I don't want my kids sitting next to a man on a plane

[opusman]

I don't want to sit next to anyone on a plane.

 

[harvyk]

Why must they assume people who appear male are actually male?

It's a pretty safe bet, since it's a very small percentage of people who actively identify as intersex and cross dressers tend to be careful about who they let in on their secret (thank you randomly skipping channels and landing on SBS)

 

[wingspan]

It's a pretty safe bet, since it's a very small percentage of people who actively identify as intersex and cross dressers tend to be careful about who they let in on their secret (thank you randomly skipping channels and landing on SBS)

It's less of a safe bet than many would imagine. And it's not only those who are intersex or cross-dressers who don't fit into the false dichotomy of male and female.

 

[Moody]

Yet another man hate article based on sexual stereotypes. Why this type of misandry is allowed to be published is beyond me. However, it needs to be exposed and called out.

It's an old and oft repeated canard but because the accused is male it's apparently acceptable.

I must be especially dim-witted tonight - could you please point out the man hate comments in the article. Or the misandry for that matter.

The UM seating policies are merely the outcome of mitigating known risk factors. When women reach equality with men as regards sexual assaults of minors, then these policies will die a natural death. Hopefully this will be due to male offenders being reduced by an order of magnitude, rather than the other way around.

BTW - I think there is a Royal Commission that may provide some talking points on this subject.

 

[asg29e]

So Tracey Spicer doesn't want her kids sitting next to men on a plane. Good old Tracey, but I don't think she is trying hard enough. "Men" is too easy a target. It is impossible to denigrate men to the point where she will get a backlash. She should push the boundaries a bit harder.

I suggest she swap the term "men" for something else, using some rubbish evidence to back it all up.

"Poms"? Nah, no backlash there. "Kiwis"? Don't think so.

What about "Asians"? Hmmm, careful. "Muslims?".. Oh dear.

She could go on escalating this of course, until she gets the headlines she so desperately craves, but she has to realise that well before she gets to "fat lesbian aborigines" the thought police will have dragged her away, locked her up and thrown away the key.

 

[Hvr]

I must be especially dim-witted tonight - could you please point out the man hate comments in the article. Or the misandry for that matter.

The UM seating policies are merely the outcome of mitigating known risk factors. When women reach equality with men as regards sexual assaults of minors, then these policies will die a natural death. Hopefully this will be due to male offenders being reduced by an order of magnitude, rather than the other way around.

BTW - I think there is a Royal Commission that may provide some talking points on this subject.

Basically her article accuses every man of being a paedophile who can never ever be trusted near a child. While there is a risk it is so low as to be almost indefinable. Indeed children are more at risk of abuse from their parents and people known to them. Should they be removed from their children because they are more likely to abuse them?

Re the Royal Commission that is about abuse committed in institutions including church run organisations etc, not by individuals who are not part of those institutions, therefore I cannot see its relevance to this scenario. Unless of course the adult male sitting next to the child is or was a priest.

However the nuns have been known to abuse children as well. Should they also be prevented from sitting next to a UM?

 

[ALH]

Basically her article accuses every man of being a paedophile who can never ever be trusted near a child......

No. It doesn't.

 

[Moody]

So Tracey Spicer doesn't want her kids sitting next to men on a plane. Good old Tracey, but I don't think she is trying hard enough. "Men" is too easy a target. It is impossible to denigrate men to the point where she will get a backlash. She should push the boundaries a bit harder.

I suggest she swap the term "men" for something else, using some rubbish evidence to back it all up.

"Poms"? Nah, no backlash there. "Kiwis"? Don't think so.

What about "Asians"? Hmmm, careful. "Muslims?".. Oh dear.

She could go on escalating this of course, until she gets the headlines she so desperately craves, but she has to realise that well before she gets to "fat lesbian aborigines" the thought police will have dragged her away, locked her up and thrown away the key.

How droll - writing about things the author never said. Who exactly do you think you are amusing/fooling with that ridiculous rubbish????

Oh - my bad. There are heaps of such intellectuals on this thread!

