Men can’t sit next to unaccompanied children on Virgin Airlines Australia, according to the policy handed to firefighter Johnny McGirr.
Whether you spell it “paedophile” or “pedophile,” it’s a dirty word. Yet airlines are calling half their adult customers potential child molesters when they maintain policies preventing unaccompanied minors from being seated next to adult male airline customers. Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow reported on firefighter Johnny McGirr being asked to move from his seat for precisely this reason, after McGirr wrote about it on Rant Nation. A stewardess on the Sydney to Brisbane flight asked a young woman to change places with McGirr because he “wasn’t allowed to sit next to the children. That was the explanation given.”
“It was an uncomfortable situation and I felt ashamed which was a weird feeling because I hadn’t done anything wrong,” McGirr writes.
Doctorow blames the way men are still seen as suspicious in the presence of children on the media repeatedly blaring “stranger danger” news articles when the real danger of child abuse usually lurks in the home, not with a random stranger on a commercial flight. McGirr wonders if internet culture has taken us so far from reality that we no longer recognize what is a genuine threat.
What do you think? Is this a sexist and unfair policy?
About Justin Cascio
British Airways had a similar policy and it took a lawsuit for them to get their minds right (http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/2010/06/i-would-like-to-think-britsh-airways.html). Oh and in the British Airways version the flight would not take off until said “threat” was moved to another seat. So who do you think the passengers would get pissed at for the flight being delayed?
What do you think? Is this a sexist and unfair policy?
Yes and Hell Yes.
Yes.
Not much else to say besides pointing out that Mirko Fischer experienced the same on British Airways in 2010 and succesfully sued them and BA consequently changed their policy.
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/08/british_airways_seating_policy
I worked as cabin crew for many years and yes we had this policy. It was seamless for us unless check in staff had not done their check in correctly. It wouldn’t normally be something a passenger would even know about. You are right it seems un just however the truth is much worse. There have been some sad cases of children being interfered with even accompanied when their parents are next to them but have fallen asleep. I myself had a flight where a female adult woke to her neighbour sexually assaulting her. Airplanes in general seem to make people to strange things! Push PC aside in this case, in this case the crew handled it poorly, but I have and would do it again if ever needed without fear of you being hurt. Sorry but in that situation you and I would both be the adults, and good for you if you want to help me protect the innocent. Think of it that way.
So let me ask.
Yes there are certainly stories of men sexually assaulting women on planes. However the policy isn’t that men should never sit beside women on flights but men shouldn’t sit by children on flights. (And honestly while I can’t say it never happens I’ve never heard of a story of a man assaulting a child on a plane.)
Is there some sort of leap from “some men assault women on planes” to “men will assault children on planes”.
Push PC aside in this case, in this case the crew handled it poorly, but I have and would do it again if ever needed without fear of you being hurt.
Funny thing is when it comes to sexually assaulting children on the ground it seems that women are committing quite a bit of that as well as men (no I’m not trying to say its a 50/50 split but it ain’t the 99.99999999/0.00000001 split that some imply). But I’ve yet to hear of a policy about women not being allowed near children.
Or is this one of those things where when it comes to children it’s okay to presume worst faith all men, even as women get a free pass? I guess when it comes to children political correctness only matters as long as women aren’t being discriminated against.
!!!!Whoah!!!
Would you be able to share what airline, or at least county of original? I know BA had this policy but canned it after it got bad press. I was only aware of Qantas Airlines (also Australian) with a similar policy which they obstinately refused to change. Is this a wide-spread policy in the airline industry -its got to be a patent civil rights violation in the US at least.
…oh and its a bloody shame b/c I’m guessing that the average frequent flyer and/or passengers sitting in the expensive business and 1st class seats probably skew potential-pedophile. So while you and your airline “have and would do it again without fear of me being hurt”, I sure as f*ck won’t be. You can think of it that way.
The problem is some of these airlines are clearly doing this in secrecy and only getting caught when someone in check-in doesn’t “do their job” as our insider friend helpfully pointed out. Can we flush these organizations out and make their practices known? As a frequent flyer, I want to know exactly what I’m buying and who I will never be flying with in the future.
