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

[vizzle]

There are tons of pedos in well respected positions in society....THATS HOW THEY GET ACCESS to kids in the first place. Just look at the hundreds of thousands of molested kids all over the world who got molested by pedo teachers/workers at their religious schools. A part of society which was at least until recently one of the most respected.


Anyway why are you guys getting mad?

When I worked for my fathers business. (mass-installs electrical-aircons/security systems into large facilities) anytime we had to work at a school area installing stuff there every single one of us had to get "safe to work around kids" cards...youre not even allowed to work at places near kids in australia without that permit.

Working somewhere and getting a special pass is different from doing a common everyday thing (sitting on an airplane) and being singled out just because there are kids next to you.

[Vandexander]

The airline is definitely in the wrong with their policy. It's sexist and discriminatory and unnecessarily over protective. As someone else in this thread said, if the airline distrusts their other passengers that much, they should provide a keeper or at least insure an empty seat next to unaccompanied minors.

That said, I don't understand the anti-feminist comments like:

cant wait to see the feminists come into this discussion and try to justify this bullshit.

How the *^#&^$# does sexism like that have anything to do with feminism? There's just no connection there at all.

[oplawlz]

There are tons of pedos in well respected positions in society....THATS HOW THEY GET ACCESS to kids in the first place. Just look at the hundreds of thousands of molested kids all over the world who got molested by pedo teachers/workers at their religious schools. A part of society which was at least until recently one of the most respected.

Actually the most common pedophiles are, disgustingly enough, relatives and friends of the family. You just think the high profile ones are more common because they're the ones reported on by the media. Uncle touches nephew is less dramatic than priest touches alter boy.

[Shinoashi]

How the *^#&^$# does sexism like that have anything to do with feminism? There's just no connection there at all.

i meant to say feminut. which there is a huge difference between the two.

get over it, it was already cleared up.

[crawdaddy029]

I find blondes (especially heavily tanned ones) to be the embodiment of ugly.

Just cause you don't like a hair color does not mean she is ugly. I love red heads and don't like dark hair but I still think Kate Beckinsale is fucking hot.

[cortelas]

Yes. this is very sexist. even if he was a pedophile, he isn't going to kidnap a child in a crowded plane. the airline was clearly overreacting, and the man suffered because of their ignorance. I hope he has the right to sue the airline.

[Rukentuts]

Just cause you don't like a hair color does not mean she is ugly. I love red heads and don't like dark hair but I still think Kate Beckinsale is fucking hot.

It means I think she's fucking ugly; which I think she is. She could make me flaccid faster than Meg Ryan.

[crawdaddy029]

It means I think she's fucking ugly; which I think she is. She could make me flaccid faster than Meg Ryan.

you just said it was the blond hair. If she died it would she still be ugly?

[Raeion]

so women can't be pedophiles? DAFUQ!!

[Jalfrezi]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-student.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-student.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rage-boys.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-old-boy.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ivals-car.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aces-jail.html


A few articles from this year involving women and minors.


Virgin Airlines = Stupid prices + stupid policies.

[oplawlz]

Yes. this is very sexist. even if he was a pedophile, he isn't going to kidnap a child in a crowded plane. the airline was clearly overreacting, and the man suffered because of their ignorance. I hope he has the right to sue the airline.

Which he probably doesn't, because apparently in Australia you need a special license to be around children (according to the previous poster). I know y'all are upside-down, but I didn't know you were backwards too :P

[kleinlax21]

wrong.

most dont have upstanding positions.

yes, there are cases of this happening, but its not most. never has and never will be.

Agreed. The high-profile Sandusky case skews people's opinions IMO.

OT: Blatantly sexist. I would have moved, in order to cause the stewardess as little trouble as possible, because it's not her policy, and refusing to move would just cause her, myself, and other passengers unnecessary grief. I would have recorded her understanding of the policy and the reasons for making me move seats. I then would have gotten in touch with a civil claims lawyer. Totally unacceptable and discriminatory policy, based on the equal protection clause (in some amendment somewhere) of the Constitution and common fucking decency.

I would like to know whose idea it was to put in place such a policy. If Chick Fil A had a seating section for homosexuals in all of their restaurants in order to "protect the children", the mainstream media would have a fucking on-air orgasm while covering such a story. Despicable

[solvexx]

How the *^#&^$# does sexism like that have anything to do with feminism? There's just no connection there at all.[/QUOTE]

Because being too much of a feminist causes situations like this where Men are treated like second class citizens.

[Uko]

With the sheer amount of red tape you have to go through to get on a plane why don't they just change seats on people before they are on the plane instead of thinking everyone is pedophiles. That way you don't offend anyone and they can have their sexist policy.

[Garnier Fructis]

you just said it was the blond hair. If she died it would she still be ugly?

Do you really take that much offense to someone else's preferences? The guy thinks blonde haired people are ugly. Is he not allowed to decide for himself what he thinks is beautiful or ugly?

[kleinlax21]

Because being too much of a feminist causes situations like this where Men are treated like second class citizens.

I agree. This policy stems from the idea that women are safe to seat near kids, while men are not. I think it's neo-feminism at it's finest. Make no mistake, the original feminists (Abigail Adams, others of the time) never wanted to be placed above men in any way shape or form. This, however, is an example of neo-feminism, whose only commonality with the original and righteous movement is advancing the position of females. Neo-feminists desire to place women above men however, which is clearly in direct contrast with true feminism which seeks equality for all, and we see the consequences of the neo-feminist movement in this policy.

[Nasriel]

While I agree it's a ridiculous policy, it would be even more stupid for him to take the airline to court. What's he going to achieve? Compensation (Yeah right. Not deserved) An apology? (that's fair), the policy changed? (is it worth going to court and huge expenses over? Same goes for previous reason)

While I agree it would have been insulting i'd have been glad to be moved away from the annoying little kids heh

[Tradewind]

It's not sexism when it's a male who's the target.

[Halicia]

If the policy had been on the basis of skin color, there'd be no question about it being discriminatory, but since its based on gender, and the gender is male... apparently its ok.

[Rukentuts]

While I agree it's a ridiculous policy, it would be even more stupid for him to take the airline to court. What's he going to achieve? Compensation (Yeah right. Not deserved) An apology? (that's fair), the policy changed? (is it worth going to court and huge expenses over? Same goes for previous reason)

While I agree it would have been insulting i'd have been glad to be moved away from the annoying little kids heh

Not deserved? How did you arrive at that conclusion?