Virgin Australia has been accused of treating male passengers like paedophiles

[Moody]

If you were flying alone, and somehow found an 11-year old girl in the seat next to yours, after having preselected your seat months out, or however length of time, and an FA then came up to you after everyone else had boarded and was also sitting down and announced rather loudly that you weren't allowed to sit next to this girl, without explaining why, would you be happy with the airline?

You might accept that the girls parents wouldn't want you sat next to her, and be happy to move, but would you be so happy to be branded so publicly as a deviant, by the cabin crew? Would you just suck it up and continue to fly them as if they hadn't labeled you, in front of a whole bunch of strangers, with no recourse?

I would have absolutely no problem with being moved (as long as the new seat was roughly equivalent) and would not for a single minute worry that other passengers would think me to be a deviant. In my experience people are stupid, but not quite that stupid. Then again ...

 

[mannej]

I would have absolutely no problem with being moved (as long as the new seat was roughly equivalent) and would not for a single minute worry that other passengers would think me to be a deviant. In my experience people are stupid, but not quite that stupid. Then again ...

To counter your belief about one protesting too much, it would seem the courts also disagree. The man in question donated the costs to a Child Protection agency.

BBC News - BA seat policy made man 'feel like a child molester'

 

[samh004]

I would have absolutely no problem with being moved (as long as the new seat was roughly equivalent) and would not for a single minute worry that other passengers would think me to be a deviant. In my experience people are stupid, but not quite that stupid. Then again ...

What if the seat wasn’t roughly equivalent? It’s a full flight after all, and the airline hasn’t made sure the UM is sat alone/away from men, so now they’ve offering you a seat in the very last row, where ironically the UM would be, but they’ve decided to give him the seat next to yours, at the front.

What then?

 

[anat0l]

What if the seat wasn’t roughly equivalent? It’s a full flight after all, and the airline hasn’t made sure the UM is sat alone/away from men, so now they’ve offering you a seat in the very last row, where ironically the UM would be, but they’ve decided to give him the seat next to yours, at the front.

What then?

Well, like another person who has been discussed quite a bit on this forum, you could offload yourself and suggest to the pilot to tell everyone the reason for the delay.

 

[Blackadder]

Sadly sexual abuse is predominantly perpetrated by males. Maybe when we stop doing it the airlines will have no need of this policy.

I can't believe the tripe that is being put up as arguments against this policy. Somewhere between a quarter to a third of all children will be subject to sexual abuse before adulthood, with the range of offences including non-contact abuse. Yes - most of these occur in the home or other private dwellings and most of them are perpetrated by a person known to the child, but certainly not all. An airline that promises a parent/guardian that they will minimise the risks for unaccompanied minors is behaving responsibly IMHO. If my 11-year-old daughter was travelling alone I would certainly want this policy enforced.

As for male passenger being asked to move on-board .... it is possibly inconvenient and annoying (particularly if the replacement seat is inferior in the eyes of the passenger), but a reason to sue the airline or never fly with it again????? My reaction to this is that I would have serious, serious concerns about that sort of person. To repeat a common mis-quote :- "Methinks thou dost protest too much".

Can you use some stats to show these occur by males, or is it simply trotting out the usual media stories?.
What happens when an airline follows this policy and the minor is assualted by a female? Do they just say well we took a duty of care because most incidents are by males.

 

[farstar]

Sadly sexual abuse is predominantly perpetrated by males. Maybe when we stop doing it the airlines will have no need of this policy.

I can't believe the tripe that is being put up as arguments against this policy. Somewhere between a quarter to a third of all children will be subject to sexual abuse before adulthood, with the range of offences including non-contact abuse. Yes - most of these occur in the home or other private dwellings and most of them are perpetrated by a person known to the child, but certainly not all. An airline that promises a parent/guardian that they will minimise the risks for unaccompanied minors is behaving responsibly IMHO. If my 11-year-old daughter was travelling alone I would certainly want this policy enforced.

As for male passenger being asked to move on-board .... it is possibly inconvenient and annoying (particularly if the replacement seat is inferior in the eyes of the passenger), but a reason to sue the airline or never fly with it again????? My reaction to this is that I would have serious, serious concerns about that sort of person. To repeat a common mis-quote :- "Methinks thou dost protest too much".

It is silly to say we the way you have as it implies all males do it including yourself. I have never done it. Such sweeping statements do not help your argument.

 

[Moody]

It is silly to say we the way you have as it implies all males do it including yourself. I have never done it. Such sweeping statements do not help your argument.

This is really getting ridiculous. There is a plethora of evidence that most sexual abusers are male and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. If you are not going to accept these facts then [self redacted to prevent the whole post being removed by the thought police]. If you read my post carefully I neither say that ALL sexual predators are male or that ALL males are sexual predators. That interpretation is something for you and your analyst to work on.

