Airline Demonizes Men
If you plan to travel on some airlines this holiday season and are male--be prepared to give up your seat to an unaccompanied minor, lest your hormones get the better of you. Thanks to a reader for pointing out this story. For any male readers out there, what would you do if asked to give up your seat to an unaccompanied minor? I think I would threaten to sue unless they moved me to first class.
Update: Many readers have weighed in their views of airlines demonizing men--and some have missed the point altogether that this is a violation of human rights--particularly those of men. It is not about whether or not one wishes to sit next to an unaccompanied minor, (I probably wouldn't--I generally prefer to be left alone), women's right to equal pay or whether babysitters who are men abuse children. It is about the tendency of Western culture to demonize men to the point where many are afraid to participate fully as citizens in our current climate of "males as predators." Men are reluctant to help others, reluctant to teach children, and reluctant to involve themselves in many aspects of Western society--and if you doubt that---just try calling a few men to see if they want to supervise your kids' baseball game, volunteer at your school or lead a group of boy scouts. This fear of men is best described by the gentleman who was asked to give up his seat:
Do we really want to demonize men to the point that they are no longer able to fully fuction in our supposedly diverse society?
Update: Here is today's story on the airplane discrimination--thanks to kiwiblog.
Update: Many readers have weighed in their views of airlines demonizing men--and some have missed the point altogether that this is a violation of human rights--particularly those of men. It is not about whether or not one wishes to sit next to an unaccompanied minor, (I probably wouldn't--I generally prefer to be left alone), women's right to equal pay or whether babysitters who are men abuse children. It is about the tendency of Western culture to demonize men to the point where many are afraid to participate fully as citizens in our current climate of "males as predators." Men are reluctant to help others, reluctant to teach children, and reluctant to involve themselves in many aspects of Western society--and if you doubt that---just try calling a few men to see if they want to supervise your kids' baseball game, volunteer at your school or lead a group of boy scouts. This fear of men is best described by the gentleman who was asked to give up his seat:
For Worsley, the incident was part of a far broader problem, which seemed to affect Western countries in general, he said.
"Men are being demonized in the media for a long time now. I think probably this is just society's reaction -- they think, 'We'd better start tightening up on everything.' It's getting to the stage when all men are viewed with distrust," he said.
"They've already chased men out of the teaching profession, especially for young children. I wouldn't want to be a Scoutmaster now. I wouldn't want to be a Catholic priest ..."
Do we really want to demonize men to the point that they are no longer able to fully fuction in our supposedly diverse society?
Update: Here is today's story on the airplane discrimination--thanks to kiwiblog.
posted by Helen at 10:44 AM
89 Comments:
Can you imagine what would happen if a man wanted to sponsor a group like this?
"... Becca Pawling, 35, who leads Annie's Forum, a weekly program that brings together teenage girls and older women for snacks, support, crafts and conversation in Portsmouth."
This quote is in an article about a pending Supreme Court case reviewing a New Hampshire law that requires parental notification before a minor can get an abortion. Ms. Pawling opposes the requirement of parental notification. It's not clear what, if anything, Annie's Forum does that relates to abortion.
Link here: USA Today
I would first sue them for flying me to New Zealand when I wanted to go to Atlanta. :-)
Then I would sue over their discriminatory policy towards men. I agree that that's not fair.
After that I would blame myself for driving up the costs of airline tickets with expensive lawsuits. But since I am an anti-business liberal, I would not heed this blame.
Clearly what New Zealand needs is more government regulation, not only of the prejudiced airlines, but also of the demonizing media. Now that Corporation for Public Broadcasting fired Kenneth Tomlinson, maybe they could use him down under.
I would tell them to, quite frankly, get bent. They're the ones who did the seat assignments, they can move the kid instead of moving me.
Short that I'd demand to be comped sis first-class tickets, unrestricted, to anywhere in the world at any time I wished to travel, ever. Fully transferrable, of course.
In fact, I might threaten to sue short those six first-class tickets even if they agreed to move the child instead of me, to make up for my "mental anguish" at being labelled a pederast before even sitting down. Even losing would be worth the sound bites, maybe get some of the PC folks to realize how stupid their whining sounds on TV.
To drj,
Yes, I wonder what would happen if men talked about such issues in boy scout meetings?
Timothy,
The man in the article mentioned feeling unable to refuse to move because of the issues surrounding terrorism--he figured he would be thrown off the plane if he protested--I assume this would be a concern for a man who would have to raise a ruckus over not leaving his seat.
Helen:
That is a bit of a concern, certainly. But one can refuse without causing too big a disturbance.
"No, please reseat the child, because I purchased this seat and you made the assignments" would probably work without causing too much anguish. It's the demanding to be compensated bit that's likely to run one into trouble.
Timothy,
I take your point. There may have been more this man could have done to stand up for himself, although standing up for oneself on a plane is a touchy thing these days.
But the issue in this case is how institutions (airlines here, but we also see this in schools and government) have become so PC that they are reluctant to have a man sit next to an unaccompanied minor. The issue isn't how a man should handle this situation. The concern is for a PC society that paints men as so dangerous that we can't even let them sit next to a child on a plane.
Dr. Helen: "Yes, I wonder what would happen if men talked about such issues in boy scout meetings?"
Good one!
