Anti-Male Discrimination on Flights (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

Air New Zealand and Qantas have banned men from sitting next to unaccompanied children on flights, sparking accusations of discrimination.

The airlines have come under fire for the policy that critics say is political correctness gone mad after a man revealed he was ordered to change seats during a Qantas flight because he was sitting next to a young boy travelling alone.

Auckland man Mark Worsley says an air steward approached him after take-off on the Christchurch to Auckland flight and told him to change seats with a women sitting two rows in front. The steward said it was the airline's policy that only women were allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children.

"At the time I was so gobsmacked that I moved. I was so embarrassed and just stewed on it for the entire flight."

The 37-year-old shipping manager, who has 2-year-old twins, followed the incident up with the airline and was told Qantas wanted to err on the side of caution.

"I felt that it was totally discriminatory. Besides the point of what the hell was I going to do on a crowded flight."

The incident, which happened a year ago, irked Mr Worsley so much that he recently contacted National Party political correctness eradicator Wayne Mapp.

Dr Mapp told the Herald the airlines' policy was an example of political correctness that had got out of hand.

"I think this is a gross over-reaction by the airlines. What do they think men are going to do that women won't? It is the same as saying men shouldn't sit beside children on a bus."

A Qantas spokesman confirmed the Australian airline, which operates domestic flights in New Zealand, does not allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men. The spokesman said the airline believed it was what customers wanted.

Air New Zealand spokeswoman Rosie Paul said the airline had a similar policy to that of Qantas'.

"Airlines are temporary guardians of unaccompanied minors so we have preferred seating for them."

Ms Paul said Air New Zealand tried to seat children near a crew area so crew could keep an eye on them and, when possible, children were seated next to an empty seat.

"Sometimes this isn't possible, so the preference is to seat a female passenger next door to an unaccompanied minor."

When the Herald asked her if the airline considered male passengers to be dangerous to children, Ms Paul replied: "That's not what I said."

When it was put to her that that was the implication of the policy, she repeated: "No, that's not what I said."

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she commended the airlines for putting thought into the policy and for endeavouring to keep children safe.

Dr Kiro said she did not think it was intended to be a slur against men.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10357510



Does anyone else find this as ridiculous as I do?

 

[Generator]

Yes, I do, especially when the airline fails to enforce the policy prior to take off, consequently subjecting someone to a considerable degree of embarrassment by asking them to move in front of the other passengers. However, what makes it worse is that it assumes the worst of all men (despite the good intentions and the comments to the contrary, that's the message that is being broadcast to all).

However, despite it being discriminatory, I think that in a sense it it may also be of benefit. I for one wouldn't want to sit next to a an unaccompanied child on a plane, so provided that I am not publicly embarrassed as some have been, I would be more than happy to let a woman (preferably childless) suffer .

 

[neo o]

"A guy, regardless of how he has been raised ... finding a female in a real vulnerable situation ... in some conditions rapes her." - Thornhill

To be honest, that policy sounds even dumber than David Jones Castle Hill's policy of requesting men to leave the foyers of unisex changerooms (posted earlier).

 

[erawamai]

Silly policy on all counts.

 

[Xayma]

I agree with generator.

Except I believe the policy should be changed to all unrelated children.

 

[ice_wind]

"A guy, regardless of how he has been raised ... finding a female in a real vulnerable situation ... in some conditions rapes her." - Thornhill

To be honest, that policy sounds even dumber than David Jones Castle Hill's policy of requesting men to leave the foyers of unisex changerooms (posted earlier).

yeah, even the best of guys in a war zone will rape women...its why so many rapes were committed by otherwise family japanese-men in china...many were doctors or reputable people back home...its human nature...

besides...with all the pedophaelia and even priests that do it...children need extra protection

 

[Phanatical]

Oh, that's ridiculous. Men are no more or less capable of self-restraint than women. A man seated next to an unaccompanied child is NO MORE DANGEROUS than a woman in the same position, and anybody who suggests otherwise is full of shit.

 

[midnight_magick]

I think it's plain stupid and just twisted logic. They're wanting to protect children, which is all very well but at the same time innocent men are being wrongly targeted. They should find other better, non- discriminatory ways. And who said women can't be pedophiles too?

 

[loquasagacious]

I think the policy is misguided and its application clearly flawed.

eg if the policy really was necessary then it would be more logical to simply allocate the seats to take it into account in that way passengers would never realise what was going on....

 

[Serius]

if it happened to me i would raise a fuss, start yelling and maybe throwing things, chuck in words like racism, discrimination, flawed policy etc. Not because its a big hassle to move, and who wants to sit next toi a child qanyway, but because it implies that iam more dangerous to a child than a woman... what a load of shit... yeah like an 18yr old is going to be more upseting or less tolerant of a child than some older woman.
Then i would refuse to fly their airline, and contact people i know to take it further... probably some sort of legal action resulting in me becoming a millionaire

 

[ogmzergrush]

I agree that this is ridiculous, but I see potential for it to turn into something very positive for males.

As we all know, a significant amount of abuse occurs within families, so I think males should *never* sit next to children on any flight whatsoever, be they related or otherwise. Similarly, it should make no difference whether the child is supervised or not. To this end, I think children under the age of eighteen should travel with the luggage.

Truly a milestone in policy

 

[TerrbleSpellor]

I believe that QANTAS is ridiculous in implementing this policy. If a child is abused, we have courts to deal with that, and they can enforce MASSIVE deterents, like.. A 2 DAY PRISON SENTENCE :uhhuh:

 

[poloktim]

It's pretty pathetic. Especially on a public flight. Qantas and Air New Zealand are fuckers. Discriminatory fuckers. Maybe it's about time men fought back for their rights.

 

[ogmzergrush]

If the policy is to be applied it should be applied equally to men and women. The presumption that men more likely to do something to kids sitting on their own on a packed plain is not backed by factual evidence. Rather just the perception that all child molesters are male.

heh heh, you said plain!

 

[erawamai]

heh heh, you said plain!

digitally manipulated!

 

[neo o]

yeah, even the best of guys in a war zone will rape women...its why so many rapes were committed by otherwise family japanese-men in china...many were doctors or reputable people back home...its human nature...

besides...with all the pedophaelia and even priests that do it...children need extra protection

PS: My post was a joke.

 

[katie_tully]

I sat next to a guy I didn't know when I was 12, from Orange to Brisbane. He was fine, infact he gave me his mars bar because he didn't eat chocolate.

Anyway, you'd think that due to the recent outings of female sex offenders, airlines would be more careful to make the laws adhere to both sexes. Silly, silly rule.

 

[Phanatical]

It's just one example of many, of discrimination against men in our society. Discrimination against women is ILLEGAL (as in, enshrined in law), but not so against men. There is no legal basis for a male to claim discrimination on the basis of gender.

 

[katie_tully]

You guys do not protest enough. Obviously you cannot burn bras in defience of oppression, but you have jock straps or something right?

 

[erawamai]

Discrimination against women is ILLEGAL (as in, enshrined in law), but not so against men. There is no legal basis for a male to claim discrimination on the basis of gender.

I don't believe the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 differentiates between men and women. In fact most Australian legislation is gender neutral where possible.

SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984
- SECT 5
Sex discrimination

(1)For the purposes of this Act, a person (in this subsection referred to as the discriminator) discriminates against another person (in this subsection referred to as the aggrieved person) on the ground of the sex of the aggrieved person if, by reason of:

(a) the sex of the aggrieved person;

...that said, it's pretty clear that the policy of Air NZ is wrong.