British Airways, Qantas, and New Zealand have policies barring adult males from sitting next to unaccompanied child passengers. This sort of gender profiling that assumes the worst about every male because of the conduct of a tiny percentage of males would not be tolerated with respect to any other class of citizens. Discrimination against men is the last acceptable form of prejudice.
Mr. Schuringa is not alone, of course. The policy would also assume that Jesus Christ, Saint Paul, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, Captain Chesley Sullenberger, Barack Obama, Albert Schweitzer, every fireman who ever sacrificed his life running into a burning building to save someone, every serviceman who ever sacrificed his life -- and innumerable, countless other great men -- would not be worthy to sit next to an unaccompanied child on an airplane.
The absurdity of this policy is almost unfathomable, and it would be laughable were it not so hateful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Is it any man or only men traveling alone? I've found in places like childcare facilities that men are ok on premises if they arrive with a female companion. If the man is a single father their heads explode from the cognitive dissonance.
What do they do if no other passenger is willing to switch seats with him, refuse to let him board?
It applies to any man. Even a man with a wife sitting next to him -- they must switch seats so the "abuser" isn't sitting next to a child.
Thus far no man has been put off a plane for this, but the day is coming. And then maybe this nonsense will be brought to a head.
I used to fly, a *lot*, long haul international stuff.
This was during the hijacking era too, on the hijacking routes.
Frankly, since 9/11 and all the bullshit that has followed, I won't fly.
I'm not giving ANY of my money to these chickenshit assholes.
I'll drive overland, or I'll go by sea, or I simply will not go.
AfOR
I wonder what the chances are of starting a massive boycott against these three crooked airlines? Remove greater than half their passengers - maybe that will light a fire under their asses.
OMG!!! I am dumbfounded. How can they discriminate against men this way? I have never heard of this before.
I do know that I am afraid of children now. (even though my husband's accuser is an adult) I will not be around them alone or ever touch them and I am a woman.
CBGirl
Indeed, CBGirl - it struck me that this policy might even PROTECT men from being falsely accused.
But this would be a pyhrric victory, for the policy is based on - and maintains - the view that all men are rapists, just looking for their opportunity.
Really, it's not enough to just avoid those who might falsely accuse you. The fact is that false accusers stand to gain a lot from making false accusations, and they will undoubtedly find a way regardless of how much innocent men try to avoid them. So this is a problem which must be tackled at source: by cutting off all benefits and gains which one makes from false accusations, and by making the potential risk greater than the potential gains (you see, unlike feminist rape hysteria, I accept that there will always be some people who will make false accusations; this is just a fact of the world, some people are beyond reason and decency. But the encouragements given to people to falsely accuse only exacerbates the problem, as would rewards for rape exacerbate the problem of rape). E.g., severe penalties for false accusers (always a jail term, plus significant compensation paid to the victim by the accuser, and a place on the sex offenders register for life - all this would be a start), much greater scrutiny directed towards those who allege sexual assault, etc. These changes would deter most opportunist accusers from committing the crime.
No GG Girl, you may be dumb, but you are not 'dumbfounded'. You know good and well about this issue from a certain other board.
sorry CBGirl,
I read your alias wrong. I thought you were our favorite troll, 'Georgia Girl' (GG or gg - goo-goo girl or something.)
Norm said...
I wonder what the chances are of starting a massive boycott against these three crooked airlines? Remove greater than half their passengers - maybe that will light a fire under their asses.
Dec 28, 2009 3:00:00 PM
Here is a list of companies and businesses men are asked to boycott.
http://www.standyourground.com/boyc.php
From what I can tell that list is based on television commercials that were deemed offensive. While I don't approve, that pales in comparison to actual policy deciding where men are allowed to sit on a plane.
I have already boycotted all three and flatly refuse to fly British Airways, Qantas or Air New Zealand. Unfortunately this nonsense won't come to a head so long as men continue to support and fly using them. Unless men boycott these airlines in totalis, these pigheads won't see what the loss of half their earnings will mean.
And CBGirl, you are not the only one afraid of children now. It is a telling sign of the "culture of allegations" that very few (I daren't say "none") will willingly step up to help a child in distress. Especially if the child is a girl. Handing too much power to a child who neither understands it and who lacks the responsibility to wield it wisely has seen to that.
Snark
@6:09
I TOTALLY agree with you on that post.
You are so right!
I don't understand how anyone can feel any different actually.
You should post stuff like that everywhere you can it just might make a difference.
What if this guys was flying on one of those crooked airlines, and for the reason of not being close enough to a child, could not save him or her if the plane went down in the Atlantic or something? Far-fetched? Who knows, but the point is if it happened even once, it would be a bid deal in the news, so everyone would know about it and it would influence their perspective. Of course, that means the media would have to come up with some reason to blame the man.
Norm said...
What if this guys was flying on one of those crooked airlines, and for the reason of not being close enough to a child, could not save him or her if the plane went down in the Atlantic or something? Far-fetched? Who knows, but the point is if it happened even once, it would be a bid deal in the news, so everyone would know about it and it would influence their perspective. Of course, that means the media would have to come up with some reason to blame the man.
Dec 30, 2009 11:49:00 PM
The way it is now isnow; a man is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. The media has had lots of practice in how to skew things so that they always appear to be a man's fault. Feminist journalism.
Post a Comment