 

[Pushka]

I wonder if Priests are likewise a risk factor. TV presenters aka Saville. Hmmm.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

I don't want to sit next to a tall blonde unaccompanied (female) model. LOL !

 

[defurax]

How droll - writing about things the author never said. Who exactly do you think you are amusing/fooling with that ridiculous rubbish????

Oh - my bad. There are heaps of such intellectuals on this thread!

I was amused by asg29e's post. So there you go!

 

[Pushka]

I was amused by asg29e's post. So there you go!

You must be one of those intellectuals then.

 

[harvyk]

I must be especially dim-witted tonight - could you please point out the man hate comments in the article. Or the misandry for that matter.

The UM seating policies are merely the outcome of mitigating known risk factors. When women reach equality with men as regards sexual assaults of minors, then these policies will die a natural death. Hopefully this will be due to male offenders being reduced by an order of magnitude, rather than the other way around.

BTW - I think there is a Royal Commission that may provide some talking points on this subject.

Her first 4 words in the article are

I know it's sexist.

She herself admits that this is a sexist article and sexist opinion to take.

According to wikipedia and they themselves cite a study of 430 cases in 06/07, states that only 18% where unknown to the victim, 36% was undertaken by a family member or relative, and 46% was undertaken by an acquaintance. So statistically you need to be 2.5 times wary about your best mate hanging around your kids than the male stranger sitting next to them on the plane.

Furthermore abuse by females sits around 1 to 4%, and certain studies have even had this figure as high as 43%. However this figure is not truly known since a male teenager is less likely to complain about a woman abusing him (since he himself is as likely to receive ridicule as the woman) than say a teenage girl who is abused by a male. In my own experience, I have known two friends who have been sexually assaulted, one a girl who was assaulted by her step father took action about it, the other, a male was assaulted by a woman, decided to do nothing about it since he didn't want to go through the ridicule. The only reason I knew about either case was because in each case we're where really close friends, I'm sure there are other friends of mine who may have had the same thing done to them who haven't said anything. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, however I do have to admit, if I was in the same position it's unlikely I'd say anything.

So the question I ask of everyone who says "whatever we can do to reduce the risk", what is acceptable mitigation's? If it is found that members of a certain race are slightly more involved in sexual assaults, should we ban that race from sitting next to UM? Here is an even better idea, since if an UM often has a shadow next to them and it would be easy for a person to sit there whilst waiting for the loo, how about we simply anyone from a gender / race / "other minor statistical anomaly which elevates that groups risk" from flights which have UM's on them. Is that enough risk mitigation for you? But then what about the child abusers who don't fit into one of the untrustworthy categories above? You've now given them a free pass since they are statistically less likely.

Here is a much better idea, if the airlines feel that strongly about keeping UM's safe, why not employ a person who's job is to look after UM's. Much like a childcare worker needs to go through a proper risk assessment, this person would go through a proper risk assessment. This would keep kids far safer than making blanket rules based on slim "feel good" statistics.

(Yes I feel strongly about this, and feel strongly about reverse sexism being acceptable, because I don't want my sons growing up in a world where it is acceptable for them to be looked down upon simply because they are male)

 

[harvyk]

It's less of a safe bet than many would imagine. And it's not only those who are intersex or cross-dressers who don't fit into the false dichotomy of male and female.

I do believe the number is sitting around 1% of the population identify as transgendered or intersex, and whilst it has been determined that there are actually 57 different categories which they could put as gender on forms, the vast majority of people identify themselves into the first two of M/F. (of course, if you have a link to an article proving me otherwise, I'll happyily accept it, since my knowledge is based on watching SBS's the feed whilst cooking dinner / a now former friend of mine who was doing gender studies who would post up facts on FB, so I might have missed interpreted something)

However I do believe that unless the article is also about how an intersex person is considered a risk against kids much like a male, then this is going way OT...

 

[under the radar]

Her first 4 words in the article are She herself admits that this is a sexist article and sexist opinion to take.