And if this policy is going to offend you then I am not sure how you will even make the plane. I mean how DARE they accuse you of being a terrorist by x-raying your carry-on and making you dump your liquids. I bet you don't even have a beard or fly under the name Ahmed. Go and sue the airlines for this defamation - it will make my day!

 

[mannej]

This is really getting ridiculous. There is a plethora of evidence that most sexual abusers are male and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. If you are not going to accept these facts then [self redacted to prevent the whole post being removed by the thought police]. If you read my post carefully I neither say that ALL sexual predators are male or that ALL males are sexual predators. That interpretation is something for you and your analyst to work on.

And if this policy is going to offend you then I am not sure how you will even make the plane. I mean how DARE they accuse you of being a terrorist by x-raying your carry-on and making you dump your liquids. I bet you don't even have a beard or fly under the name Ahmed. Go and sue the airlines for this defamation - it will make my day!

What does the LAGS have to do with it? That policy doesn't discriminate as it applies to all passengers.

The policy we are discussing is a discriminatory policy that does not have place in this society. I still don't know how you can call the counter argument to yours tripe or ridiculous?

 

[dnoze]

i was going to come on here and post a big rant about how this is absolutely sexist and sick policy, but instead I would ask the members here who support this measure to take a good long hard look at themselve in the mirror, and just think "would I like to be labled as potentially 'something' so evil simply because of my gender?"

Virgin haven't labelled anyone anything. It's their plane, and they simply don't want you to sit in that particular seat.

I do find it interesting that society has jumped onto the bandwagon of a fireman who got upset, rather than think about the child's comfort level at flying alone.
But the problem was with the fact the seating of the UM hadn't been sorted prior to boarding.

 

[harvyk]

This is really getting ridiculous. There is a plethora of evidence that most sexual abusers are male and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. If you are not going to accept these facts then [self redacted to prevent the whole post being removed by the thought police]. If you read my post carefully I neither say that ALL sexual predators are male or that ALL males are sexual predators. That interpretation is something for you and your analyst to work on.

And if this policy is going to offend you then I am not sure how you will even make the plane. I mean how DARE they accuse you of being a terrorist by x-raying your carry-on and making you dump your liquids. I bet you don't even have a beard or fly under the name Ahmed. Go and sue the airlines for this defamation - it will make my day!

Yes, a majority but not all of sexual abusers are men, but it does not mean by any stretch of the imaginatin that all men are abusers, and yet any policy which does not allow men to sit next to UM, but at the same time has no problem in allowing women for sitting there is stating that "we don't trust that your safe to be around be ause you are male"

As for comparing security to this issue, what if security let all white people past without any sort of security screening, and yet did not allow people of arab background through? By the logic you have employed this is exactly what security screening should be doing, because remember any degree of risk is just unacceptible, and stereotyping makes for good solid policy, right?

Finally, can you actually point to any real statistics that UM are infact at a significantly higher risk whilst sitting on a plane, can you point to any actual cases where a UM has actually been assulted on a plane? Because unless you can actually show me some stats, I will refuse to believe that a child is in any more danger by sitting next to an adult male. I mean real stats, not just 18% chance of been sexually assulted at some stage in their life and of that 13% chance it was by a stranger wishy washy stats that the "won't somebody think of the children" groups like to trot out.

As far as I'm concerned, I am not going to start teaching my kids that all males are potential threats and should be avoided at all costs without some seriouly good stats to prove that point.

Whilst anecdotal I know, I have had two friends confide in me that they where sexually assulted when they where children. In each case it was from a trusted family member who abused that trust, not from a stranger who they simply met in a public place.

 

[harvyk]

Virgin haven't labelled anyone anything. It's their plane, and they simply don't want you to sit in that particular seat.

I do find it interesting that society has jumped onto the bandwagon of a fireman who got upset, rather than think about the child's comfort level at flying alone.
But the problem was with the fact the seating of the UM hadn't been sorted prior to boarding.

I think it would be a terrible world to live in where we feel the need to tell children that adult men are not to be trusted. How do you think that would make little boys feel when they realise that society is going to look at them as potential monsters when they grow up.

 

[Alanslegal]

You're fighting a losing argument moody ... and clearly your opinions that men generally do bad deeds are clearly outdated and way behind our modern times. I will now go find myself a rusty butter knife and poke them into my thighs, clearly that would be less painful than reading your stereotype on men.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Does that mean we herd all men into one corner of the plane...

Dream come true......I wouldn't have to listen to that incessant "sheila" chatter! I get enough of that at home, I can do without it on a plane!

 

[dnoze]

I think it would be a terrible world to live in where we feel the need to tell children that adult men are not to be trusted. How do you think that would make little boys feel when they realise that society is going to look at them as potential monsters when they grow up.

