Here’s some follow up to the story from yesterday of “Some Airlines think all Male Passengers are Pedophiles” – it gets worse.
The Week confusingly titles their piece “Barring single men from sitting next to kids on planes”. I assume when they say “single men”, they don’t mean unmarried. They must mean men traveling alone.
But what really pisses me off are the quotes from Qantas and Cynthia Dermody at The Stir. Qantas confirmed the policy and said it “reflects parents’ concerns and the need to maximize the child’s safety and well-being.” Dermody said, “As a parent, I think this policy is an excellent one for protecting kids.”
So they are claiming this policy is in place to protect kids? OK. Fair enough. I have a better policy – DON’T PUT CHILDREN ON PLANES BY THEMSELVES. PROBLEM SOLVED. Why are these parents allowed to pass on their child’s safety to a subset of complete strangers (the employees of the airline) assuming those people aren’t pedophiles yet the airline assumes that a subset of their customers are? And, given that assumption, why the fuck would you have them as customers!?
Why stop there? Why not bar all black men from sitting next to rich white women because they MIGHT steal their jewelry? Or banning all women from sitting next to teenaged boys because they MIGHT have sex with them?
If all men are a danger to children on Qantas, Virgin or British Airways, why not ban them from the gate if children are present? After all, “it’s for the child’s safety”.
Look, I get that some men are despicable animals. Some men should be locked up and the key thrown away. But presupposing that because some men do something, all men are suspect is an offensive and frightening step down a very slippery slope.