It's also quite sad. If we didn't already have the Boy Scouts, I doubt that men could start an organization like that today.
Obviously demanding a first class seat is a no-brainer. As to the "demonizing men" angle, having witnessed a child threaten to accuse a man of molestation to get him in trouble because she was upset with him, I'm not so sure it isn't in the interest of the male passenger to move. I'd be interested in finding out why they have this policy - is it because of a history/fear of male pax molesting children, or is it because of a history of bogus accusations.
Anonymous,
My guess is that it is frightened parents who have requested that their child be placed next to woman or another child.
Matt says,
If I were put in this situation, I would ask calmly why I was being asked to move to allow a woman to sit there. When/if told it was company policy to do so, I would point out that it was direct sexual discrimination; then inform them I would be speaking to a lawyer specialising in such and would be issuing proceedings for compensation. Then, with no further fuss for the rest of the journey, I would move to the other seat and sit as quiet as a mouse.
On landing, I would carry out my threat - ensuring it gained as much press as possible
Such a strange story! But I am not suprised, as our world begins to remind me of something out of Swift's social parodies.
First and foremost, every single time I have flown, there have been empty seats in first or business class. Obviously, the solution is to move the inconvenienced passenger to "better" seats. No one complains.
Related story. My parents flew to visit from Southern California for Thanksgiving. One their flight up, there was no ruckus or trouble. Yet, on arrival, a conspiciously armed Marshall escorted a woman off the plane in handcuffs.
Again: no trouble on the flight that my mother (a very nervous flyer) noticed. They landed. They were told to stay in their seats. The armed Marshall came on board, went to the back of the plane, and returned leading the woman in handcuffs.
My mother said that there was nothing unusual about the woman---youngish, no unusual clothing, and she did not seem angry or drugged.
Who knows? And the passengers were told nothing.
Strange world.
"Eric Blair"
To Mr. Blair,
Yes you never know sometimes whether who you sit next to is helpful or harmful (although most of us just want to get to where we are going). I remember feeling relieved after 9-11 that I was placed next to a rather self-centered ex-airplane pilot who had flown in the military. He told me that 9-11 had greatly inconvenienced him and his work as he was flying at the time and it took him awhile to get home. I felt assured that this man would have jumbed in the pilot's seat if there was trouble on the plane as he seemed greatly concerned that he not be inconvenienced by terrorists. If I were little Johnny's mom, I would have felt perfectly safe if he sat next to this man.
To Mr. K:
I don't think they are moving a kid to watch him better--they are moving them if they are sitting next to a man. Perhaps it should just be mandatory that an unaccompanied minor be placed up front in the first row or two. I think many of them do that and it certainly makes sense.
Suppose a kid does end up next to a pederast. On a plane. Then what? I can see not wanting to have junior alone with a strange man at a cabin in the woods, but Air Kiwi? Is there a safer place to be next to a pedophile than on a plane?
I'm not greedy -- I'd settle for an upgrade to Business Class.
I'm a 38-year-old father of two young kids, and one of the most humiliating incidents I've experienced happened after a flight in which I was alone and seated next to a young boy of maybe 9 or 10 years old. It was a long cross-country flight, and to pass the time at some point the boy and I started chatting about where we were going, etc, he showed off his new video game, etc. Well, the flight attendants basically treated me like a child predator, to the point of saying to the boy when the plane landed, "Now make sure you don't leave with anyone next to you". I was so appalled I was literally speechless. But as someone else said, an airplane is not a good place to get mad these days, and I decided that I'd rather just get out of there than confront anyone. In retrospect, being a father, it's difficult to get too angry about being protective of children travelling alone - I would want to know someone was looking out for my kids, too, but there's definitely a line that is being crossed at some point here.
Hi, I'm new. Got here from Instapundit, I think.
I agree with what Mr. K said. I also agree with Eric Blair that a passenger who needs to be reseated on the spot ought to gain a better seat for the inconvenience if there's one available.
Dr. Helen, your portrayal of the article isn't entirely correct. You said the man had to give up his seat to the minor (implying that he may have been denied flying on the plane at all), but he actually had to switch seats with someone else so that he wasn't sitting next to the minor (an annoyance surely, but at least he still flew to his destination on the same flight). Those are two different situations. If he'd had to give up his seat and miss his flight, I'd be equally as angry about it as some of the other commenters here.
The underlying policy of the airlines in question are debatable as shown. I don't know how to address it well so I just won't comment on it. :)
I would have told the steward(ess) that it was the child who had the problem and she might be better off finding someone next to a little old lady who would volunteer give up their seat for the chance to sit next to me.
I would further tell the steward(ess) that if that fails, I would be happy to reconsider if they bring a free flight coupon for me when they come back.
Always give them a choice.
I'd refer them to the female teacher having sex with minors thread on this blog and then ask the stewardess why she wasn't sitting beside the boy.
Then I'd ask for a double latte and tell her to make it snappy.
One other approach would be to keep an issue of Playboy magazine in your suitcase for emergencies.
Swift, indeed. Sometimes the Evelyn Waugh snappy answer approach is the best defense.
There are so many stories in the news right now about young female teachers who have sex with their 14-year-old male students, that I would not be convinced of the safety of an unaccompanied minor next to a woman, if your concern is pedophilia.
