my points, so I’ll consider you incapable. Here’s a reference, should you wish to take a crack at it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1464848.stm
That’s a bunch of media response to a TV programme aired in the UK some years ago, satirising the asinine paranoia perpetuated by certain sectors of the media over paedophilia. Indeed, it was making jokes about exactly this kind of thing – at one point, the presenter opens a drawer to show his children hiding inside, explaining that it’s the only way to keep them safe from marauding paedophiles.
Which newspaper has the shocked and disgusted response at this filthy piece of work? Oh look, the Mail – the ultimate newspaper for suburban, moral-majority stay-at-home “think-of-the-children” mums. If this kind of paedophile paranoia is something that has been cooked up by the lefie media, why do you not see the Guardian and Independent up in arms eh?
The Mail also published a completely fabricated story about convicted sex offenders passing around a tape of the programme in prison. Promptly commented on by the prison service in the UK along the lines of “Not sure why they’d do that, they don’t have any access to VCRs”. So, please, I’d love to see how you think this is an issue to do with radical feminism. References, please?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Easy solution – upgrade any of these ‘at-risk’ gentlemen – I’m sure there will be a willingness to move.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:43 am
What would have happened if the man had politely refused to change his seat?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:08 am
All of my kids have flown unaccompanied several times in their lives.
Although this is some time ago now, I recall that we had to provide the airline with the name of the person who was going to pick them up and that person had to provide ID before the child was handed over.
One time we had to send a very small child unaccompanied. In that case she was accompanied by an off duty stewardess (whose seat we had to pay for as I recall). The airline dictated what flight that my child was on prescribed by the fact that an off duty stewardess was flying at that time.
My opinion is that males have been demonized over the past thirty or so years, to the point where it is dangerous for a male to come to the aid of a child in distress.
A few years ago I saw a small boy standing in the street sobbing. I asked him what was wrong. He had wandered away from his mother and got lost. So I took him into a store and got them to call the police. The thing is the policewoman treated me like I had done something sinister – that I was in someway responsible for his distress. IT HURT, lesson best not to get involved.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:09 am
Aren’t men the best group to humiliate? I mean if they complain they get whacked with ‘you get everything in life – get over it’.
It’s pretty tragic that we’re encouraging the idea in children that men are to be feared. What must regular wee unaccompanied flyers think about the fact that every time they’re seated next to a male the guy has to move somewhere else? This is a ridiculous policy, and if it’s parents driving it they should be ashamed. Anyone who has ever had the misfortune of sitting next to a whining little kid knows that the stewards make them wait till the plane is completely empty before they are allowed into the terminal, and they all huddle together, and then you have to produce photo ID to have the kid released into your custody at the other end. Air New Zealand do a great job of following this policy, and I think it’s really over the top to force male passengers to sit elseware.
There seems to be a real feeling out there that somehow men are not to be trusted with children, which is incredibly sad. Think of the rare occasions where you see fathers awarded custody over mothers – the mother practically has to be an unemployed previously convicted drug addict not to get primary custody, with fathers given weekends or worse, monthly visits.
I had absolutely a brilliant male primary school teacher who was loved by the class because he made learning fun for us. I think it’s a shame 50% of the population now aren’t going into early education teaching because of fear of what might be trumped up against them by paranoid parents.
We are only hurting ourselves by missing out on a ton of potentially great teachers for our kids.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Does this also appply to male staff accompanying lone children from check-in to the plane,?
Vote:If not why not!, all men are a risk according to the airline,
November 29th, 2005 at 10:22 am
Ah well, it won’t be long before men are banned from being fathers.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Should women be asked to move away from men because of the danger that men are in from false accusations of sexual abuse?
Should male flight crew be banned because of the “risk” that they present?
Should unaccompanied children be banned?
Should passengers be segregated into separate locked cages for women, men and children? (And if so, where should homosexuals sit?).
Has anyone considered the “safety” of children in growing up being denied interaction with adult males?
I disagree that it’s “political correctness”.
I think it’s an example of good old fashioned child sex abuse hysteria.
The Children’s Commissioner should resign.
.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Let us for a minute consider the concerns of those in the sex abuse industry:
http://peterellis.org.nz/Quotes/Smart.htm
“Experts in the field of sexual abuse treatment would say that sexual abuse can take place anywhere, anytime, in full view of other people,
without it necessarily being detected”
From “Review of Management Policy and Practices of the Civic Childcare Centre”, by Rosemary Smart, July 1992
Vote:.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:35 am
To be honest, on reading this story I was surprised airlines will still carry unaccompanied children at all. Forget about being raped by Chester The Economy Class Molester, what’s the liability if someone’s precious little angel pokes herself in the eye with a plastic fork or has her mind poluted by a naughty word in the in-flight movie?
Having said that, if Quantas/Air NZ has this policy they shouldn’t have been pissing around after take-off. I assume Mark Worsley was in his assigned seat, and I understand dicking around with seat assignments is not encouraged for safety reasons.
Mr. Worsley may also have a human rights case. As far as I’m aware, Quantas and Air NZ are not expempt from human rights legislation that forbid discrimination on the basis of gender in the provision of goods and services, except where a number of clearly defined exceptions apply. I don’t think presuming that a male is a health/safety risk to an unaccompanied child simply because he’s male qualifies.
Also, in a highly competitive and financially troubled industry like this, one might think treating customers like presumptive kiddie fuckers is no way to secure repeat business and good word of mouth.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:42 am
As usual Russell Brown and the rest of the Socialists rush to excuse what is yet another example of their socialist mates experiment gone badly wrong.The fact is this man was being tacitly acussed of being a child molester.The Human Rights and Civil Libertarians should have been out of the blocks on this one.As others have posted if it had of been anyone of a number of circumstances they would have been. But no. Given they are all 2 faced arseholes with selective morality they refuse to defend this man.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Mr Tips wrote: 3) Airline staff proceed with said minor through disembarkation and customs (if necessary), out into the arrivals hall and make sure that relatives collect the child, asking for ID if necessary (or some form of airline proof given at check in). Sorry Dim, you obviously have no idea what goes on in this situation.