@ Denise
“Push PC aside in this case, in this case the crew handled it poorly, but I have and would do it again if ever needed without fear of you being hurt. Sorry but in that situation you and I would both be the adults, and good for you if you want to help me protect the innocent. Think of it that way.”
How would you feel if that woman you sat next to the kid molested him? I know I’m not going to so how would me moving help you protect the innocent?
Wow….that’s disturbing. Even I don’t look at every adult male as a potential pedo.
Back in the 80s, I flew about 4 times per-week. USAir had table-seats up front. I always requested the table. Sometimes you had to sit facing backward, but hey….a table!
Well that front-zone table area was where they always kept the UAMs. So I frequently (especially around visitation holiday travel) had kids sitting there with me at the tables. Twas no big deal. I had to ward-off the occasional HotWheels car about to take-out my hot coffee, but that was about the worst of it.
Sometimes the kids would depress me with their 1000-yard stare from being constantly shuttled tween coastal parents seeking career nirvana, but that was the exception.
But an airline freaking-out proactively over potential pedos? Why don’t they just keep the kids up front like they use to?
I personally would prefer not to be seated in a plane next to any child & I actually did not take a particular flight from Asia (Manila) to LA, because I was seated next to a noisy 6yr old with his mother on the next seat , I chose to wait 2days & I still think it was worth it because of a bad experience with a noisy child & his mom in the past nevertheless in principal & on equality basis alone in the case of Virgin airlines (Australia) I think enforcing different rules on men then women is indicative of a common ugly bias against men in the west in general.
“Whether you spell it “paedophile” or “pedophile,” it’s a dirty word. Yet airlines are calling half their adult customers potential child molesters…”
Wait, a pedophile is an adult, who is primarily sexually attracted to children, this is a sexual orientation. Neither is a pedophile necessarily a child molester nor is a child molester necessarily a pedophile. Similarly as you do here, Justin, we could use sexual person as a synonym for rapist.
The policy is obviously nuts and it wouldn’t even be debatable, if the group which was discriminated against wouldn’t be seen as a “privileged” one.
Alberich: “Wait, a pedophile is an adult, who is primarily sexually attracted to children, this is a sexual orientation.”
Hell no, Alberich.
Pedophilia is an illness and it should be treated that way. Yes, not all pedophiles are child molestors or predators. However, It’s really pushing it to label something akin to being homosexual.
Eagle34,
I am by no means an expert in human biology, but as far as I know it is debatable, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. See for example:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia
It is commonly seen as an illness, because of the suffering it causes to the pedophile (like not being able to act on your sexual desires and those desires being seen as evil). I agree with you in so far, as I think pedophiles, who look for help to deal with their situation, should be helped like other ill people. But if a pedophile doesn’t want help, there is nothing wrong with him, if he has a conscience and hence doesn’t molest children.
But my main point was: Look what happens here, it is a big deal if the language we use on this site is hurtful or insulting to women, homosexuals and what not, but when it comes to a really severly oppressed group all those good people don’t seem to care.
Feels a little weird to say, but amen.
If we had a proper treatment system in place instead of pushing these people to the fringes of society, there might just be less suffering.
I love this: “Airplanes in general seem to make people to strange things!” – but it’s back to front! People in general do strange things, but people are not normally in a flying sardine tin! The Proximity magnifies the issues.
I’m surprised that it has taken so long for this story to feature. It’s been about for years – just Google “airline unaccompanied minor” to see who is up to what! – Southwest – Delta – US Air – KLM …. the list goes on and on and on and on, and when they get into code shares it gets even more complex – with policies either changing on the fly from one carrier to the other, or long standing issues over one airline requiring the other to adopt a policy they don’t agree with. I remember quite a bit of fun when Continental was bought up by United (2005/6) – Continental said anyone under 18 was UM, United said anyone over 12 could elect to be an adult – parents paid continental for UM services – United Ignored the kids and left them sitting in airports – on planes – missed flights – Customs Officials would not let kids get out of the airports unless accompanied by someone ….. Mayhem! Thank heavens so many kids had their heads screwed on the right way!