I must propose another possible reason for the airlines' policy: Some years ago I flew on KLM from Bahrain to Amsterdam with my toddler and kindergartener. The flight attendant put me in a row with a lone woman. She said if I needed help with the kids, a woman would help, but a man would not. The woman helped!
I'd tell them that I'd be happy to move for a First Class seat. However, I would also tell them that I expected a written apology from the airline because of the mental anguish I experienced from being wrongly accused of being a child molester solely on the basis of my gender, or they would be hearing from my attorney.
And I would say it calmly but in a voice loud enough for the other passengers to hear.
If they pushed, I'd then move...but calmly.
Simply un-freaking-believable.
Considering that they have a passenger list - with seat assignments on them... it is really sheer laziness on the part of people assigning the seat to the child, not to take the extra time and get a seat next to a woman if that is the stated policy of the company. Then no one is inconvenienced.
That being said, the policy itself is pretty scary. I'm wondering when we will go to flights for women and children only...men not allowed because they are too dangerous to be around! Where does it end? Not to mention I am totally offended by men in general being accused of wrongdoing just because they are men. And that's what this policy is - an accusation.
Last of all - I hate to say it... but if parents are so frightened of who their child will meet on a plane - they need to buy a ticket and GO WITH THEM. That way they will know who is sitting next to the kid - problem solved... and sorry to have inconvenienced you into doing the job of watching your own kid instead of creating problems for everyone else!
Another supposition is used in the workplace. A place that supervises children can ask if you were ever molested as a child, and can deny you employment if you answer yes or can fire you if you say no untruthfully.
In all seriousness:
I don't think that it's appropriate to sue the airline company at the drop of a hat. Or to threaten to sue. I can't tell if people really mean it in this discussion or if they are indulging.
Whether or not you want to sit beside the kid is beside the point. Airlines should find a way to treat people as equals. It's like the scene in the Lord of the Rings (the book) in which a tribe of elves wants to blindfold just Gimli, so Aragorn suggests that everyone be blindfolded. Even if it's more than necessary, there is a reason for it.
Airlines should also understand that normal parents generally enjoy talking to well-behaved children.
In fact, a mode of behavior that irritates me is when parents act as if their own kids are the only ones that matter in the world. For example if there is a school play, they might pull out the camcorder when their kid comes on stage, and clap and hoot too, then pull out a newspaper for the rest of the show. It's fine to pay less attention to other people's children, but not to the extreme of "I couldn't possibly care less". For one thing, it sends a very poor message to your own children.
Sounds to me like the best soloution is to not allow children aboard without a parent or legal guardian. I can think of a lot of people who'd go for that! ;^)
"never ever" is a bit strong, eh? I used to babysit for some neighbors pretty often when I was in junior high and high school. Their kids were between toddler and 10, all three were already potty trained, and the youngest was usually asleep when I got there. I got along with the kids great, usually we played board games or chess until it was bed time, then I'd watch TV until their folks got home. Well behaved kids, but the experience taught me I don't want any :-).
I think a better rule is don't hire baby sitters you don't know very, very well. Which seems like a no brainer.
Having recently returned to the States from a 14 month business stay in NZ and AU, I thought I'd briefly weigh in on the topic.
I'm not too surprised to see this type of behavior Down Under. Those are unique, distinctive cultures which only superficially resemble that of the US - and usually in ways readers of this blog wouldn't appreciate.
As for responding "on the spot," I can assure you that threats to sue or insistence on compensation would trigger an immediate confrontational response, even more so if your accent were not a local one. It just isn't done.
"They're basically accusing half the population of the world of being a potential pedophile."
Yeah..reminds me of my UW-Madison Wisconsin student years in the late 80's where an organization would have a rally every year(still do?) called "Take back the Night" One of the repeated phrases that sticks with me is "Every man is a potential rapist." I had fun in an argumentation and debate class by creating an analogous statment: "Every orange is a potential weapon"
As long as I arrived at my destination alive and safe it would not matter.
So it is okay because it is a man?
So my new response will be to immediately ask to move if placed near children because of fear that some overzealous PC lout proclaims me a pedophile. Of course at no expense to me.
And as far as the "it just isn't done", maybe blacks should have just sat down and shut up in the civil rights marches era? That "sort of thing" just isn't done in the South!
This is just indicative of the "scare first, ask questions later" sensationalism that passes for reporting. I have two daughters and, as much as I'd like to be more involved in the older one's Brownies activities I do honestly worry about someone else getting the wrong idea about a 40-year-old man who "likes hanging around first and second grade girls."
I wrote about this story on my site a little while ago. I found myself in conflict because on the one hand, I support racial profiling, but didn't like this. Before I scared myself into thinknig my mind was opening, I realized fundemental differences in this story.
http://alpinesummit.blogspot.com/2005/11/gday-now-move.html
It may not be the noble thing to do, but I would just move. Actually, I'd rather. I'm a woman, and even I don't want to have anything much to do with other people's kids. I don't baby-sit anyone's kids except for family, nor will I let my kids baby-sit when they get older. It's simply not worth the risk in a world where everyone is child-abuse crazy and looking for someone to sue. I wish things were different but it seems the safest thing to do these days is to just take care of your own.
Anne
Haven't they read about the spate of female teachers charged with molesting teen-age boy students?