Thanks for your reply – having spent most of my twenties and half my thirties cooling my heels in airport lounges I’m pretty familiar with their procedures. (Incidentally, I’ve never been asked for ID when meeting my nieces or nephews at the airport). I think the policy is outrageous – I think I state so pretty clearly in my post when I call it ‘absurd, paranoid and hysterical’ – I’m just trying to figure out why its been implemented, and I think my theory about the legal department minimising risk is much more plausible than the suggestion that Air New Zealands board has been hijacked by radical feminists.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:57 am
The sky is falling!
Oh my God…Keith Locke has issued a press release regarding this matter…& it basically reflects DPF’s view (which is spot on).
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0511/S00416.htm
Bastard got to his computer before the Nats. He should be encouraged to stage daily protests about whatever takes his fancy, just to keep those tech-savvy Greens away from the newswire.
Get back to your rabble-rousing, Mr Locke!
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 10:58 am
I really cannot see a human rights case.
One – it happened a year ago.
Two – what was the discrimination in the provision of goods and services? Worsley paid to fly somewhere, and he was flown there. He was assigned a seat, and asked to move (so was a woman) – I don’t imagine it is seriously suggested that this fellow had a right to sit next to an unaccompanied child which was interfered with.
To those who disagree that this is political correctness: working from the definition of PC that includes “excessive pandering to the concerns of minorities”, with the excessive pandering being having a policy that men can’t sit near unaccompanied minors, and the minority being either concerned housewives, rabid feminists or something else, I’d say it qualified as PC.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 11:09 am
“As usual Russell Brown and the rest of the Socialists rush to excuse what is yet another example of their socialist mates experiment gone badly wrong.The fact is this man was being tacitly acussed of being a child molester.The Human Rights and Civil Libertarians should have been out of the blocks on this one.As others have posted if it had of been anyone of a number of circumstances they would have been. But no. Given they are all 2 faced arseholes with selective morality they refuse to defend this man.”
What the fuck are you talking about, GD? This story is in the Herald because the individual in question is clearly a fan of the National party and had decided it was an issue of political correctness. Did he make his experiences public prior to this? Did he try making a case based on existing (but horribly leftie!) provisions in law forbidding discrimination? Seemingly not, although I could be wrong. The Herald certainly doesn’t make this point clear.
Righties here keep asserting that this is somehow something caused by the left and/or socialism. But that’s all you do – assert. What is your reasoning, what is your evidence? I’ve yet to see a coherant argument anywhere in this thread on the subject.
We all agree – this is bad. Left and right. What I’m wondering about is why the hell you’re trying to blame this all on the left, and how you arrived at the concept that we’re rushing to excuse it. Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us?
So, my questions:
1) What the fuck does this have to do with political correctness? It appears to be more about the airline attempting (in a crude way) to avoid financial ill-effects resulting from a general culture of paranoia and increased tendency to litigate.
2) How are you blaming this increased degree of paranoia and litigation on the left?
3) Who, exactly, is “refusing to defend this man”?
I’d love to see your reasoning, because so far we’ve seen none – just hot air, unreasoned assertions and a lot of bluster and accusations.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 11:15 am
err – You blame the mum-at-home brigade for whipping up paedophile hysteria. And there is much truth in that, it is very much a fact that an ever-growing number of parents refuse to allow their children to walk to school because of a misplaced fear of stranger-danger. But they are the generation who grew up as teenagers with all the horror stories of real and imagined sexual abuse so widely espoused in the MSM.
But as I recall the seeds of hysteria were planted by Radical Lesbian Feminists in the mid-1980s. Auckland University was a hotbed of discontent. Who can forget university lecturer Mervyn Thompson tied to a tree and labelled a ‘rapist’? ‘Metro’ magazine investigated the incident and the surrounding Feminist university clique. Such was there outrage at being challenged the Feminazi’s demanded ‘Metro’ be banned on campus. Who can forget the empty and damaging slogan “ALL men are rapists”? being bandied about and if the Feminazi’s were challenged it was proof-positive of sexism etc.
Who can forget the national Telethon fundraiser who’s success lay in the unchallenged premise from university lecturer and Radical Lesbian Dr Miriam Saphira that “one in four girls/women were sexually abused”. Talk about pandering to fear.
And finally let us not forget the Christchurch Civic Creche case, where children who’s parents were mainly Canterbury University employees claimed their children were the victims of satanic ritual abuse at the hands of a gay man. All provent to be without any foundation years later. That case was the final nail in the coffin for a generation of parents who have been drip-fed stories for 20 years now about the ever clear and present dangers of paedophiles, rapists and stranger-danger.
We have ACC that dishes out compensation to unproven and unreported sexual abuse. I am not saying abuse does not occur but wonder at the motives of women reporting sexual abuse,often years later, at the sign of a cheque book being waved. It seems to question anything around the industry is treason.
Without exception the ‘research’ has come from ideological feminist university lecturers, who as part of the elite Liberal-Left do not appreciate their work going challenged by non-university critics. Their so-callled intellectual snobbery kicks in when critics are smothered with insults usually along the lines of “sexist patriarchal blah blah blah”.
IMO part of the rational behind the Radical Lesbian Feminist Agenda is to constantly drip, drip, drip fear into the hetrosexual, family and social unit to bring about it’s eventual desmise. The DPB is a case in point and even talking about a nuclear family is almost grounds for discrimination these days as you are seen not to value solo parents or blended families.
Apparently and tragically, most sexual abuse is from with in families but do we have to villify every male friend and relative. It leads to a break-down in trust, fear of men cuddling or horse-playing with their kids or visiting children and a society that is distrustful of men. No wonder men have bailed out of teaching and the the schooling systen has become so feminised.
You have to ask is that what the Radical Lesbian Feminist agenda has wanted all along?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 11:18 am
‘working from the definition of PC that includes “excessive pandering to the concerns of minorities”‘
… I think we had this conversation about the time that MR PC ERADICATOR got his job. I don’t think it was resolved, either, but IMHO this is a very poor definition.
For a start, “excessive” is not defined. Which pretty much opens up the doors for PC to equal “anything I don’t like that might involve a minority”, and therefore allows PC-bashing to be a respectable hiding ground for racism dressed up as populism.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 11:37 am
I agree with err. It’s not a left or right thing, it’s just a bad idea altogether. Everyone agrees it shouldn’t happen and that it’s an overreaction to a non-issue. PC? Don’t know about that. Though that’s probalby because that term means next to nothing anymore. It’s like when you say your name over and over again until the word loses all meaning…
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Brian wrote:
Should passengers be segregated into separate locked cages for women, men and children? (And if so, where should homosexuals sit?).
