DPF observes that by banning men being seated next to children on flights, QANTAS and Air New Zealand "have managed the near impossible - uniting the politicial spectrum to declare they are a bunch of idiots." Almost true. From the libertarian part of the
spectrum -- that would be 'North' to the traditional
Left-Right - comes
LibertyScott's nuanced view: Yes, they're idiots driven by a politically-correct and irrational fear of men, but in the end it's their business really, isn't it.
Perhaps the biggest difference across the political spectrum is the suggested remedy for the idiocy.
Keith Locke's heading for the Human Wrongs Commissariat to fix things. Libertarians take a different approach:
If you want to change this, then it is up to men and women who aren't suspicious of men to reject it - as consumers. The airlines are reacting to consumers, simple as that.
Linked post:
Men, kids, planes, fear
6 comments:
The airlines are motivated in part by the legal environment where businesses may be held liable for things that aren't their fault occurring on their property - in this case possible molestation of unaccompanied children by men on their planes.
They've enacted this policy informed by the view that men are responsible for most child molestation (I don't know if the stats back up this view).
Don't blame the airlines - telling people where to sit on the planes, their property, is their prerogative; blame the legal environment.
WE agree that the legal environment itself is bloody stupid.
Having said that, stats tell us that those responsible for the overwhelming majority of child molestation are not strangers, but people that the children know, especially members of their extended family.
Should the airlines then adopt a policy of banning children sitting with their families? Or check for signs of familiarity between children and those they site next to?
This policy is appalling, why should I have an increased risk of being forced to sit next to some snotty nosed brat - what did I do to deserve this? And don't give me that crap that not all kids are "snotty nosed brats" ... obviiously they are, even their parents don't want to sit with them. You guys should count your luck stars.
The policy is not appalling at all. I sent my young daughter alone to Nelson to visit her half-sister - and I would certainly have not been happy to have had some random man sit next to her.
Consumers don't want it - and that means men have the right to say they do not want to be seated next to a woman also.
I pay so I am quite entitled to say I do not want my little girl to be seated next to some random man.
The fact of reality Ruth is that your daughter will always be around "random" men – best you skill her up to make the most of life & these situations. I understand that a parent’s imagination can sometimes get away from them, but you can't let that sick part of your imagination override rational thought. If you do, you probably won't let your children out of your sight and allow them to experience a normal life - this in itself can be abuse.
Some of my most informative conversations in my young life were with "random" adult males who I just happened to meet. I have never in my life met a man that has meant me harm (unfortunately I can’t say the same about the fairer sex).
Thank god I had rational parents that let me get the most I could out of life.
Actually Ruth it is up to the airline - you bought a ticket for a seat. The airline might let you request a preference, but that is all it is - unless airlines start selling individual seat spaces, you are right - you are entitled to say you don't want your little girl seated next to some random man - but the airline has the final say.
If we have it your way, then I want the right to say "shift me" if I am put beside an overweight, unhygienic person - or if I wanted it, no Maori, Jewish, Albanian or Brazilian people - it is just as rational. (and I do NOT want that right btw).
Post a Comment