Retread
I think your post is misleading and under-appreciates the insult to men. The issue is not whether men are asked to be chivalrous and give up their seat to a child or pregnant woman. The issue is whether children should be seated next to men because men are apparently commonly perceived as being predatory pedophiles. I think a clarification is in order, given the Instapundit link.
"Helen said...
Anonymous,
My guess is that it is frightened parents who have requested that their child be placed next to woman or another child."
Could be, but I'm not so sure - if somebody is that worried about that sort of thing, they shouldn't (and in most cases wouldn't) have their child travel alone. My guess is it's for the convenience of the airline, one way or another.
sex with teenaged students, "molestation" or no, is not pedophilia... it's ephebophilia.
the concept of adolescence as just an extension of childhood is problematic in and of itself. a woman having sex with a 14 y/o boy could arguably be a healthy learning activity, whereas sex with a pre-adolescent would be hard to justify.
just my 2 cents... the analogy doesn't fit.
The vast majority of males are wonderful with kids, but women are generally a safer bet.
A safer bet than what Stace? Could you explain your comment. Sounds like the NZ Airline meme. He's a man so you just never know...
It would be interesting to know if they require Catholic priests to move when seated next to minors as well. I mean , if they're going to be profiling...
But what if the man said he was a pedophile and they still made him move? Wouldn't that be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?
I'm a single guy, and as far as I'm concerned, this is some of the best news I've ever heard regarding air travel. There's nothing worse than being made to sit next to an unaccompanied child on a plane.
I think that the airline should be able to do whatever the heck it wants in this instance. (The law may disagree, but that just means I disagree with the law.) Of course, the men who are moved are free to raise holy hell about it in the press. But my guess is that many mothers, and indeed some fathers too, will end up siding with the airline---or at least, their only criticism will be the clumsiness with which the policy is executed.
Of course, I do sympathize with the man here, and understand how he could be offended. But you know, I think we as a society have blown elevated simple "offense" to a status far higher than it should be. Freedom of speech means that some people will be offended by what others say. That's fine. And likewise, freedom from undue regulation in the marketplace means that some companies will treat their customers like dirt. And short of outright theft, fraud, etc., we ought to be able to accept that, too.
From a personal perspective: I attend a church in which a former youth pastor is alleged to have made illegal contact with boys in his charge. One of the policy changes that went into effect after the fact was, frankly, to curtail in certain ways the involvement that unsupervised men have with kids at the church. For example, male volunteers are not allowed to change an infant's diaper nor take a child to the bathroom. Now, is that over the top? You could argue that it is, perhaps. But in light of events it seems wise and perhaps even necessary to overcompensate a bit. As one of those male volunteers who has been affected---I accept that.
Matt says,
Greg stated above: "I don't think that it's appropriate to sue the airline company at the drop of a hat. Or to threaten to sue. I can't tell if people really mean it in this discussion or if they are indulging."
This is not just "indulging" anything, nor is it a knee-jerk reaction to a story. I am sick and tired of reading about men not being treated equally. I was brought up to be staunchly equal rights orientated - that does not mean equality in one area but not another. This is backed up by law, both here in the UK as well as elsewhere in the world. I refuse to be discriminated against just because I am male. Millicent Fawcett began the campaign in the UK to get votes for women and then, over time, others carried this on to get equality enshrined in law. Most people here scoffed at her then, as they didn't think it was right for women to vote. The modern equivalent is people not thinking it is right for men to have unsupervised contact or work with minors to whom they are not related. Not that I particularly want unsupervised contact with unrelated minors of course, I can't even think of what to say to my nephews and nieces whether their parents are there or not.
And, in case anyone is wondering, the worst person I had to sit next to on an air journey was a little old Lady who insisted on showing me photos of all her family and describing what they all did for a living and who had been married most recently etc. The one time I had to sit next to a teenager (I don't know whether accompanied or not), she put on her personal stereo and ignored everything including the cabin crew bringing round the meals.
Better that than the old Lady who made a tedious journey downright painful!
I am a male and I have no problem with what the airline did. The fact is that men are far more likely to be pedophiles than women. Canadian researcher Karl Freund is one researcher I would recommend checking out. A genuine pedophile, contrary to the above posts, is not seeking out 14-year- old boy such as the teachers mentioned. Put another way, if a 14-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl "do it" (and they do all the time), which one is the pedophile?
Children need to be protected. If my 8-year-old was travelling alone on a plan, I would object if I found out an adult man would not switch his seat with a female. Maybe that's not "politically correct," but it is not stupid either.
Perhaps 'it isn't done,' but the story did make the news, meaning the guy did say something at some point.
Maybe it's starting to be done.
Simple. The vast majority of child molesters, probably over 90%, are male.
In the U.S., when considering their percentage makeup of the population, black males commit more crimes than white males, white females, black females, etc.
So, following the logic presented above, if I own a retail store and employ a security guard, I should make it his priority to keep a watchful eye on black male customers?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Actually, likely no. The problem with a security guard focusing on black customers is that he is likely to be turning his attention away from non-black customers. Now, even if we accept as true the idea that a higher percentage of blacks commit retail crime (which is by no means established), it is still likely to be true that more crimes will be committed by non-blacks---because blacks are a small percentage of the total population.