I reply:
Vote:Indeed. Quantas and Air NZ are quite happy to tout for the pink dollar when the party season winds up in Oz – and it doesn’t matter whether you’re a butch dyke, camp queen or flaming like an fire in a sequin factory. I’d LOVE to see the reaction if some macho lesbo was told to move her leather-clad arse, because “customers” felt the little girl in the next seat was ‘at risk’ – ’cause we all know that homos are rampant kiddie fiddlers, right?
November 29th, 2005 at 11:40 am
sally,
Good points, well argued and well made. Thank you, I was started to dispair!
I do have to question how heavily influenced the suburban mum brigade would be by the more radical wing of academic femenism though, being as many of them would be seen as virtually traitors to the cause by settling down and accepting a stay-at-home life as a parent, supported by their male partner.
You’ll see no arguments from me that radical university femenists are a bunch of batshit loonies the vast majority of the time. I have a friend who came very close to getting kicked out of university because his (very clever and frankly hilarious) art project ran afoul of them. So, no sympathy there. But coming from the UK and seeing so much of the paedophile paranoia there coming from the likes of the News of the World and the Daily Mail it seems rather detatched from the somewhat incestuous world of academia.
It seems to be more related to a general trend in our news media to push the fear/sensationalism buttons to achieve sales. That’s not just restricted to paedophilia, it’s also true of violent crime and many other scary aspects of our society. Parents now aren’t just scared of letting their kids walk to school, they’re scared of letting teenagers catch buses at night and all manner of other things that Could Be Dangerous. Life in general could be dangerous, it seems like quite a recent idea that we should try to hide from it whenever possible.
But again, thanks for your post, I enjoyed it greatly!
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 11:55 am
I work at a University, and I’ve had several encounters with the lecturers at our Womens Studies Department. I think Sally gives them WAY more credit than they deserve. These people spend their entire time fueding between themselves and the rest of the humanities faculty – the notion that they’re somehow masterminding a global campaign to ‘to constantly drip, drip, drip fear into the hetrosexual, family and social unit to bring about it’s eventual desmise’ is extremely silly. They can’t even get their own parking spaces.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
err..
Vote:You seem to be gripped with the fact this is all down to papers in England and middle class women.
Nothing at all to do with radical feminism.
Those same radical feminists who claim all heterosexual sex is rape (I was at the Auck Psychology dept 1996 forum when is was hammered out), who rabidly eject 3 year old boys from womens meetings and were responsible for the shameful conduct of the civic cr
November 29th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
I agree with dim to a degree but it is true that some of the loopier views to come out of unis that sally desribes have had disasterous consequences. It’d would be interesting to know just how Air NZ decided on this policy – whether it’s based on the lefty loopiness described by sally or the right wing hysteria described by err..
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
I can’t be sure from anything I’ve read about this incident what the actual facts are. Does the rule refer to men being given seats, or choosing to move seats, next to an unaccompanied child? And what is really the reason for the rule anyway? I don’t see anywhere the airline saying it’s got jack shit to do with paedophiles.
The airline allocates the seats itself. They can put people whereever they like, so it seems odd they asked the guy to move. Unless he had deliberately moved to be next to the child.
As for the reason behind it, I can think of any number of plausible explanations which have nothing to do with paedophilia.
-Children may feel more comfortable sitting next to a strange woman than a strange man
-Children may get frightened by men moving to sit next to them
-Women are possibly better at assessing if the child needs something. And possibly more likely to care.
-Women are smaller, so the child will not be so cramped and less likely to make a fuss.
-Children may be less intimidated in asking a strange woman if they can get past to go to the toilet
All of these are perfectly sensible reasons for what is really a sexist policy. I’m surprised people are crapping on about it being politically correct. Really they are being politically correct (about men’s rights, in this case) and the airline is probably just being sensible.
Children on flights really have to be handled carefully, and unaccompanied children even more so. They have extreme potential to cause constant disturbance to the other passengers and all sorts of hazards, if they are unsettled. Whatever can be done statistically to calm them, should be. Airlines are really big statistics collectors, I’m sure they’ve done the math to even bother having a policy.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
But men are bigger and so more able to protect children from wild animals. Maybe valium is the answer – statisticx show it has a marked calming effect.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Lance,
I picked papers in England because England has two things:
1) A fairly close cultural relationship with New Zealand in many respects (hey, live with it).
2) A much finer class of shitty national newspapers to actually print this stuff. Some of which I’ve bothered to read on occasion.
Here we don’t have quite the same amount of truly shit national newspapers, but we do share the kind of sentiments that make this kind of stuff possible – we’ve had our own hysterical coverage of paedophilia cases, and our own politicians ready to use child sex offenders as Big Evil Demons to scare us with. I consider the fact that the Herald and the Dominion Post are a bit more reasonable in this respect one of the more positive aspects of NZ, even if I’m not exactly enamoured with the lack of serious media competition. If you want to see where this kind of crap could go, feel free to check out some of the stuff that comes out of the UK newspapers. Which, memorably, managed to incite a mob into attacking a local paediatrician because they got confused and thought he was a paedophile.
Now, it appears to you that this is all an evil femenist plot for world domination. I’d suggest that’s a little bit on the raving loony side yourself – yes, those women are bonkers. No, they’re not massive influential even on the left. They represent the left about as well as the National Front represents the right.
Neither has a big hold on popular opinion. Suggesting that radical university feminists are behind Air NZ seating policy is a bit like suggesting that the National Front secretly wrote Don Brash’s Orewa speech for him. Hyperbole, and very hard to take far in a serious discussion.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Lol, yes, and men are warmer so the kids won’t get so cold. It’s not my policy, but I do have to say I’m actually thankful for it. I would personally rather never have to sit next to a strange child on a flight. Only thing worse is someone really massive, or someone with a cold.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
As a women I object to this policy… I don’t want to have sit next to the kid on basis that I have ovaries.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Seriously, I had intially had much the same reaction as RB – it did not seem to be an example of PC madness but the Children’s Commissioner’s reaction certainly heads in that direction –
“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.”
