Children on planes

Excerpts from http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet


There's a growing storm surrounding British Airways' policy against
seating children next to male strangers, even when the child's parents
are on the same flight. The policy's impetus? The perceived threat of
a man sexually abusing a child.

Recently, a nine-year-old girl on a British Airways flight was moved
from her seat next to a 76-year-old man and his wife. The male
passenger, Michael Kemp, was first asked to switch seats with his
wife, but his wife refused because of a bad leg that required the
added space of an aisle seat. The stewardess ultimately refused to
seat the girl next to Kemp or between the pair, because doing so would
violate British Airways' child-welfare regulations. Once the flap was
publicized, an airline spokesperson said, "We apologise if Mr. Kemp
was offended by our request, but we have to balance the needs of the
child with those of the adult."

Both Air New Zealand and Qantas have adopted a similar policy banning
children from sitting next to male strangers.

The logic of these airlines' policy rests on the greater occurrence of
child sex abuse by men. Men do account for 86% of sexual abuse cases
reported against boys and 94% of cases reported against girls,
according to the US National Center for Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder. But if those statistics were the basis of public policy, we
couldn't have classrooms, sports teams, day care centers or summer
camps led by men.

The memo delivered to children by BA's policy is: Men are scary and
not to be trusted. As Wendy McElroy reasoned, "Kids may hesitate to
approach a policeman or fireman who are, after all, still men. And how
is that message being heard by the boys who will grow into men?"

Not to mention that preventing kids from being seated next to
strangers probably isn't the best way to prevent sexual assault; a
mere 10 percent of child sex-abuse cases are perpetrated by strangers.
The policy is irrational and hysterical; worse yet, it's sexist. As
McElroy writes: "One thing is clear: some airlines are going to treat
your father, husband, and son as sex offenders simply because they are
male."



--

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

....George Bernard Shaw

[x - posted rec.travel.air,alt.support.childfree]

Steve wrote:

Excerpts from http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet


There's a growing storm surrounding British Airways' policy against
seating children next to male strangers, even when the child's parents
are on the same flight. The policy's impetus? The perceived threat of
a man sexually abusing a child.

Recently, a nine-year-old girl on a British Airways flight was moved
from her seat next to a 76-year-old man and his wife. The male
passenger, Michael Kemp, was first asked to switch seats with his
wife, but his wife refused because of a bad leg that required the
added space of an aisle seat. The stewardess ultimately refused to
seat the girl next to Kemp or between the pair, because doing so would
violate British Airways' child-welfare regulations. Once the flap was
publicized, an airline spokesperson said, "We apologise if Mr. Kemp
was offended by our request, but we have to balance the needs of the
child with those of the adult."

Both Air New Zealand and Qantas have adopted a similar policy banning
children from sitting next to male strangers.

The logic of these airlines' policy rests on the greater occurrence of
child sex abuse by men. Men do account for 86% of sexual abuse cases
reported against boys and 94% of cases reported against girls,
according to the US National Center for Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder. But if those statistics were the basis of public policy, we
couldn't have classrooms, sports teams, day care centers or summer
camps led by men.

The memo delivered to children by BA's policy is: Men are scary and
not to be trusted. As Wendy McElroy reasoned, "Kids may hesitate to
approach a policeman or fireman who are, after all, still men. And how
is that message being heard by the boys who will grow into men?"

Not to mention that preventing kids from being seated next to
strangers probably isn't the best way to prevent sexual assault; a
mere 10 percent of child sex-abuse cases are perpetrated by strangers.
The policy is irrational and hysterical; worse yet, it's sexist. As
McElroy writes: "One thing is clear: some airlines are going to treat
your father, husband, and son as sex offenders simply because they are
male."


I think it's a GREAT policy that ALL airlines should adopt, that way I'm
guaranteed NEVER to be seated next to a sniveling brat...

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" gregorymorrowTheGoodTheBadAndTheLoafhead@earthlin k.net
wrote in message
ink.net...
[x - posted rec.travel.air,alt.support.childfree]

Steve wrote:

Excerpts from http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet


There's a growing storm surrounding British Airways' policy against
seating children next to male strangers, even when the child's parents
are on the same flight. The policy's impetus? The perceived threat of
a man sexually abusing a child.

Recently, a nine-year-old girl on a British Airways flight was moved
from her seat next to a 76-year-old man and his wife. The male
passenger, Michael Kemp, was first asked to switch seats with his
wife, but his wife refused because of a bad leg that required the
added space of an aisle seat. The stewardess ultimately refused to
seat the girl next to Kemp or between the pair, because doing so would
violate British Airways' child-welfare regulations. Once the flap was
publicized, an airline spokesperson said, "We apologise if Mr. Kemp
was offended by our request, but we have to balance the needs of the
child with those of the adult."

Both Air New Zealand and Qantas have adopted a similar policy banning
children from sitting next to male strangers.