So if you're a security guard monitoring a large number of customers with a proportional racial mix, you are likely to be doing your employer a disservice by focusing on the black customers.
Now, what if the store happens to have only one customer at a time? Should you watch the black ones more closely than the white ones? I'd say no. If a security guard can't fully monitor a single customer, he isn't a particularly good security guard.
The bottom line is that profiling is not always effective. You have to be pretty careful with the math. In the airline case described here, the math probably works out; but in this retail example, it probably doesn't.
And if you're going to risk some serious bad press and/or legal action, well, you'd better have your math right.
Dr. Helen -
Great blog.
As a forty-eight year old single (straight) guy, it's nice to have a lady on our side once in a while. I appreciate your noticing some of the inequities that I sometimes also see.
That said, I wonder why the wives of my friends are constantly putting their babies in my arms and snapping pictures. During these holidays, it has been a frequent event. Do they think that if I hold their lovely little things that it will encourage me to find a mate and start my own trip down child rearing lane?
Just wondering...
>She said if I needed help with the kids, a woman would help, but a man would not
Of course. A man won't help you, not because men are generally unhelpful jerks, but because the dire consequences of even a suggestion of impropriety (let alone an outright accusation) are too much to risk.
"There's a double standard there, though, in the example you cited. A grown woman having sex with a 14-year-old boy is a potential "learning activity," but a grown man doing the same with a 14-year-old girl is statutory rape and de facto exploitation."
Those very same people argue that girls are more mature, and mature earlier, than boys. Which begs the question as to why they supposedly need more "protection".
Regarding the comment, posted by Anonymous:
"Simple. The vast majority of child molesters, probably over 90%, are male."
90% of the CONVICTED child molesters are male, perhaps true. But let's consider how many women, like Paula Poundstone, are investigated but never charged as such, and then how many teenage boys report being molested by their teachers, but it never even gets INVESTIGATED, and how many sexual assault assaults by women never even get REPORTED. As with domestic violence in the sixties, all of a sudden your 90% figure gets much smaller pretty quickly.
Doesn't anyone remember what Elian Gonzales grandmother said she did to him? Unzipping his fly and tweaking his weiney? THAT, my friends, is molestation, but few seem to regard it as such.
I've done something similar, giving up the last seat on a full plane to a woman and her baby. Had to stay overnite, and almost missed my son's first parent teacher conference.
But sometime a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.
I have read articles where male cops who investigate sex crimes say that you should never ever hire a male babysitter. My son's pediatrician, also male, says the same thing.
The difference here is that the babysitter are self-selected, and so the proportion of potential molesters will be high.
A more precise analogy would be randomly designating a man to serve as a babysitter. The chances of that man being a molester are low (not that I would do it in any case).
While I think it's a bad policy, it is the right of the airline (assuming it's not a government-run airline) to seat people wherever they want, asuming the ticket the flyer bought (the contract) allowed them to do so.
I would tell the flight attendant (stewardess?), that, "Well, while I'm not all too comfortable or even familiar with kids, not having a great deal of contact with the little beasts, I'm certain that I could handle an hour or two. But thank you for your concern!"
The fact is that a black male is much more likely to commit a crime than a black female, or white of either sex. (Men are nine times more likely to be committed to State prison than women; blacks are four times more likely than whites (while constituting 12.1% of the population.)
So by the logic of the airline, black men should not be allowed to sit next to women or less than physically formidable men.
Nice sleight of hand, mcg, on questioning whether blacks commit a higher percentage of retail crime. The operative figure is not what percentage of the crimes are committed by blacks, but what percentage of the crimes are committed by blacks relative to their proportion in the population. That is, what is the relative risk on a per person basis?
To put it in a less emotive context than race or sex, figures on which car is most likely to be stolen have to be relative to how many such cars are out there to be stolen, i.e., what proportion of each type are stolen. Saying that a given car constitutes some percentage of the stolen cars (analogous to your point about the percentage of retail crimes committed by black men) is meaningless. Suppose car 1 constitutes 50% of stolen cars, and car 2 the other 50%, but car 1 and car 2 represent 80% and 12% of cars registered. That would be a precise analogy.
Nice sleight of hand, mcg, on questioning whether blacks commit a higher percentage of retail crime. The operative figure is not what percentage of the crimes are committed by blacks, but what percentage of the crimes are committed by blacks relative to their proportion in the population. That is, what is the relative risk on a per person basis?
No slight of hand at all. Actually, it was my intent to refer exactly to the percentages you are describing. My analysis stands as is in that case. Look, I'm not saying that profiling doesn't work sometimes; just that it doesn't always. The retail case you quoted is likely one of the latter, though you need exact figures to be sure.
Let me give you a concrete example. Let us say for the sake of argument that customers wearing Led Zeppelin t-shirts are twice as likely to shoplift as those that don't. Now consider a scenario where a security guard is watching over a store with 10 customers, one of which is wearing the dreaded shirt.
If, by focusing too much on the one customers, he's neglecting to watch the other 9, or isn't watching them as well, it's entirely possible that the store is more likely to get ripped off than if he had devoted equal attention to them all.
So you see, this scenario is different than in the airplane case, in which you're talking about a 1-1 (or 1-2) pairing of kids and adults. In that case, I agree that the probabilities favor seating children with women over men.
mcg,
Fair enough. Normalizing for incidence in the population, a law enforcement officer would indeed be justified, at least from a statistical perspective, in focusing on black men, just as he would be justified in focusing on men in general.