Endeavouring to keep children safe by not having them sit next to men is not a slur against men?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Ben wilson. Women smaller than men? Where the hell have you been, Man? You wanna see the Big Mamma sumo wrestlers lumbering aroung Auckland airport on any given day. I think dim is right. It’s the lawyers attempting to derisk their employers. The policy itself is dumb but you can see why they do it. It’s called playing percentage golf. The same reason churches today must have ‘child safety manuals.’ They are there for the sole purpose of being produced in court for the defense, in the unlikely event someone sues.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Err;
do you seriously believe that feminizm has not had a big effect on popular culture and policy?
You cannot see how masculine interests have been sidelined and marginalized? I guess you are so immersed in our modern culture you can’t see it.
Apart from sports stars who are the popular male role models?
Why are there so few male primary school teachers?
Go look at the movie Green Berets starring John Wayne and made in 1968. In that movie there is a scene where an American GI who has taken a war orphan under his wing, invites the little boy to share his bed (because the child has no place to sleep). Watching that scene in 2005 is very discordant,but in 1968 it was a heartwarming scene.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Dim – LOL re: Womens Studies unable to wrangle a carpark. Shouldn’t they be leading by Lefty example and leaving their covens in Grey Lynn and Te Aro Valley and walking to work or catching a bus?
sock thief – I think the debate over sexual abuse has gone beyond a ‘Left vs Right’ arguement. Sadly NZ has become a defensive society and unfortunately we had a MSM who was manipulated into spreading the gospel that “all men are rapists” and “one in four women are raped” without really examining the ideology behind the claims.
Now we have a so-called middle ground where it is better to treat all men with suspicion and it has seeped into even the more mundane aspects of our lives, like plane seating arrangements.
Radical Feminist ideology from the 1980s was just that but now it has become normalised and almost an unwritten law that men are contemptible.
What an awful message to give to today’s boys to carry the sins of real rapists (a fraction of menfolk) along with the pychosis of Radical Feminists (a fraction of womenfolk).
err – thankyou for your positive response. As a teacher you are at the enforced coalface of sexual politics which now extends to five year olds.
You will be pleased to know I am a mother who has bucked the trend of wrapping my kids in cotton wool and warning them of nasty strangers around every corner. I allowed my then nine year old son the responsibility of catching a public bus home from school in inner-city Wellington back to the ‘burbs. The criticism from other parents be they Left or Right types was unanimouse horror. As you can imagine I had every terrible scenario thrown at me and even offers from condescending parents who lived in the opposite direction willing to drive him home to spare him the inevitable kidnapping and ritual abuse.
Well in the two and a half years he walked inner-city streets and bussed home were incident free. Sure he saw drunks, stoners, mentally ill types and eccentrics but he he has learn’t to read people and be quite relaxed about most folk.
He has confidence in his own abilities and we have built up a relationship of trust and responsibility.
It is no bloody use having all these uptight parents schlepping their kids all over town and then suddenly at 18 expecting them to cope with some independence if they have never had any introduction to it before then.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Russell Brown says that policy is just “risk aversion”. Yes, but why aversion about some risks and not others? The answer, surely, is that the airlines, under the inflence of prevailing trends in society think that risk-sensitive discrimination against men is OK, whereas statistically-just-as-well based discrimination against women or against religions or races or whatever it is isn’t. It’s the “choice of risks” step that touches the nerve….
I admit to being a little surprised about the one-sided responses here… I expected there to be as many people arguing “let the statistically-based discrimination rip” as people calling for the discrimination to end.
I myself feel quite torn about the issue. It sucks as a male to be assessed as a risk, but I’d be asking people to be irrational if I expected them to ignore stats about males (and if the distutilities are high enough then small probabilities are signifiicant) when that’s all they know about me.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
do you seriously believe that feminizm has not had a big effect on popular culture and policy?
I guess I’ve been too busy watching ‘Desperate Housewives’ to notice.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Fink, you have a point. My biggest crushing in a plane was actually from a Big Mama. I was just chucking possible explanations out there which aren’t about men being a ‘danger to kids’. There’s lots of reasons for policy, and danger is only one of them. Child happiness seems to me a more compelling reason, and there’s possibly statistical evidence that kids are happier sitting next to a woman. I don’t know, just suggesting it.
And derisk may have something to do with it. But I doubt it. I think the airline would have a pretty good defence if a kid got tampered with by a passenger – they didn’t do it.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Sally, I totally utterly deeply agree with you. Parents have ridiculous degrees of paranoia these days, and it hurts their kids far more than they realize. I wish you could convince my wife, she keeps saying she’s going to drive the kids to school (when they get to school age). I’m going to have to put my non-PC foot down on this one.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Who flies Quantas when they have a choice? All their planes lack is some straw on the floor…
If they did their bookings properly, they could follow their litigation-wary policies without offending anyone.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Ben Wilson – so your kids are pre-schoolers. Ok. You have time up your sleeve to convince the Mrs of this cunning plan and save your kids from being frightened slugs.
At the appropriate age,start walking with your kindergarten age child to the school. Make this into an exciting adventure, point out interesting quirks along the way to your kid, eg houses with interesting paint schemes, cats and dogs, hedges vs fences, shops etc.
Start explaining road rules, point out pedestrian crossings.
Start identifying streets by name and location, anchor the information with a landmark eg “This is Apple St, can you see it starts with the pink house on one side and a blue house on the other”
Meet your child at the school gate initially, judge in your own time when you can say “Ok, let’s pick a place to meet outside the school gates” and suggest it somewhere near the school boundary. A place where your kid can immediatley see you in other words but out of the main scrum around the gates with the the other mums all wringing their hands.
Keep moving away the meeting destination till you are at the stage of meeting a child say halfway home. Bring a biscuit in your pocket for rewarding your child with the ability to follow instructions and confidence in acheiving a goal.
As your child’s confidence and independence grows allow them to walk home alone and reward your child with, say, a few coins to by an iceblock at an en route dairy. Again a reward to acknowlege success and responsibility. Lavish praise.