Literally every airline has had this men are dangerous to UMs policy and practice in place for years – and it’s hidden in the computer coding for ticket handling – it’s not made public and kept very quiet. You login on-line to book a ticket, specify you are a single male and get told there are not tickets for your chosen flight. Change your sex and find that there are 4 seats, identifying that they are two “Unaccompanied Minors” (UMs) – one seat either side of them. The computer program places the child in the centre seat of three for safety. … so there has been quite a long standing discussion about lone male travellers being discriminated against for the last 15 years or so. There are usually a maximum of 8 seats per flight blocked to lone male travellers – and men in general (even when travelling with others including children).
From the point of view of Data Safety and Privacy it is a loophole that has been raised often! It’s actually dangerous data leakage. Some airlines think that the way to manage this is require that all UM tickets only be booked over the phone, and then deny any data about the flight for the cabin the child is in – and that is usually economy or business classes. You can book tickets on-line, but not a specified seat … unless you do that by phone. You can always identify flights with UM’s on board by the restriction of services to others.
You find the same issues coming up with online check-in and seat choosing. Have a favourite seat – it’s free – click to book it and if you are single male it can be blocked due to the UM in the row – single female no problem ( or female travelling with children, no adult male in the party) … and then you even get the Bumping Issue when the flight is booked – UM’s taking up rows and it’s men who get bumped…. and there has been hell to pay when there have been vacant seats in first class, but many airlines have a policy of no UM’s in that cabin, and single males don’t get upgraded from economy even when they have a valid ticket for the flight. So it’s bump and later flight or re-route.
Some airlines do ask for volunteers to be bumped, and believe it or not some allow UM’s to elect to be bumped, re-routed and even have to deal with the issue of attempting to book a UM into a hotel overnight! That gets interesting when the airline has to have an employee staying with the child … and that is 17 or under! It has been fascinating to read the exploits of certain precocious teens who have elected for the Bump and a night of passion at the airlines expense with members of cabin crew! P^)
Some airlines have policies of not allowing Unaccompanied Minors sitting together, when they do not come from the same family unit … but it’s not clear is that is due to some idea that these children will molest each other! … the way the systems have been programmed does get very perverse.
On the other side – many airlines refuse point blank to carry Unaccompanied Minors – or, only allow direct flights – no red eye flights – no last in the day flights – no connections or only connections within the one airline – and require the child to be collected at the receiving airport at a specified time and in a specified manner …. else the child gets sent back to point of orogin at the expense of the person booking the original ticket. Some airlines do not even allow return tickets to be booked, only allowing two transferable tickets for a round trip – and if you have a connecting flight that ends up as a minimum four separate tickets at sky high prices.
Seen that one happen when a parent fell and broke a leg. They could not not pick up child due to being in the emergency room, and even though immediate arguments were made for the child to be met, and as it were taken into custody, and the parent was co-ordinating this from a hospital bed … the child still got sent back to point of orogin on the next return flight. Pity was, the person who put child on flight was now absent…. and the child had to be sent on a third flight back to where they should have been 24 hours earlier.. Three Transatlantic flights in two days … and no air miles. P^)
The airlines have the idea this makes kids safer. From which we deduce they have the idea that men are a threat to UAM. From where did this idea come? Either they’ve had direct experience with it, or somebody sold it to them. In the latter case, who would that be?
Oh I believe that trying to get to the bottom of that set of questions is a non-starter.
I have spoken to people who travelled as UM’s back in the 20′s and 30′s – flying about the globe to the far reaches of the British Empire – parents working in New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, India, Across Africa and the Caribbean – and it was school holidays. It could take days with many stops, and they flew all over!
I have one friend who used to fly between the UK and Papua New Guinea (Parents worked at Panguna Mine) in the 1970′s/1980′s, and she was booking her own flight tickets at age 11. No issues – she just turned up at Heathrow, got on the flights to Singapore or Darwin in Oz and connected to Port Moresby, and then island hopped over to Bougainvillea …. unaccompanied. No-one batted an eye lid.
The nearest I have come to tracing any form of origins – for BA anyway – is sometime back in the 1990′s – an admission gained by Boris Johnstone (Now Mayor Of London) when he was told he had to move and sit in another part of the plane because the children next to him were potentially at risk. The fact that they were his own kids seemed to have been missed! Starnge But True!
I’ve been looking for some form of airborne incident that can be seen as a trigger, but if there is one it seems to be lost in the mists of time and Private Company Cover Up and Insurance Fears!