It seems a lot of hysteria these days is caused by excessive media focus on outlier events and the well known inability of large portions of the population to accurately guage relative risk, so, speaking of "incidence in the population," do you, Dr. Helen, have any idea of the prevalence of pedophilia? And perhaps other conditions for baseline comparison (e.g. psychopathy, schizophrenia etc.)? Are the numbers trending or fairly static?
Well, lets see, when I was an "unaccompanied child" flying between California and New Orleans every summer, I met men who later contracted with my grandfather for business (Ad Spec), I met a man who described how wings generate lift and made the plane fly, I met a man who was a movie star, I met a man who would later become a Congressman.
When I was eight, I also met a woman who had never flown before, was utter terrified, dug her claws into my arm each time the "fasten seat belt" sign dinged and who screamed "Oh my God! Oh my God!" at the top of her lungs for the whole descent into a thunderstormin' New Orleans.
Given personal experience, I'd much rather take the seat next to a guy.
--Jason
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
When I first read the article, I first thought of racial profiling. Would there be a greater outcry if it became gender profiling? BUT the thought that I find more upsetting is one put forth by an anonymous commenter:
"Anonymous said...
Simple. The vast majority of child molesters, probably over 90%, are male.
In the U.S., when considering their percentage makeup of the population, black males commit more crimes than white males, white females, black females, etc.
So, following the logic presented above, if I own a retail store and employ a security guard, I should make it his priority to keep a watchful eye on black male customers?"
This anonymous comment is troubling because the statistic cited by your reader is wrong. African Americans do not commit crimes in a higher percentage than do their white counterparts. They are just prosecuted/convicted more. Prosecutorial and police discretion account for much this disparity. For example, on I-95 in Maryland 90% of drivers break the law, and therefore, 90% of drivers can be legally pulled over. Less than 30% of drivers on I-95 in Maryland are African-American while the overwhelming majority of drivers are white. However, African Americans account for 70% of the people pulled over on I-95. Racial profiling is alive and well, and as your reader demonstrated, it is a vicious cycle.
>> For example, on I-95 in Maryland 90% of drivers break the law, and therefore, 90% of drivers can be legally pulled over. Less than 30% of drivers on I-95 in Maryland are African-American while the overwhelming majority of drivers are white. However, African Americans account for 70% of the people pulled over on I-95.
I can not believe what a diseased mind you must have to come up with that conclusion. Obviously, you came up with the conclusion first "driving while black" and carefully fitted what few, incomplete facts you have into that pre-definined judgement.
Here is the 10-second list of objections:
1. Police are more likely to pull over people going well over the speed limit, as opposed to everyone going 1 mph over. You have furnished no evidence as to what portion of these '90% of all drivers' were going fast enough to be pulled over.
2. For that matter, you don't seem to have broken anything down by speeding, driving recklessly, sobriety checkpoints, etc.
3. As a population, blacks tend to congrgate in cities, and that is also where more traffic cops are.
The fact that none of the above (and dozens of other potential objections) even occured to you is despicable, indicating that you, sir, are a racist.
African Americans do not commit crimes in a higher percentage than do their white counterparts.
Uhh, yes they do. No serious statistician claims otherwise. But if it makes you feel better, if you control for the fact that African Americans are disproportionately poor and more poorly educated---an unfortunate lingering consequence of slavery and discrimination---the differences almost completely go away. (And the differences that remain are largely believed to have similar explanations that just haven't yet been found.)
So you need not think that Anonymous or I am actually claiming that people commit more crimes simply because they are black. But the statistical fact remains.
If I were to believe you, on the other hand, I'd have to believe that once poverty and education differences were accounted for, that blacks were less likely than whites to commit crimes. Well, I'd prefer not to be a racist in either direction.
For years now most church nurseries have had a policy that men who are volunteering may not change diapers. They may not be alone with the children at any time. Two men cannot staff the nursery; one of the pair must be a woman. I've attended three churches that had these policies. In at least one case, they were required by the insurance company.
To ms,
In general, neither psychopathology or personality variables have been found to predict risk in sex offenders. The one exception to this is psychopathy which has a higher correlation with sexual violence. The estimate of psychopaths in the US population is around 1%. However, not all psychopaths commit sex crimes and some people without psychopathy do.
As a woman who is a former airline brat, and who's logged a lot of air miles, I have my own objection...
Why does the airline presume that I want to have even partial responsibility of watching someone else's kid? And not to get compensated for it, either? No travel voucher, no drink, nada.
The parents are paying for the airline to watch the kid. I believe that airlines charge extra for an unaccompanied child, in addition to the ticket cost. I resent having that responsibility fobbed off on me without my consent. The crew is probably overworked, but they at least are getting paid to put up with "you can't tell me what to do" behavior from a bratty kid.
I have sat next to very well behaved kids, and more than a few "teens with the headphones" kind of child a poster described above. However, there were times when I really didn't want to deal with a kid who had to show me all his books, tell me about his vacation with Daddy, etc., because I just wasn't up for it.
It's not fair that my brother would get excused from this additional duty and I wouldn't. That's what I call sex discrimination....
