From Reuters
Is this policy a justifiable precaution? Or hypercautious bigotry? I am of the latter view. (The article does not state that this is the rationale for the policy. I am assuming that it is.)
Well, that’s possible, or there’s the other possibility that a majority of male airline passengers don’t want to be sitting next to an unescorted adolescent for any period of time and the reactions those males have had over time has caused the airline to form this policy.
“Our Clients” could refer to the male passengers just as easily as the parents of unescorted minor children.
I know I personally have no interest in being stuck next to a minor child on a flight, escorted or no. The number of well behaved interesting children just isn’t high enough for me to want to risk being next to someone who’s gonna whine at me the whole flight.
-Doug (Old curmudgeon before his time)
This is justice, or karma, whichever you prefer. Society has long tolerated the assumption that women would become “whores” if given the chance, now it’s our turn as males to be assumed as potential perverts before the fact.
dublos,
I don’t think so. The phrase “it’s something our clients have requested for young people traveling on their own” suggests that it is being done on behalf of the young people. (Also the idea that the guys would be offended - they suggest that they try to be “as sensitive as possible” - implies that it reflects badly on these men).
Eh? The old “two wrongs make a right” philosophy? I don’t see how more injustice makes something “just.”
In any case, I’d be happier not seated near unescorted children on a flight anyway. I have enough trouble when seated near the escorted variety (I really hate it when they kick the back of your seat).
I think the best solution would be to sit the children wherever they could be most closely monitored by staff.
Not two wrongs per se, but that males may have started the tradition of this type of persecution by suspicous habit.
I know nothing about the airline’s policy, but I know when I was a director of a daycare center that was part of a national chain we were told not to hire men no matter what their qualifications were. The only males working for this company were at the corporate level. Seems that in addition to a very few complaints in the past, an informal study done by the company showed that most people are wary of men working with children because child molestors are overwhelming male.
That said I would just like to add I thought it was a stupid policy, especially when a man who was more than qualified applied when I had no female applicants worth a damn.
Cite please.
(Unless you’re just telling what they thought, and not stating that as fact. If that’s the case, then I appologize for bothering you.)
I think this situation is obviously bigotry. Not the worst kind of bigotry in the world, certainly, but still bigotry.
Brian Bunnyhurt said:
Cite please.
Of course I have a cite for you, right here in my pajamas:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by BlackKnight *
**
Cite please.
(Unless you’re just telling what they thought, and not stating that as fact. If that’s the case, then I appologize for bothering you.)
[QUOTE]
That’s exactly it. But (and I would quote it if I still had the book), in my Human Sexuality class, we did get the numbers that supported the belief that child molestors are overwhelmingly male. Will post a cite if I find one though.
From this site
As a child of divorce I made regular flights from California to Florida and back. The worst female neighbor tried to save my soul. The worst male neighbor got drunk and made suggestive comments to me. I was fourteen.
If any other passengers on the latter trip had kids who flew alone, you can bet they started making requests after that flight. Sorry guys. It only takes a few of that kind to cast suspicion on the rest of you–especially if no knight in a wrinkled suit intervenes.
97% Male
91% Heterosexual
91% Religious
75% Married or formerly married
73% Causcian
65% Earned middle income or above
48% College educated
If I were truly worried that my child was in danger of molestation onboard a flight, my child would not be traveling alone. A businessman traveling purchased his ticket and should be allowed his journey without being suspect of sexual deviation because of his male gender. A child’s safety is always the first consideration, but is the parents’/guardians’ responsibility.
That’s all very well and fine – but it doesn’t address the questions “what percentage of the ‘religious heterosexual wealthy educated married white male’ population is going to try to grope a small child on board an airplane? and how does this compare to other passenger types?”
I suspect the percentage is miniscule, and that this policy is about as reasonable as insisting that Blacks sit at the back of the bus, use separate drinking fountains, and use a different part of the lunch counter.
I also wonder about the numbers – don’t more than 75% of the population get married during their lifetimes? I thought about 95% of men did at some point. So, anyone who is or has been married is less likely than nonmarrieds to molest.
The above profile was compiled of 2,763 sex offenders from 40 states according to the site. The numbers aren’t saying 97% of men are sex offenders, just that 97% of sex offenders are male.
I believe we all agree the policy is ridicilous, just as the policy of the daycare chain I worked for was.
Though I have no inclination to find research refuting these numbers, I really question the accuracy of “97 percent” of all offenders as being male.
“91 percent heterosexual” corresponds to society at large
“75 percent married/formerly” ditto.
“73 percent Caucasian” ditto.
Lots of these statistics have no real meaning, other than hint at a research organization with some agenda.
Hmm… Stats say: ‘Child molestors break down much the same way the general population does.’
Common beliefs: ‘Gays are all child molestors. (S)He’s safe because (s)he’s straight.’
Sounds like the stats say something major to me…
If someone is that concerned with minors then they really shouldn’t allow them to travel alone. And no I don’t care if it cost more for an adult to accompany the minor.
Marc