“The airlines have the idea this makes kids safer. From which we deduce they have the idea that men are a threat to UAM. From where did this idea come? Either they’ve had direct experience with it, or somebody sold it to them. In the latter case, who would that be?”
If a company paid female employees less than male employees (not even as a matter of policy), would you wonder if they had personal experience with female employees producing less or whether someone else convinced them of it?
This is totally wrong and an outrage to men. I will add one caveat: men watching porn on planes. Sorry to bring that one up again, but the whole men/porn/plane thing makes my blood boil, and since my own daughter at age 8 was seated next to a man watching porn, and a few commenters on this site thought that was ok, I have a VERY strong reaction to that. So, seat random men next to kids on planes. Do not assume they are pedophiles. But the ground rule is NO PORN next to children. Reasonable?
Fair enough. I’m all for not exposing children to porn. I just wish this bullshit about assuming worst faith in men when it comes being near children gets dropped
Lori, you mean “people” watching porn on planes. Appreciate that you recognize the blatant descrimination against men sitting next to UAMs, but then you display the very bigotry and fear of men that such a policy originates from.
Well Lori – I do remember the debate well! But then again, it was triggered by that Supposed Bastion of Supposed Consumer Choice, Michael O’Leary of Riotair … sorry … Ryanair, and his idea of selling porn to passengers in flight.
Odd – but as Riotair is a European business – and European law would make exposing children to porn a sexual offence and prosecutable as child abuse, it was all a publicity stunt – something Riotair is famous for – and as usual Dreary O’Leary succeeded. He also claimed that Riotair was to install standing seats and charge £4.00 per flight – but as was known in advance, the standing seats could not meet international standards for air flights and the 16 G load required for crash testing – and Boeing had to go public and say so. … but everyone was taking about Riotair and if they would stand on a plane for hours or not!
And Riotair have a clear policy on UMs Ryanair does not carry unaccompanied minors under 16 years.” – no matter how much you pay for other add ons, such as having luggage or even checking in. They make most low cost carriers luxurious by comparison. O’Leary is one of the few people who profited from 9/11 – there was such a down turn in flights that many US airlines cancelled orders for 737′s with Boeing … and guess who bought the surplus in the resulting garage sale at rock bottom prices – and proudly bragged about it ever since?
As to your own experience with the porn viewer on a US flight – I would have hit the roof and made sure that the whole cabin knew about his interests and disregard for others! The flight attendant who failed to act was adding to the delinquency of a minor. …. and a camera phone does come in handy for such situations.
@ Lori Day
“But the ground rule is NO PORN next to children.”
I would hope that common sense and decency would be sufficient to stop that and it wouldn’t necessitate a rule, but if others could see the screen, I would have a problem with porn on flights period. I don’t believe that anyone should be subjected to watching porn without their consent. I’m assuming that your daughter was in a position where seeing the porn was not reasonably avoidable. If there isn’t sufficient privacy to prevent other passengers from viewing it, it shouldn’t be allowed.
John, I agree. But I find that when I take that position, I am soon being labeled a frigid, pearl-clutching feminazi by the pro-porn set, and it gets really tiresome, so it was easier to ask if we could agree to not having it next to children. I believe it does not belong on planes or ANY public space, but apparently that position inflames a lot of people, and I get tired of the battle. Thanks for your comment. Some of us have perfectly healthy sex lives and still believe porn does not belong on planes or in other public spaces.
That men are automatically suspect and on the flipside that women are automatically safe. Encourages incorrect threat perception in both adult and children’s minds. as
1. The greatest danger is from the men and women that the child already knows.
2. Defaulting women to be ‘autosafe’ in the same manner that male authority figures were ‘autosafe’, allows abuse like we saw in the scandals of the last 20yrs to go undetected and unprevented(as it is not even consciously acknowledged as a possibility) . Where reporting children were disbelieved because, “it is impossible he interfered with you. Dont you know who he is, he is an [insert authority figure]”
Also, if eyes squint and harden if a man takes his children clothes shopping, or if he wants to teach, or if he wants to be a nursery nurse, or if seating arrangements place him next to an unaccompanied child on a plane – it becomes harder for men to take a larger role in parenting or general mentoring of children. As that type of atmosphere only encourages a greater absence of daytoday male role models in children’s life, as men increase their reluctance to be anywhere near children for fear of being viewed as a child molester
This is a clearly discriminatory policy would never exist if it were directed at women. Ironically, the only case of a child alleging abuse during a flight is of a woman attempting to sexually assault a 14-year-old boy.