Very interesting discussion. A few years ago I was flying from Ireland to the States. when I checked in, they told me that my seat had been changed. The new seat was equivalent to what I'd asked for originally, so I didn't care. My seatmate was a boy of about ten years old, flying alone, extremely well behaved. I wonder if they changed my seat to the one next to his because I'm a woman?
Anonymous(6:03) said
"Most people here scoffed at her then, as they didn't think it was right for women to vote. The modern equivalent is people not thinking it is right for men to have unsupervised contact or work with minors to whom they are not related."
There is a mighty big difference between voting and sitting next to an unsupervised child on an airline. Citizens have a right to vote. Are you saying you have a RIGHT to sit next to unsupervised children on private airlines?
It strikes me as funny that men get all up in arms about these issues but don't seem to be bothered about continuing discrimination against women. Less pay, women around the world who are treated as chattel, etc. I mean, I have to be a bit nervous walking the streets at night. I have men coming on to me at work simply because I'm a female. These are the facts of life for women. Pardon me if I can't work up the tears for you in cases such as these.
But of course it's harder to blame the legacy of slavery for something that only started becoming widespread in the 1960s.
Which is why I said slavery and discrimination :)
To ms,
It is hard to say how many pedophiles there are--part of the problem is that men are more likely to be charged with a sex offense and tagged a "pedophile" than a woman. Women tend to abuse children in more secret ways that do not involve charges such as fondling, etc. They are less likely to be brought to the court's attention and less likely to be charged in general--that said, more men than women have been charged with being a pedophile--here is an article you might find helpful on female sexual perpretrators:
http://movingforward.org/v2n6-cover.html#apa
The airline was unnecessarily rude to the passenger.
The airline has some legitimate concerns, which they handled badly. Some places - italy, india, japan come to mind - have cultures in which men hassle girls on public transportation. I don't know if this carries over to planes.
Someone close to me was molested by a teen male babysitter, and has the emotional problems that go with that kind of experience.
I see the other side of it too. I've given up being a scoutmaster, and less formal interactions with kids in my neighborhood, because of that demonization. If "it takes a whole village to raise a child," declaring half the village off limits is a disaster. Women complain, rightly, that childcare is labor intensive and underpaid and men aren't doing their share, but those men willing to do their part are demonized. So children are growing up without positive male role models, while men who don't have puppies, cut off from children, get lonely depressed isolated and neurotic, which can occasionally surface as some degree of pedophilia. We can't come up with statistics on how prevalent pedophilia or molestation is, unless those terms are rigorously defined, otherwise they are too vague and slippery to quantify.
Growing up, I can think of three, no four, men who were willing to give me the time of day. I was a bit too erudite to fit in well with kids my age, and women tend to be patronizing toward kids, so I was mostly alone with my books, pre-internet.
We are stuck in a vicious circle, which the article helps illustrate. I don't see a solution, but I do see the problem.
Anonymous:
It strikes me that men--and women like me--have a tremendous capacity for multi-tasking.
Meaning, it's possible to be concerned about--and even "work up tears" over--more than one issue of injustice at a time.
At least, that's been my experience. But maybe I'm just weird.
@Dr. Helen
"It is hard to say how many pedophiles there are--part of the problem is that men are more likely to be charged with a sex offense and tagged a "pedophile" than a woman. ...that said, more men than women have been charged with being a pedophile."
I understand that cross-gender differences in prevalence are exacerbated by the prevailing Salem-like political atmosphere, but surely someone with some credible level of expertise must at least have ESTIMATED a percentage for prevalence, grounded in some kind of empirical data and normalised for the latter? If not, how do we know that the fact that "more men than women have been charged with being a pedophile" is nothing more than a sampling error? If the cops only watch for male speeders, then of course the conviction stats are going to show vastly more men with convictions, but that does not mean that men speed with any greater frequency than do women, nor that we should prohibit men as a group from driving.
ms,
Here are some facts on sex offenders with a link to more info:
In 1994, less than 1% of all incarcerated rape and sexual assault offenders were female (fewer than 800 women) (Greenfeld, 1997). By 1997, however, 6,292 females had been arrested for forcible rape or other sex offenses, constituting approximately 8% of all rape and sexual assault arrests for that year (FBI, 1997). Additionally, studies indicate that females commit approximately 20% of sex offenses against children (ATSA, 1996). Males commit the majority of sex offenses but females commit some, particularly against children.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html
The airlines could certainly err if one out of five abusers of children are women.
I wonder if this is the only airline with this policy. I'm a middle-aged female who travels alone a fair bit. The last 5 times I've flown I have been either beside a child or next to the only woman with a baby on the flight. While I don't mind, it does mean that I tend to spend a good part of the flight either holding an infant while the mother eats, searches carry on luggage for baby necessities and hits the washroom, or entertaining a child. I envy colleagues who talk about the amount of work they accomplish on flights.
While my experience in no way can be compared to being made to feel like a pedophile, the pattern is mighty strange and makes me wonder if I’m considered “safe” (due to age and gender) to place next to children and women with babies.
wow , my son will be flying to florida to see his father for xmas and he will be unacompanied ... his first trip away from home ..
mcg said
The problem with a security guard focusing on black customers is that he is likely to be turning his attention away from non-black customers.