Walking home from school also provides children with a chance to walk with other kids and to solidify friendships, it also allows a time-alone zone where a kid can have a transistion from the busyness of school to the demands of home. Often that might be the only time a kid can have some time-out during the day. It also gives the parent-at-home a few more minutes of quiet time before the bedlam of hungry children and homework starts.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Sally, good points…
I thought Qantas overstepped the line – fine for them to have policies and ask for ID from collecting adults, but to ask someone to move for no other reason than that they are male is fucking insulting. I’m with your logic there DPF..
To all the fuckwits who started raving on about the loony left, you are all losers who clearly jump to conclusions just like you jump onto bandwagons. Class A arrogant arseholes.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Good plan Sally, I’ll see if I can talk the Mrs round. No, my children are unborn, but on the way. I’m just thinking ahead.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
I don’t understand, anyone who has ever sent unaccompanied minors off on planes (usually to visit one of their estranged parents) knows that this has been airline policy for years. They will usually sit all the UMs up the back near the flight attendant. Whether they have to sit next to an adult probably depends how full the flight is.
Can’t see why the fuss really, I was always quite happy they sat my daughter up the back. Away from strangers. While most are quite probably safe, I’ve sat next to enough weirdos in my time that I wouldn’t like to think were sitting next to my kids.
Worsley should get a life & quit complaining. It wasn’t personal. And being asked to move seats is not really, of much consequence. Must like seeing his picture in the paper.
And hardly any of Dr Mapp’s concern. That’s just being a busybody, in fact, being overly PC himself surely?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Cripes… I just read some of the comments!
As a parent, I think the policy is just fine. It is not politically correct, it is as Russell B says, risk averse, and the airline spokesperson is correct, this parent is happy with the policy & would move quite happily if in Mr Worsley’s situation. I would not feel insulted.
It would have been too much, if Worsley had not been allowed on the plane at all. But that wasn’t the case.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
I would be most upset if asked to shift in these circumstances, though as someone else suggests ,mollified if upgraded to Business class. That said I can appreciate that the left wing sexual diversity agenda promoted by the current administration has resulted in a society where perversity is tolerated to such a degree that child safety needs to be ensured.The most logical action would be to seat children near the Stewards cabin where they could be under virtually continuous supervision.Gender discrimination seems illogical.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
“The most logical action would be to seat children near the Stewards cabin”
I think that’s usually what happens. This must have been a very full flight. They prefer UMs not to sit to adults at all, and near the attendant at the rear.
But when it comes down to it, if I’d been in Worsley’s position I’d actually have asked if I could sit somewhere other than next to some shitty kid anyway. I’d have thanked them profusely for offering before I had to ask.
Bottom line in my mind is… it is inconsequential, utterly unimportant, shouldn’t be news, and the guy is a (dare I say it) politically correct whiner.
Mapp should be after him, not the airline.
Insult to men? Gimme a break.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
It is discrimination, plain & simple. As well as being dumb, in that it is sure to piss customers off!
As mentioned above, the smart way to deal with him, would be to offer an upgrade out of cattle class!
What is PC, is slamming the guy for speaking out, about his experience.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
As a parent, I think the policy is just fine. It is not politically correct, it is as Russell B says, risk averse, and the airline spokesperson is correct, this parent is happy with the policy & would move quite happily if in Mr Worsley’s situation. I would not feel insulted.
I would a bit, actually. Obviously, one would try and handle it graciously, and thereby attempt to procure an upgrade, but in the end it would be hard not to feel slighted. But yes, it’s risk averseness. It would be interesting to see a number on what the risk actually is of a male passenger committing opportunistic abuse on a minor, but my guess is that it’s very, very, very small. But for the guys in legal, no risk is *always* better than a very small one.
The airlines control the conditions on their flights, so they have every right to do this. Point of order though: if they’re going to do it, they should make a practice of upgrading the inconvenienced male passenger where possible. And if not, bringing a large glass of Johnny Walker Blue label down from first class.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
November 29th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Oswald, you ask “Who flies Qantas when there is a choice?…..” The NZ PM on her way to an IRB meeting.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
I bet the abuse statistics are low, but the statistics for kids bawling their eyes out for hours because they had some scary angry man sitting next to them are probably sufficient to find their way into policy.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Russell Brown says
> It would be interesting to see a number on
> what the risk actually is of a male
> passenger committing opportunistic abuse on
> a minor, but my guess is that it’s very,
> very, very small. But for the guys in legal,
> no risk is *always* better than a very
> small one
The point is that the choice does NOT guarantee “No Risk”. Life does not provide such an option.
If children are not to have contact with males because of such perceived “risks”, then the children are the main consequential losers: We are already seeing the effect of the “Peter Ellis syndrome” in teaching, and a generation of children are growing up with significantly less interaction with adult males than was previously the case.
The implicit message to children that “men are dangerous” is an insidious creeping evil.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Those posters who don’t agree or don’t see that this is but a small incident in the continuum of the feminist march toward their agenda, might like to read the following. (And I suggest you track back to the related articles too.)
Here’s a sample:
“Feminism’s roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
Why the ” woman’s movement” hates femininity and imposes a political-economic concept like “equality” on a personal, biological and mystical relationship.
Why the “women’s movement” also embraces equality of race and class.
Why they want revolution (“transformation”) and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination and coercion.
Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
Why truth for them is a “social construct” defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.
Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favour of their political agenda.
Why they refuse to debate, don’t believe in free speech, and suppress dissenting views.
Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.”
Personally, I don’t think Air NZ or Qantas or even those feminist lecturers from Dim’s Uni are consciously engaging in the activities detailed in those articles, but social engineers merely need to setup the environment and then let it develop. After all, just because say, MegaCorp is doing something evil, doesn’t mean that everyone in MegaCorp knows about it. That’s how it works.
Sally’s right, her attitude is common sense, but the media and the uni players, like to make out that their bizarre practices are the norm and people like Sally are dangerous. How many people actually agree with them? Very few, but somehow, the systems, legal frameworks etc all change to accommodate their lunatic ideas. Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen like that – there’s eleventy gajillion examples out there.
http://www.savethemales.ca/000180.html
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
The point is that the choice does NOT guarantee “No Risk”. Life does not provide such an option.