Jacob – there is background to that story that brings it’s credibility very much into question. I’m not saying that the incident did not happen, but the court record shows that the case was dropped with no settlement – and there appear to be links to other family members activities.
As a man, I’ve frequently been made to feel unwelcome in the presence of children. If this is the airline’s policy, they should have arranged the seating at the check-in desk so that their male customers wouldn’t have to deal with the airline’s issues.
Some years ago, a young girl in Britain (3yo, iirc) drowned in a pound. A truckdriver said he had seen her wandering around but was afraid to do anything for fear of prosecution. Thing is, if he’d kept her from drowning…she wouldn’t have drowned and his explanations of why her had her by the hand would have seemed thin.
When I’m in public and I see a kid who seems to be in some kind of difficulty, I never approach. I either tell a cop or ask a woman–presuming my wife isn’t with me–to check it out.
This kind of crap keeps people like the Brit truckdriver from helping, but they sure as hell don’t keep the pedos off the kids.
It’s not that men are automatically assumed to be paedophiles; it’s that the safety of the child is more important than the feelings of the adult male.
You are all worried about the adult male’s feelings being hurt.
And nobody appears to be the slightest bit concerned about the fact that paedohiles are overwhelmingly men.
I say that men should put aside their hurt feelings for the greater good, which is to make sure that no paedophile ends up sitting next to a child.
Just a few corrections to make …..
It’s not that men are automatically assumed to be paedophiles; … … well sorry but the urban mythology and supposed received wisdom has been just that for some time.
You are all worried about the adult male’s feelings being hurt. Nice try at dismissal, but it does not work.
No one has said that – but concern as to how the negative mythological stereotypes impacts both men and children has been raised. Your chosen words hark back to the issues of victim blaming – man queries issue – mythology roles out – mythology is questioned – man is told he is wrong and disregard others feelings. It’s a well developed pattern of social manipulation which far too many have caught onto and are immune to!
And nobody appears to be the slightest bit concerned about the fact that paedohiles are overwhelmingly men.
So out comes the “Overwhelming Trope” backed up with unsubstantiated claims of supposed facts!
It’s been interesting to see some changes over the years. I remember when the Trope was only men were domestically violent/abusive. Research in that area debunked the myth and showed the gender parity – over 20 years ago!
It was interesting how research showed how Modus Operandi differed with gender, and also how mythology both caused people to jump to conclusions that were wrong, but also how some exploited the Mythology as part of the Modus Operandi.
Then some very brave and inquisitive types asked a simple question “If that Urban Myth and Presumed Fact was so wrong, are there others that are equally wrong?”.
It’s been fascinating to see so many supposed facts debunked over the decades – where there is gender parity is domestic abuse/violence – sexual abuse/assault has also been found to be gender neutral and parity – and as the question of child safety and sexual assault, including Pedophila, gets looked at it’s fascinating but those stats just keep climbing and are heading for that Parity Plateau as well!
So – please – when you claim facts, at least attempt to get some of them right! So many do grasp how some do need to be weaned into reality and also how the political Staus Quo needs to be shifted over time to save a lot of face for those who have been munching Tropes and regurgitating them ad nausea.
Your passion is admirable – but the execution does need a great deal more homework and also will have to deal with reality!
Before 1984, it was assumed that women couldn’t possibly, physically and psychologically be pedophiles. They weren’t studied as perpetrators, ever.
Assume something doesn’t exist…and then claim it’s not an issue. Yes, that’s science, right?
I mean, we still think chemical castration is the number one effective cure for pedophilia…must work wonder on women.
… and of course the It’s only men assumes (oh so wrongly) that all paedophiles are over the age of 18!
It’s fascinating how age gets played out, and how the assumptions that a person of legal status “Child” can’t be a paedophile also gets bandied about with great abandon. So some should consider that sitting children next to children is also a gross danger in flight!
One has to wonder how some would react to a person positing the view that all women over the age of 40 are not to be trusted around young males? I saw a film with Mrs Robinson, so it has to be true? … and that Gabrielle Solís (née Marquez) was it it too with her under-age gardener in Desperate Housewives!