After reading through all the comments and seeing this one... plus all the arguments about crime among racial groups... I am astounded that no one has noticed the quite obvious logical conclusion of the "not seating a child next to a man" scenario...
Now that the kid is sitting with a woman - everyone will relax because... by this definition, the woman is "safe"! Thus no one would be looking for any abuse to occur! Does anyone besides me see the oddly humorous idiocy in this? After all - the flight attendants don't know the first thing about any of the passengers on the flight. Plus, what if she were to just walk off the flight with the kid in tow and disappear? Wouldn't that be dreadfully easy for her to do? Tell the crew she'll see the kid out to the people who man the gates at the other end of the jetway - just to save them trouble...
Also, one other thing that people seem to not have noticed... it sounded (from the news description) as if it was a pretty full flight and it was less than an hour and a half. If the child is seated in the aisle seat with people around - I have to wonder how much "abuse" either a man or a woman could actually commit on a plane - especially if the flight attendants are doing their job and checking on the kid. I'm not saying that there aren't ways to do it, but this is NOT a babysitting scenario where they are alone in a house with the parents gone. Any type of abuse in this situation would be much more difficult to accomplish in that context.
Matt says,
Anonymous 9:59,
You are correct, there is a huge difference between voting and sitting next to a child on a 'plane. The point I was making is that the fight to vote carried on, eventually, into equality across the board. That means equality for men as well as women. The right I have, not directly to do with seating, is to be treated exactly the same as any other person whatever sex/colour/race/religion/background (there must be more for this list) they are.
What strikes you as funny? The fact that some men you might have met don't seem to be bothered about continuing discrimination against women but get annoyed when they are not treated equally? Or are you making a sweeping statement having not met them that all men don't seem to be bothered? You ignored an earlier part of my post:
"I was brought up to be staunchly equal rights orientated - that does not mean equality in one area but not another."
I meant that literally, as I still think that way and it DOES bother me that women get treated unfairly in many respects. And when they are treated as chattel. And when they get less pay. The list could go on.
I won't pardon you for not working up tears in cases such as these, because I have read your opinion.
I've read ALL the foregoing posts, and am struck by how many are concerned with violating the rights of the adult male passengers and how few with protecting the children. Yes, it would be better if children didn't fly alone, if airlines grouped unaccompanied minors, if if if, but why should a man get all huffy because someone is trying to look out for a child? Get over it. BE a man, and be gallant. If you don't like the seat you are offered because you need an aisle seat for long legs or whatever, then say so, negotiate, but please spare us a recitation of your 'rights.'
anonymous (4:04)
Did you ever stop to think that seating a child next to a man might be looking after a child? Are you so narrow-minded that you assume everyone, including the male passenger himself, should consider himself a danger and that by removing himself, he is adding to the child's protection? What if he moved and a female perp got the kid? Do you really assume all men are that dangerous?
All this fascinating back and forth over shoplifting and babysitting greatly ignores a very relevent element of the situation really under discussion: in the scenario presented (airline seats man next to unaccompanied child) the man and child placed in close physical proximity are essentially subject to constant observation. This is not two strangers booked into the same sleeping compartment on an overnight train. It is not even two people using the same public restroom. This is two people placed in close physical proximity in a very public place that neither can leave.
To contend that the airline in somehow trying to protect the child from a potential mollester carries the implied contention that the supposed mollester is going to engage in his illegal behavior in the middle of plane full of other passengers with the knowledge that every attendent knows the target is travelling alone. Not only does this violate every strain of logic I can conjure but it is also markedly in contrast to the known methods and practices of real pedophiles.
The only possible real protection afforded by this policy is in preventing a pedophile from thinking about the child who otherside would have been seated next to him. But while we're protecting people from being potentially thought of in an illegal sexual way why don't we separate all young females too. After all, regardless of where I'm seated if I see a pretty thing I may entertain mild fantasies and we've already demonstrated that it is the though trather than the action that is objectionable.
Very nice site! Oldsmobile bravada repair Time xanax detect drug test
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~
「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行.................
会社設立不動産渋谷区 賃貸グループウェアシステム開発サーバー管理網頁設計探偵浮気調査コンタクトレンズ腰痛矯正歯科インプラント電報ショッピング枠 現金化クレジットカード 現金化
クレジットカード 現金化ジュエリーおまとめローン格安航空券国内格安航空券債務整理多重債務債務整理育毛剤育毛剤薬剤師 求人電話占いワンクリック詐欺葬儀 千葉カラーコンタクトフランチャイズフランチャイズ留学幼児教室個別指導塾経営雑誌経済雑誌初音ミク似顔絵ウェルカムボードCrazyTalkCloneDVDCloneCD名刺作成クレージートークフロアコーティング 川崎フロアコーティング治験
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
倉井空免費a影片伊莉論壇tw 18 net18禁成人網免費性愛影片aa 片俱樂部 免費avsexy girl video moviea片18禁地少女遊戲嘟嘟成人網洪爺後官電影院辣妺視訊線上 aa 片試看黑澀會美眉容瑄sex520免費電影sexy girl video moviesex520免費影片線上 aa 片試看嘟嘟h成人夜色sex999免費影片性愛貼圖區plussex383線上娛樂場情色貼圖成人視訊聊天室情色a片彩虹頻道免費短片
Post a Comment
<< Home