According to wikipedia and they themselves cite a study of 430 cases in 06/07, states that only 18% where unknown to the victim, 36% was undertaken by a family member or relative, and 46% was undertaken by an acquaintance. So statistically you need to be 2.5 times wary about your best mate hanging around your kids than the male stranger sitting next to them on the plane.

Furthermore abuse by females sits around 1 to 4%, and certain studies have even had this figure as high as 43%. However this figure is not truly known since a male teenager is less likely to complain about a woman abusing him (since he himself is as likely to receive ridicule as the woman) than say a teenage girl who is abused by a male. In my own experience, I have known two friends who have been sexually assaulted, one a girl who was assaulted by her step father took action about it, the other, a male was assaulted by a woman, decided to do nothing about it since he didn't want to go through the ridicule. The only reason I knew about either case was because in each case we're where really close friends, I'm sure there are other friends of mine who may have had the same thing done to them who haven't said anything. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, however I do have to admit, if I was in the same position it's unlikely I'd say anything.

So the question I ask of everyone who says "whatever we can do to reduce the risk", what is acceptable mitigation's? If it is found that members of a certain race are slightly more involved in sexual assaults, should we ban that race from sitting next to UM? Here is an even better idea, since if an UM often has a shadow next to them and it would be easy for a person to sit there whilst waiting for the loo, how about we simply anyone from a gender / race / "other minor statistical anomaly which elevates that groups risk" from flights which have UM's on them. Is that enough risk mitigation for you? But then what about the child abusers who don't fit into one of the untrustworthy categories above? You've now given them a free pass since they are statistically less likely.

Here is a much better idea, if the airlines feel that strongly about keeping UM's safe, why not employ a person who's job is to look after UM's. Much like a childcare worker needs to go through a proper risk assessment, this person would go through a proper risk assessment. This would keep kids far safer than making blanket rules based on slim "feel good" statistics.

(Yes I feel strongly about this, and feel strongly about reverse sexism being acceptable, because I don't want my sons growing up in a world where it is acceptable for them to be looked down upon simply because they are male)

I am mostly in agreement of post

just to add...the 'no male' rule was implemented by airlines because of 'social attitudes and statistics' ( the whole 'risk/benefit thing)...it can be withdrawn if they so desire.. but airlines need to be 'seen as doing the right thing'...and let's not forget our litigious society...so no one wants to be the first to withdraw this 'rule' for fear of retribution/litigation...BUT maybe airlines need to review this stance as society's attitudes and statistical evidence 'changes' (ie keep up with the times).... so maybe it should be the parent/guardian responsibility to 'provide' a 'chaperone', or buy a spare seat, if they feel 'uncomfortable' putting their child on a flight?? ..... just my thoughts

might I also add that currently, if possible, a UM will be given a 'shadow' seat OR be seated next to another UM or UMs, AND are seated near a galley area for easier 'monitoring' by cabin crew (especially on longer flights)....to my knowledge, this is QFs current policy

happy flying everyone

 

[mannej]

As always, this topic will always through up some rebuttal.

http://m.theage.com.au/travel/holid...not-potential-paedophiles-20140429-37epl.html

 

[sergeyvzn]

What I find amazing is how this horrible article saw the light of the day? It should have never been published in the first place!

SMH editorial standards that used to be high are definitely going down...sad to see the institution going the way of The News of the World:evil:

 

[get me outta here]

Sam de Brito on the article A response to Tracey Spicer

 

[harvyk]

What I find amazing is how this horrible article saw the light of the day? It should have never been published in the first place!

SMH editorial standards that used to be high are definitely going down...sad to see the institution going the way of The News of the World:evil:

It's published since it'll generate discussion, and SMH have today published a "counter piece" which I'm almost willing to bet was already thought about well before Tracey Spicer got the go ahead for her piece.

 

[BAM1748]

A bit of perspective - this occured in Perth yesterday...

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/23020272/dad-neighbours-foil-bid-to-abduct-girl/

The accused isn't male...

That is a shocker and quiet scary.

Matt