Odd – but it seems that prime time TV romanticises some ideas and panders to the mythology! I do have to wonder what would have been the reaction if it was Carlos Solís stumping the babysitter – or even the hunky gardener for that matter?
It’s funny – but you always know when the mythology has penetrated deeply and been accepted, because people joke about it and find it funny …. even in flight! Paedophile On A Plane, Circa 1980 – Hilarious?
I say that men should put aside their hurt feelings for the greater good, which is to make sure that no paedophile ends up sitting next to a child.
Since MediaHound has addressed the rest of your comment quite nicely I’ll just come in right here.
You say that the greater good is making sure that no child molester ends up sitting next to a child right?
Take a look at this story. Based on your line of logic we should want to keep both of them from sitting next to a child right? But one is a man and one is a woman so this policy would only protect the child from one of the abusers….
Thank you, voice of reason.
What’s reasonable about sitting a female pedophile next to a child?
” it’s that the safety of the child is more important than the feelings of the adult male.”
No, I think I’m totally with you on this one. I’m just saying we should weigh all the facts when we consider the safety and well-being of the child. Maybe men are more likely to be pedophiles, but also maybe men are also more likely to be scientific or artistic geniuses; he’s certainly more likely to have won a nobel prize -perhaps he can impart some memorable wisdom on my child during the flight. A strange man is also more likely to be a person of power and wealth in our society, perhaps he can open a few doors for my child he may not otherwise enjoy. And, if there’s an emergency on the flight, a man is far more likely to place himself in danger to save my child.
So I totally agree with you, we should have policies that consider the maximum safety and well-being of a child on a plane -I just wish they would make the arrangements during check-in in secrecy. But if the occasional women becomes deeply offended that she is being asked to move away from a UAM so a man may take her seat as a probable better provider and protector for the child, then so be it.
I just say that women should put aside their hurt feelings for the greater good.
how long do you think it’ll be before this policy forces an airline to move a minority male away from a white child.
One wonders whose excrement will hit the oscillator first.
Oh and by the way society can’t simultaneously be in favor of policies like this, and complain that men don’t help with childcare enough. It’s one or the other, not both.
paedophiles should be locked up and the key thrown away at the very least! sure more acts of paedophilia are caused by men than by women, but to discriminate against all men based on the acts of what must be a miniscule percentage of the male population is unjustifiable and outright offensive. what next: single men can’t use the bus if an unaccompanied child is on it? single men must detour half a block around kindergartens? single men can’t enjoy some quiet time in a park by themselves?
as for virgin and their poorly thought out policy, the answer is simple: just don’t fly virgin! I won’t.
I am a man with 2 daughters and think this is a great policy. I have no problem moving for this reason. Even if you stick me right next to the bathroom! I keep hearing discriminatory. Really? I read a story 4 or 5 years back about men, not women, molesting girls and women on flights. The odds are staggeringly higher for a man to molest before a woman does. This is a case of profiling that should be adhered to. GOOD JOB VIRGIN!!! They have been my favorite airline up to now, and they keep raising the bar higher in my opinion! This is a case of damned if you do damned if you don’t. The same people will complain when they are seated next to loud children!
The reason people are saying discriminatory is because it’s not just playing the odds that men are more likely to harm children. No such a policy takes the odds and uses them as backup to presume worst faith in all men.
And for some odd reason it seems that such discrimination (in the realm of gender) is okay when it’s being done to men.
If an airline really wanted to “protect children” then why not reserve a few seats near the back of the plan next to the attendant staff? (Such seating would only be reserved when there are actual unaccompanied minors on board, otherwise they can be regular seats.)
Someone above mentioned a story of a child being harmed by a woman on a flight. Not a man. A woman.
But no, it’s just men that need to be dealt with right? I thought this was about protecting children from harm. Apparently it’s “protecting children from harmful men”.
(Because seriously how far would a similar policy go if it were pointed at, well just about any other group of people on the planet.)
If forcing a certain action on every member of a group because of the actions of a few members of that group is legit, we have a really great place we don’t want “to go there”.
If airlines were truly concern about the protection of the unaccompanied minor, they’d take a hit on the seat next to that child and seat no one there. Bam!