Take it up with Qantas, not me …
Cheers,
Vote:RB
November 29th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
Although I lament the world being so risk averse these days I wouldn’t be particularly insulted if I was asked to move – you see they wouldn’t know me from a bar of soap, so its not aimed against me personally. I wouldn’t be annoyed about it, because I would still get to where I was going, in a seat, and not next to some kid.
I am interested to see the number of mouth frothing rabid “its all pc gone mad” responses. Maybe look at it in perspective.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
I might move to sit next to a kid possibly – they are a little more amusing than your average passanger – and I don’t sleep anyway.
As to the air line rule I think they have it because they can – ie it is so easy to just “not put men next to kids” that you would do it automaticaly even if it just reduced some potential risk in the eyes of a tiny section of the population a tiny amount.
It also seems in generally the sort of thing that one has human rights laws to prevent – afterall it is rather like having black people sit at the back of a bus to reduce crime and that just really pisses the black people off.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Russell Brown says ‘Take it up with Qantas, not me …”
You expressed YOUR “guess”. My response is to what YOU said. The justification (or excuse) that YOU presented on behalf of Qantas.
If Qantas presented such an idea, I’d express my opinions about why (I think)they were wrong too.
I have considerable concern with what Qantas has done. I’ll reserve my right to argue with them as I see fit. Just as I’ll debate ideas presented on this forum by people such as yourself.
Thankyou for YOUR contribution. The debate is important, and interesting.
Vote:.
Cheers
November 29th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
For all those who think it is no big deal. Substitute male for maori in the story.
We have a policy of not allowing unaccompanied children sitting beside maoris. How would that play do you think?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
How many postings here? about 70.What insanity.There is global stuff happening that we should be discussing,not this pissant episode that the male passenger should just have laughed off at the time and POLITELY told the airline to piss off.I would have.Maybe if more of us did, there would not be a problem.Most lunatic policy would not survive if we only had the spine and/or insoucience to ignore it.The hard left and right are both nuts.The longer I live the more I realise that most of us are insecure,mute sheep;pissed off but too frightened to make a noise.Blogs do not a protest make.Next time a bored checkout operator asks you how your day is going,tell her that your beloved dog has just been run over.(Jeez… you gotta get your pleasure any way you can.ps Sally you are a gem.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Try making a noisy, spirited protest on a plane some time!
Fine for those who enjoy handcuffs, full body searches,long interrogations and a flag against their name…
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
To everyone that is even a bit pissed off about this, think about how much you really care.
If you were in that situation and you are told that the staff will have to find you another seat because it is against company policy for a male to sit next to an unaccompanied child how would you react? Would you feel a little bit miffed, a little bit embarrassed, a little bit indignant? would you make a protest?
How about if the only other seat available is in Business Class? Still feel miffed? Consider how easily you have just been bought.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
God I hate other peoples snotty little brats. I agree with Stef, if I had to sit next to one on the basis of having ovaries, I’d be FUCKING PISSED. The whole thing is a crock. And it’s mass hysteria gone to new bloody levels. *rolls eyes* I will be writing a VERY strongly worded email once I’ve calmed down.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Yup the days of spirited protests on planes have been well and truly scared out of us.
Mara, you just added a post to the ‘insanity’. What’s that about? I think it’s an interesting discussion, although I think none of us have the real facts and this debate is raging at cross purposes to the incident. I still think the whole policy is about keeping the kids happy, nothing at all to do with the extremely unlikely event of in-flight paedophilia.
Having said that, my only experience of flying solo as a little child of about 5 was soured by the air hostess who pinched me for taking too many lollies. I cried and the nice steward calmed me down. Ladies aren’t always nice.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
In some ways Mara is right, this should be a storm in a teacup.
The reasons why passions are raised, as evidenced by the number of comments on this thread, is that this is a symptom of a greater truth – the way social engineering is and continues to be used to advance some fairly radical agendas.
Lets face it, wholesome relationships between children and adult males are often treated with suspicion.
and that is very sad.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
I think the airlines – pretty sure Air NZ has a similar policy – should perhaps have made this policy a little better known to travellers.
But I think the argument sits -ha!- well & truly with the child, whose safety, however small the risk, outweighs a trivial inconvenience to a man.
If it were me, I’d have happily moved knowing that the airline is not only avoiding risk to the child, but to itself, AND the inconvenienced. No way would I have been insulted, Jesus, what was it, a window seat or something?
Considerate travellers get upgraded, whiners do not (so much – no doubt some of you have excited stories). But I would suspect it had to have been a pretty full flight or something, or he’d have been offered a teaser.
Honestly, if someone whinged to me that a nasty airline asked him to switch seats, I’d think, “Boo fucking hoo”.
I’d also think “I’m glad you didn’t end up sitting next to my kid. Glad I didn’t even.”
To fault the airline to me, seems as many describe “political correctness”. Discrimination against men? Yeah right.
Shit, I should be blogging this myself instead of whining like a Worsley in your comments field!
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Ha!! And holy shit! I agree 100% with Kimble.
I have to go drink lots now.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
I agree this is a lightning rod for a rag on social engineering, but I’m not convinced that any is actually being applied here. If it’s all done by seat booking software, who gives a rat’s? A lot of assumptions are being made about the reasons for the policy here, but I’ll bet it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Airlines go nuts for finding every tiny way they can improve things, streamline things, handle things. And handling kids is a biggie – I bet there’s someone out there with all the stats at their fingertips about the odds of kid causing trouble on a flight when placed next to a man or a woman.
But I agree we’re very precious about relationships to children. I work from home and had a local maori kid come around many times because he was bored and his mum was on the piss with friends. He kept knocking on my door, don’t really know why. I think it was because I was nice to him, and he liked the look of my sporty car. By nice, I meant I didn’t just tell him to piss off straight away, but answered some of his naturally inquisitive questions about his new neighbor.
But there was no way in hell I was letting him in the house – and my fears were entirely because the neighbors might see and think I was some pervy old bastard. He was lonely and I talked to him a few times out on my steps where the neighbors could see. But eventually I decided to end the whole thing for said reason – I really fear that someone would get the wrong idea and that kind of thing would stick with you forever. It would make no difference if you were innocent.
I felt stink really, cause I didn’t even want to let on to him my reasons. I just acted cold one day and didn’t talk, and he stopped coming over.
