Sexist Airline removes man from sitting men from sitting next to Kid(s)

[DisposableHero]

Actually...
No. This type of sexism is caused by misogyny and sexism against women in our past.

You see, patriarchy states that women are weaker, therefore unable, therefore not dangerous. It states that men are powerful, therefore dangerous, therefore monsters by default.

Feminism didn't do this to men. Patriarchy did.

No actually, the demonization and culture of shame placed upon masculine traits (which patriarchy venerates and glorifies) is an effect of neo-feminism. Patriarchy celebrates traits that define masculinity such as physical prowess, stoicism, reliability, and level-headedness and feminism was about the absence of rights that should have been afforded by society to women. Neo-feminism is about the advancement of women at the expense of men and it is predicated on producing a culture where young men are taught to be ashamed of their desires, their physical abilities, and they are culturally conditioned to believe themselves strictly inferior to women and to only find fulfillment in servitude to women. It is an abominable mutation of what true and noble feminism was about, and it is ruining society and generations of young men through the creation of unconstitutional and discriminatory laws and policies like the Virgin Airlines policy being discussed.

Furthermore an absence of women's rights in the modern patriarchal era when feminism rose to combat inequalities was not misogyny. Misogyny is the hatred of women, and even in cases where women were heavily discriminated against, the emotional underpinnings are a lack of respect and belittling or even a fear of change but not hatred. Patriarchy celebrates the abilities of men, and while it places unfairly low value on the abilities of women it does not teach a culture of hatred towards them. Misogyny is a neo-feminist buzz word designed to make young men ashamed of their masculinity. It is designed paint women as victims of men in all of their dealings, and paint distinctly masculine traits as the tools of that victimization.

This mistreatment of men by labeling them as monsters, criminals, and rapists is complete the construct of neo-feminism trying to improve the status of women at the expense of men.

[Palmatum]

Whether you agree or disagree, the logic the airline is employing is used to form countless policies. It's a very slapstick way of reducing risk.

The Red Cross takes the same approach when it comes to whether or not you're eligible to donate blood. If you're a man who's had sex with another man even once since 1978, you're outright banned from giving blood. It doesn't matter if your medical record indicates that you've never contracted any STD, let alone HIV, you're still banned.

Policies like this are ultimately easier to enforce, as they require no background checks or individual investigations. People are just put into high level buckets and treated with a broad brush.

So should Muslims be handcuffed at the back just incase they try and pull a fast one?

[Simulacrum]

If the vast majority of rapists are male, there's nothing sexist about taking precautions against unknown males possibly committing rape.

Just like there's nothing sexist about taking precautions against women murdering their children, right?

Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be alone with them without a man present. 'Cuz they kill their own children way more than men do.

Who cares if the practical risk is nilch, the relative risk is huge!

[edit] Nevermind situations that are more likely to happen in everyday like, like how women are much less likely to put effort into their jobs than men are, so by your logic there'd be "nothing sexist" about discriminating in favour of promoting men because they're statistically more likely to preform better, especially as they get older.

I don't think you understand what sexism means.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Now that I think about it, if someone tried to move me like that for an idiot reason, I'd have said "ok, I'm sure you have a first class seat available for me."

[vizzle]

If the vast majority of rapists are male, there's nothing sexist about taking precautions against unknown males possibly committing rape.

The vast majority of terrorists are Muslims, should all Muslims be given special precautionary rules too? Because that's your logic.

[mmochamp7280]

Pedophilia - sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, its Child sexual abuse.
Hebephilia - primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents,
Ephebophilia - mid-to-late adolescents (15–19),

you've provided clinical definitions
the law generally doesn't care about that though
there is no statistical data for pedo/hebe/ephebophilia split between categories

i'd appreciate if you could either advance this discussion with something that i haven't previously discussed (especially considering you quoted me)
or just refrain from participating
i'll be the first to admit, i'm not qualified to discuss everything on mmo-champion
i am qualified to educate you younger people who are driven by emotions on this subject though

[MerinPally]

That's disgusting. My guild member is a single male and is over the age of 35. He used to work with children aged like 2-6 as a kindergarten teacher sort of thing over in Finland, and now has moved back to his native sweden and works with similar age children who have mental issues like really severe autism. The man speaks fluent swedish, finnish and english and has worked with children the majority of his adult life and is clearly intelligent and understands children and they like him as much as he likes working with kids. Would he not be allowed to sit next to them on a plane? Going by how shortsighted their policy is, the answer would be no, but I can't imagine anyone I would rather sit next to any of my future kids (apart from close family) than him.

Severly discriminatory, take them to court.

[FathomFear]

So should Muslims be handcuffed at the back just incase they try and pull a fast one?

As I stated before, I don't agree with slapstick approach to policy making. I was just explaining why it occurs. Companies and organizations get lazy and do it to cut corners and save money. And they usually do it when they think they can get away with it with minimal backlash.

[mmochamp7280]

The vast majority of terrorists are Muslims, should all Muslims be given special precautionary rules too? Because that's your logic.

that's not the same because a terrorist to me isn't a terrorist to the other country
in the 70s the world's worst terrorist organization, according to the CIA, was a US organization

terrorism is one of those classifications that has no real boundaries or rules
terrorism is more about feeling than fact
terrorism is a form of warfare that those affected frown upon

but what kind of warfare makes you smile?

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Now that I think about it, if someone tried to move me like that for an idiot reason, I'd have said "ok, I'm sure you have a first class seat available for me."

Oh this so much. You want to move me out of the seat I paid for, you had better bump me up to business or first class.