Who is telling them that? Certainly not me, i never said that, and don't try and put words in my mouth.
You are the one who is perpetuating that men are abusers blah blah blah.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I haven't read through all eight pages, so I regret any duplication of sentiment but I say get over it. Who really cares if we have to move seats in row 27 (as far as I remember, UMs get the back of the plane).

Reality is, phedaphiles are predominantly guys. It's sad, it's despicable, it's a slur on the male gender but it's true! The realty here is that the only gender being discriminated against are the women.......they're the ones being stereotypically cast as "suitable" seat-shares with the screamers....errrr. I mean, kids! Most of the travel-alone kids are exceptionally well behaved, so it's not a real issue but VA would be amiss if they didn't canvass the possibilities. To all the guys who think we're being cast as phedaphiles..........get a life. We're treated the same and as a parent, I appreciate that VA are at least thinking of their charges. Congratulations for such dedication. To the ladies who get seated next to a screamer..........stiff, come back in the after-life as a guy!


(Note.........some of my comment is tongue in cheek)

 

[eosphoros]

This is really getting ridiculous. There is a plethora of evidence that most sexual abusers are male and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. If you are not going to accept these facts then [self redacted to prevent the whole post being removed by the thought police]. If you read my post carefully I neither say that ALL sexual predators are male or that ALL males are sexual predators. That interpretation is something for you and your analyst to work on.

Meanwhile, the majority of violent offenders and killers are also male. Why don't we just segregate ALL males from society and make them all feel like criminals? I think that would be appropriate for the sake of reducing the risk of harm to everyone else!

 

[anat0l]

Virgin haven't labelled anyone anything. It's their plane, and they simply don't want you to sit in that particular seat.

Guess that's another way to look at it, viz. since it's their aircraft and you accepted their terms of flying with them, they can do what they want.

That said, it's a fine line if it can be argued that this is gender-based discrimination (since although it is VA's aircraft, they are still bound by the law), but that is back to the mainline argument here.

I do find it interesting that society has jumped onto the bandwagon of a fireman who got upset, rather than think about the child's comfort level at flying alone.

I don't think anyone here is disregarding the child's safety or comfort, especially since they are flying alone.

But that said, do you think the child's comfort in flying alone was significantly improved (or remedied, for that matter) by relocating the fireman (or male, to be more generic) away from the child?


Let it be out there that if the male in question had a history of molesting children, then perhaps this action was well justified.

 

[dnoze]

I haven't read through all eight pages, so I regret any duplication of sentiment but I say get over it. Who really cares if we have to move seats in row 27 (as far as I remember, UMs get the back of the plane).

Reality is, phedaphiles are predominantly guys. It's sad, it's despicable, it's a slur on the male gender but it's true! The realty here is that the only gender being discriminated against are the women.......they're the ones being stereotypically cast as "suitable" seat-shares with the screamers....errrr. I mean, kids! Most of the travel-alone kids are exceptionally well behaved, so it's not a real issue but VA would be amiss if they didn't canvass the possibilities. To all the guys who think we're being cast as phedaphiles..........get a life. We're treated the same and as a parent, I appreciate that VA are at least thinking of their charges. Congratulations for such dedication. To the ladies who get seated next to a screamer..........stiff, come back in the after-life as a guy!


(Note.........some of my comment is tongue in cheek)

I've missed your commentary Swanning!
Some good points you've made (not sure WHY all these guys WANT to be sitting next to kids....), but it seems few have taken the view that VA have a responsibility to the parents of the UMs, and just like the "no electronics" policy, it is far easier to enforce against the board then be selective ie firemen and doctors are ok etc

 

[dnoze]

But that said, do you think the child's comfort in flying alone was significantly improved (or remedied, for that matter) by relocating the fireman (or male, to be more generic) away from the child?

Let it be out there that if the male in question had a history of molesting children, then perhaps this action was well justified.

Well no one has asked the kid have they? From what i can tell, it is all on what mr fireman said about the appalling way the FA handled the situation.
Who knows maybe he is the one that has blown this out of proportion?

 

[anat0l]

Well no one has asked the kid have they? From what i can tell, it is all on what mr fireman said about the appalling way the FA handled the situation.

Fair point. That all said, "asking the kid" is an easier said than done remark. (I know it's the only real way to find out, but it's practically very difficult and not fair on the kid either).

I'm surprised they didn't ask other witnesses (i.e. pax seated around) where the incident occurred. That said, the airline seems to acknowledge that the incident did happen (well, then again, they can't go all face out and say that the incident didn't happen, i.e. the man is a liar).

It could well be blown out of proportion, and some variances in the reporting have been noticed as the story has been going from media outlet to media outlet. The core argument about the policy is very much the same.