A friendship lost to fear. But I have to ask what anyone else would have thought if they were my neighbor and saw me letting a young boy into my house regularly. Do you really think they’d believe I was showing him my lawnmower or electric screwdriver and talking to him about his school?
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Kinble wrote:
If you were in that situation and you are told that the staff will have to find you another seat because it is against company policy for a male to sit next to an unaccompanied child how would you react? Would you feel a little bit miffed, a little bit embarrassed, a little bit indignant? would you make a protest?
I reply:
You bet your fucking arse I’d be extremely indignant and make a hell of a protest. Spend your life being told by ignoramuses who who precisely jack shit about you other than your sexual orientation that you’re not fit to be a parent, or hold any job involving contact with children.
My modus operandi is that your ignorance and prejudice is your problem. Try and make it mine, and I become your problem too. I guess I could say “well, welcome to my world breeder – suck it up and smile” but I’m not going to tolerate corporate misandry any more than corporate homophobia.
Sorry, Matt, I’ve got this in perspective – why shouldn’t I take very personally being treated as some risk to children simply because of my gender; why should I take it any less seriously than if I was treated like this because I am openly gay?
Well, sorry, the Qantas spokesman who told The Herald, “the airline believed it was what customers wanted” really has to do better.
Someone should ask Queer-arse and Air New Queenland whether their ball-bearing trolly dollies are also kept away from the unaccompanied minors as a matter of policy. And if not, is the only reason because the unions on both sides of the Tasman would predictably go batshit?
And some folks here have tried to sheet this home to those neurotically risk-averse “boys in legal”. Well, I’ve got a whacky notion – Qantas and Air New Zealand should refuse to carry men, full stop. My rationale? The perpetrators of terrorism, highjacking, threats to the integrity of the aircraft, illegal intoxication, and incidents of so-called “air rage” are overwhelmingly and disproportionately folks with penises. (*sarcasm on* At least don’t make me share a pressurised tin can with swarthy chaps with names like Achmed and Mohammed, and teatowels on their heads. They make me uncomfortable *sarcasm off*) And such incidents are much more common, I suspect, that an opportunistic paedophile happening to be seated next to an unaccompanied minor and deciding to do the dirty deed.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
I am glad they have brought in this policy. Who the hell wants to sit next to some sniveling kid anyway. Let the women deal with this.
Vote:November 29th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Ben, if only stories like yours and Sally’s were required reading for schoolkids just like other stories are required reading…
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:03 am
Craig:
Here’s how the calculation looks to an airline or perhaps to their lawyers (it’s entriely analogous to calcualtiion mall of us make everyday about whether or not to cross the road to avoid a suspiicious looking stranger on thh street at night).
There are two cases: Guy’s a molestor, Guy isn’t
There are two actions: Move the guy, don’t move him.
[There are other possiible actons buut let's say those are the only one's being considered]
There are now four possible outcomes with following plausible sorts of Utlities:
U(Move guy & he’s a molestor) = -1
U(Move guy and he’s not a molestor) = -1
U(don’t Move guy and he’s a molestor) = -x (where x is some relatively big negative #)
U(don’t Move guy and he’s not a molestor) = 0
How small does Prob(he’s a molestor) have to be for the expected utility (EU) of not moving him to be as high as the EU of moving him?
A. Prob(he’s a molestor)
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Oh yeah… this sort of reasoning is just rationality in action. The interesting questions in the vicinity are all about whether morality can require us to be irrational, e.g., to not (never) learn from experience, to not (never) allow statistics about groups and observed group membership to guide our actions when that’s all we know.
I don’t know what data the airlines are using but I’d be wary of suggesting that there’s anything *crazy* about their “risk averseness”. It’s entirely possible they are just running the numbers properly… people *often* get this stuff wrong in their own lives and in their thinking about others’ situations.
In the OJ Simpson trial defence lawyer A. Dershowitz cited evidence that only .1% of batterers actually murder their wives.
i.e., P(x murders his wife y | x batters his wife y) = .001
and apparently made some headway with the jury by doing so.
But this isn’t the best conditional probability to look at. Rather we should look at something like:
P(x murders his wife y | x batters his wife y and someone murders y)
Under reasonable assumptions and data this conditional probability comes out at around .4 (as statistician IJ Good showed in a beautiful note)! If you have battered your wife and she’s murdered then you *are* a prime suspect. Which must really suck for the majority of batterers who don’t kill their murdered wives.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 7:11 am
Stepen,
it is rational in a sense for you to be ridiculously prejudiced (ie refusing to ever deal with these people and banning them from your presence) against lets say black people, men, people between 14 amd 30, people who are not an active member of a normal church and straight people for example. the problem is that if you have a society that permits that then your athiestic dark skinned male straight youth really has crime or starvation as his choices and as a group have little more than starvation or revolution as options.
I.e. your own personal rational social action destroys the society that your assumptions rested upon.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Well, the airlines could at least isolate the risk a bit more – not all males, just priests, say.
But I would like to know how they went about devloping the policy, was it just the legal team? Do they have statistics? Is this a reaction to a particluar event? Do they have other variations on this policy – like not sitting kids next to people with a history of mental illness?
Or did they just ring Sandra Coney.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
IF i am also sitting next to my wife, will they move both of us, or is it ok becuase she will supervise me?
i flew alone heaps as a minor, and never cared where i sat or who next to, nothing happened to me. i flew on plenty of airforce flights, where i would have to wait on my own until my next flight. no thought of ID;s or being watched by staff etc. i survived fine.
to think that now we are scared of a child sitting next to someone in case they are a child molester is a crazy evolution.
as someone has said, next we won;t allow maori people in shops becuase they commit most of teh crime statistically, becuase its not worth the risk.
no muslims on planes.
no women allowed alone with their own children becuase there is a chance that due to post partum depression they might kill their own kids, sure the odds are low but why risk it?
PC gone mad, when we ever have kids, i want them to fall over, hurt themselves, and learn about life, not be wrapped up in a blanket and shielded from everything and told all men are evil people who might hurt you. i hate to think of the weak people we are raising as a nation.
and this is jsut one step on a very slippery slope.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
The policy stinks. Make contact with David Jamieson: he is the spokesman for Air NZ who has been quoted in the papers. His number is 09 336 2253 and his mobile number is 021 727 436 (source: google “david jamieson air new zealand”
Regards,
Ian
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
This is political correctness gone mad.