[Theodon]

If the vast majority of rapists are male, there's nothing sexist about taking precautions against unknown males possibly committing rape.

That would make sense if the vast majority of males were rapists but they aren't. If you treat any male as a potential rapist then you are subscribing to that logic, not the one you've posted.

[Simulacrum]

As I stated before, I don't agree with slapstick approach to policy making. I was just explaining why it occurs. Companies and organizations get lazy and do it to cut corners and save money. And they usually do it when they think they can get away with it with minimal backlash.

Pretty sure that's why there are laws against it.

Not that everybody follows them.

[JohnBrown1917]

you've provided clinical definitions
the law generally doesn't care about that though
there is no statistical data for pedo/hebe/ephebophilia split between categories

i'd appreciate if you could either advance this discussion with something that i haven't previously discussed (especially considering you quoted me)
or just refrain from participating
i'll be the first to admit, i'm not qualified to discuss everything on mmo-champion
i am qualified to educate you younger people who are driven by emotions on this subject though

Could you stop acting like a idiot? its annoying.

Pedophilia is not against the law, most countries have a thing called the "age of consent". People get locked up because of that. Not because they are pedo''s.
Pedophilia is not a crime. Stop being a idiot and understand the difference between Abuse, the age of consent, and pedophilia.

[holyforce]

Now that I think about it, if someone tried to move me like that for an idiot reason, I'd have said "ok, I'm sure you have a first class seat available for me."

I would try this, but then again, I don't wanna get them upset and wind up with a cavity search by the biggest handed TSA officer on the planet....

[vizzle]

that's not the same because a terrorist to me isn't a terrorist to the other country
in the 70s the world's worst terrorist organization, according to the CIA, was a US organization

terrorism is one of those classifications that has no real boundaries or rules
terrorism is more about feeling than fact
terrorism is a form of warfare that those affected frown upon

but what kind of warfare makes you smile?

What are you even saying? That perspectives change over time, and thus terrorists can't be compared to this? In the 50s racism was different too, that doesn't mean it's right now.

[kojinshugi]

Like say, someone keeping an eye on them instead of accusing the passenger of being a potential pedophile?

Both are precautions taken due to the individual's gender.

Their motivations are not so much sexist as they're a ludicrous overreaction to a nearly nonexistent risk.

If there's anything sexist here it's that if it were a visible minority publicly shamed in such a manner, the entire world would react by shitting a brick.

[Wiyld]

that's not the same because a terrorist to me isn't a terrorist to the other country
in the 70s the world's worst terrorist organization, according to the CIA, was a US organization

terrorism is one of those classifications that has no real boundaries or rules
terrorism is more about feeling than fact
terrorism is a form of warfare that those affected frown upon

but what kind of warfare makes you smile?

Right back at ya.

We've already asked you what if the airline had decided all the black folks had to sit at the back of the plane under additional surveillance?

Statistically in the US African Americans are convicted of more crimes then other races, therefor they could use the same illogical type of statistics to justify that kind of ruling and hey cool, there aren't any issues with boundaries or classifications. Its simple, if your black, your at the back!

Oh and way to try to throw the entire conversation off by asking about warfare, because that's ENTIRELY relevant right?

[Nos]

hmm perhaps, but i think they probably do have the right. i don't doubt that they get many requests from both men and women, particularly ones from orthodox religions, to sit beside people of their own gender all the time. all sorts of companies have discriminatory practices, heck even assigning a doctor to a person based on their gender preference is discriminatory, but it happens regularly, and its not illegal. discrimination usually has to break a law to be illegal, and no laws were broken, virgin was already within their rights to arrange his seating. this is why i feel his case would not get off the ground.

Wait... What?

o-O' Last time I checked, the Amish don't fly on airplanes. What religious people have /you/ been around? All the time? Really?

And doctors can be selected based on gender, for a basic reason: comfort. That is what hospitals are about 100%. You can select your doctor based on race. You are allowed to refuse to let someone work on you no matter what your logic. Does that make your logic right? No. Especially not on the race part. However, on the gender part, it makes more sense. Not because "Oh! I don't think a /woman/ doctor would do as good of a job." But because of insecurities. For checkups and other various types of doctor visits that involve you getting naked, a lot of people have a justified preference. My wife will only go to female gynecologists. My mother will only go to male ones. I don't like to have my checkup done by female doctors. For anything else, I don't have a problem with it. It has nothing to do with competency, and everything to do with comfort.

[Lazy Gecko]

I think the bigger problem is two 8-10-year-olds flying on a plane alone.

Maybe the parents were removed from the seats as well, since statistically children are more likely to be molested by family members!

[FathomFear]

It is an abominable mutation of what true and noble feminism was about, and it is ruining society and generations of young men through the creation of unconstitutional and discriminatory laws and policies like the Virgin Airlines policy being discussed.

I think you're complicating this issue and twisting it just so you can get on a soapbox to complain about feminism. Men are not the only people who fall victim to these kinds of policies. The ultimate problem is that companies and organizations tend to want black/white policies that are easy to enforce and avoid administrative costs like background checks. It's the same reason why a gay man can have the cleanest medical record imaginable and yet he still can't donate blood. Or you can be pass all the physical and psychological tests and still be denied a front-line position in the U.S. military if you're a woman.

This kind of thing happens all the time. Individuals get screwed just because they happen to share the same race/gender/sexuality of a larger group that is generally deemed as unworthy or high risk.

The focus here should be on making companies accountable to making policies that are more accurate and individualized.