The logic of these airlines' policy rests on the greater occurrence of
child sex abuse by men. Men do account for 86% of sexual abuse cases
reported against boys and 94% of cases reported against girls,
according to the US National Center for Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder. But if those statistics were the basis of public policy, we
couldn't have classrooms, sports teams, day care centers or summer
camps led by men.

The memo delivered to children by BA's policy is: Men are scary and
not to be trusted. As Wendy McElroy reasoned, "Kids may hesitate to
approach a policeman or fireman who are, after all, still men. And how
is that message being heard by the boys who will grow into men?"

Not to mention that preventing kids from being seated next to
strangers probably isn't the best way to prevent sexual assault; a
mere 10 percent of child sex-abuse cases are perpetrated by strangers.
The policy is irrational and hysterical; worse yet, it's sexist. As
McElroy writes: "One thing is clear: some airlines are going to treat
your father, husband, and son as sex offenders simply because they are
male."


I think it's a GREAT policy that ALL airlines should adopt, that way I'm
guaranteed NEVER to be seated next to a sniveling brat...


At first I thought "how very dare they" but then I read your reply and
thought of course..."every cloud....". They could extend it to behind and
in front aswell though.

MC

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:10:58 -0000, "MC" wrote:

"Gregory Morrow" gregorymorrowTheGoodTheBadAndTheLoafhead@earthlin k.net

I think it's a GREAT policy that ALL airlines should adopt, that way I'm
guaranteed NEVER to be seated next to a sniveling brat...


At first I thought "how very dare they" but then I read your reply and
thought of course..."every cloud....". They could extend it to behind and
in front aswell though.

As long as I (being the male adult) am not the one ordered to move from my seat. If they don't want kids
seated next to me because I'm a male, then fine, but the burden is on them to seat the kid elsewhere not me!
I recall instances where the adult male is the one ordered (not just "asked") to move. Unacceptable!!!

Personally, I don't mind sitting next to kids as long as they behave themselves. I have no doubt (unlike the
airlines apparently) that I can do the same. But if they don't want to seat kids next to me, so be it - as
long as I'm not the one forced to move.



____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold

At first I thought "how very dare they" but then I read your reply and
thought of course..."every cloud....". They could extend it to behind and
in front aswell though.

MC

Hey, no fair!!!! Surely lone women on airplanes can be dangerous, too,
right? Right???

-Rushlight

OTOH, I'm reminded of the blog of model Elise Sewell: she woke up from a
nap on an airplane, and a male child next to her was copping a feel.

Steve wrote:
Excerpts from http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet


There's a growing storm surrounding British Airways' policy against
seating children next to male strangers, even when the child's parents
are on the same flight. The policy's impetus? The perceived threat of
a man sexually abusing a child.

snip

The memo delivered to children by BA's policy is: Men are scary and
not to be trusted. As Wendy McElroy reasoned, "Kids may hesitate to
approach a policeman or fireman who are, after all, still men. And how
is that message being heard by the boys who will grow into men?"

Not to mention that preventing kids from being seated next to
strangers probably isn't the best way to prevent sexual assault; a
mere 10 percent of child sex-abuse cases are perpetrated by strangers.
The policy is irrational and hysterical; worse yet, it's sexist. As
McElroy writes: "One thing is clear: some airlines are going to treat
your father, husband, and son as sex offenders simply because they are
male."

There is one other sad reality. In our world today if something *did*
happen to a child on a plane the parents would sue the airline blind
and get millions. They are forced to take extraordinary and often
offensive actions just to protect themselves from today's lawyers.

Rushlight wrote:

At first I thought "how very dare they" but then I read your reply and
thought of course..."every cloud....". They could extend it to behind and
in front aswell though.

MC


Hey, no fair!!!! Surely lone women on airplanes can be dangerous, too,
right? Right???


Right. After all, look how dangerous Brittany's kid's mom is.

Rushlight wrote:

At first I thought "how very dare they" but then I read your reply and
thought of course..."every cloud....". They could extend it to behind and
in front aswell though.

MC

Hey, no fair!!!! Surely lone women on airplanes can be dangerous, too,
right? Right???

My wife always asks for a seat away from children and, of course,
usually ends up with some kid spewing down her neck :-) because they
can't guarantee it. I've flown most weeks for almost 4 years now (I
must have done something really bad in a previous life) and I never had
a kid sitting next to me and rarely near me. So maybe airlines quietly
operate such a policy anyway?

I would say that on most flights it would be almost impossible to
arrange anyway. Maybe on long haul you could have zones?

Kids I don't mind so much as the idea of allowing people to use mobile
phones which appears to be gathering momentum. I was asked to fill in
a survey form on a recent flight and made my feelings known and added
in the comments the reason for being against it that I would probably
kill somebody. It's one of the few places you can get away from those
addicts.

Cheers

UD

B Anderson wrote:

I think it's a GREAT policy that ALL airlines should adopt, that way I'm
guaranteed NEVER to be seated next to a sniveling brat...

The next phase of the policy to be rolled out: female passengers will be
required to wet nurse the children sitting next to them.

I sincerely hope there are no airline marketing people here - that has
definite commercial possibilities ;-)

UD