Are we unable to take steps to safeguard children without fear of offending someone who isn’t even inconvenienced?
mapp should eat himself.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Now, that’s a valid point. Mapp certainly should eat (or at least eradicate) himself over this one, as he’s landing inside any number of good definitions of political correctness himself right now.
That said, no difficulty with that here – I’m ultimately in favour of a more rational form of political correctness, one where the social implications of drawing parallels between groups and the actions of individuals are considered before people open their gobs. It’s a lesson Winston Peters should learn, he’s about as politically incorrect as they come – and hardly a role model for it, I’m sure we can agree.
So, in summary, Mapp is being politically correct – and that’s a good thing. Well, apart from the fact that he will have to immediately eradicate himself the moment he started doing something useful, that is.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Yes llew – stunningly well-phrased.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Genius:
I don’t myself quite follow how everyone being broadly rational would destroy society etc.: we’d just all be well-calibrated to the actual risks we confront.
I do feel the force of arguments that as part of the constructive project of a liberal and tolerant democratic society we don’t want people’s sex, religion, race, marital status, etc. to be factors in hiring decisions, in provision of good and services etc… but I also wonder whether once the disutilities are high enough so that the fixed cost of type 1 (overreacting) errors is miniscule compared to the potential cost of type 2 (underreacting) errors how any morally/legally required wishful thinking can hope to grip us.
Compare the following sort of case: 2 types of kiddie-flluffy-bunny cookies are available in the supermarket. They are the same except that brand A has a flaw – 1 per 100K packs of brand A will cause terrible injury or even death.
Your kid wants fluffy-bunny cookies and you now have to decide whether to buy him Brand A or the identical except-for -the-flaw Brand B.
Q. What do you do?
A. You buy Brand B for your kid, god-damn-it.
It’s utterly pointless for people to accuse you of being paranoid or in a moral panic (frogblog’s term) or of wrfongly thinking that *all* brand A cookies are terrible or of wanting to shield your kid from the fact that the world is a world of sharp corners etc..
The comparison case has plenty of limitations which I can’t go into (have work to do!)… but it’s also a fair representation of key aspects of the problem I believe.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
> They are the same except that brand A has a flaw – 1 per 100K packs of brand A will cause terrible injury or even death.
I will skip the nit picking answers regarding the high risk in this example and the potential ilogicality. the real point is this…
3) The problem here though is not whether you WILL buy Cookie B but whether we should oppose/prevent you buying Cookie B IF overall it hurts everyone (lets say cookie B is made and sold by the “using orphans for spare organs” programme.)
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
Alan, I know this might be simplicity gone mad, but there of course would always be the opportunity to swap seats with your wife. I disagree with the policy but at least give better examples.. *sigh*
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
When a paedaphile moved into our street I found it quite distressing to be even in the position of deciding if I had to discuss such a subject matter with my primary age sons. But I did .. without drama. And both my sons responded with compassion for the man.
It is scary shit bringing up kids today .. compared to my childhood .. it’s like being on another planet. But we are doing our best to equip them and keep them safe without turning them into a bunch of neurotics .. and if anyone out there should be offended in the process .. well tuff shit buddy .. wake up and take a good look at the world we live in nowadays.
One thing .. could this furore have been created by the child indicating to airline staff HE did not want to sit next to this fellow?
Vote:December 1st, 2005 at 10:30 am
Paula – What is the evidence that we live in a more dangerous world in regards to our childrens safety than twenty, thirty or fifty years ago?
Having had both a great-grandfather and a grandfather as GPs, who also were in very regular contact with the local police officer (remember when nearly every suburb had it’s own Police station with a full-time officer), I know since the 1880s in Auckland, that there have always been wife beaters, rapists, paedophiles and incestuous relationships where the father of the baby was ‘in dispute’. Before safe and legal abortions became the norm, there were indeed a number of backstreet abortion operators. My great-grandmother and grandmother both remember guiding distraught young women to these ‘operators’. My grandmother has taken much pleasure over the years of pointing out where these illegal abortion houses operated from in AUcklands posh suburbs. A good number were in Remuera, ironically nearly always run by Catholics.
All that is happened is that we have become a society willing to identify and rectify our underbelly.
Your kid is more likely to get run over by a harrassed mother picking up her kids from school in her Honda Odyssey because she is too afraid to let them walk home 500 metres, than chance upon a paedophile leaping out of a bush.
According to the stats, your kid is more likely to be molested by a kindly uncle than a stranger. Worldwide stats show that kidnapping is 98% to 99% a parent disputing a custody order.
Yes, of course my kids have had the good vs bad touching conversation and the school has also had programmes but I would rather imbue my kids with knowledge not fear. I have also tried to instill compassion into my kids, for instance I am very proud of my 12 yr old son using his cell ph last week to call the AA to assist a very distressed elderly man who’s car had broken down and he was late for his wife in hospital. How do you let your kids make wise and sensible decisions, involving a little risk, if you blanket them with ‘stranger-danger’?
Do you want a society where we have become so emotionally and physically distrustful of ‘strangers’, that should someone collapse on the street, we fail to get help? What if it was you keeling over with a heart attack and because we have a generation of men so afraid they leave you to die for fear of being seen as potential molesters taking advantage of a distressed women?
Vote:December 1st, 2005 at 11:38 am
Well said, Sally. You can’t live life worrying about incredibly unlikely scenarios. You do what you can to minimize risk within the boundaries of making life worth living. This is why I want my kids to walk to school. It’s possibly a teensy bit riskier in the short term, but the long term certainty if I don’t is that they will be lazy, frightened, and a burden to me. I still swim in the ocean, even though there are sharks, pollution, crazy people in speedboats, and the chance of cramps. And my kids will too, and they will be all the healthier for it.
Unless they get eaten by a shark. But that’s just bad luck, really. If they were lying on the beach instead a cosmic ray could hit them and give them leukemia too.
That said, I don’t think the airline’s policy has much to do with danger minimization. I think it’s about noise minimization – that’s the real problem with kids on flights.
Vote: