home

New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next to Children on Planes

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:40:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jeff at Protein Wisdom finds a New Zealand news article reporting that Quantas and Air New Zealand have adopted a policy that prohibits men from sitting next to unacompanied children on planes.

Political correctness gone mad? How about sheer idiocy? All men ought to be seeing red over this one. Jeff says:

....what happens when a westernized country becomes enthralled with identity politics (and overly fearful of victim litigation). Christ. Guilty until proven innocent. Hate crime legislation. Fear of giving offense. Empowering the frequently and easily offended in the name of “tolerance”. What a mess we’ve made of things.

I don't buy that the policy is grounded either in political correctness or tolerance. I'd call it blatant stereotyping that the airlines have been bullied into by one increasingly dangerous lobby: victimhood.

< Security Flaws Found in Wiretaps | Say Hello >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next to Children on Planes | 42 comments (42 topical)
    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Sad...and it just ain't New Zealand. There is some stupid new law in NY where single adults (male or female)are prohibited from using any public parks that contain playgrounds.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    It took me about a New York minute to trip over a story that shows anecdotally why this policy is totally unfounded. Objectively, data show that child molesters are overwhelmingly (in the 90-94% range) someone close to the child--a parent, grandparent, sibling, or family friend. Child molesters typically take months or years building up trust before they act. New Zealand would be better off instituting a policy requiring children to sit next to someone they don't know. An insidious aspect of this policy, I predict, will be anti-gay bias. The guy who gets forced to change seats will be pissed at the airline in the short term, but in the long term he's going to assume that this policy was supposedly needed because of gay men. The Church jumped to that completely unfounded conclusion with its recent ant-gay fatwah. Why wouldn't Joe airline passenger?

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    The follow up article has a typically kiwi reaction: Man protests up a tree A Motueka man is protesting up a tree against the decision by New Zealand and Qantas not to allow men to sit by unaccompanied children on flights. Kevin Gill, who began his protest atop a 10m-high tree in Richmond on Tuesday night, says he won't come down until the airlines agree to review the policy. Mr Gill said the policy was discriminating against men and treating them as "demons", because of a minority group of people that abused children. "What's going to be next. Are men not going to be allowed to sit next to boys on buses, trains and sports venues? It could just be the edge of the wedge." Mr Gill was joined by about seven other protesters with placards saying the airlines were sexist and men had rights too. Hundreds of people had shown their support throughout the night and yesterday, he said. Mr Gill was hopeful the Human Rights Commission would find Air New Zealand and Qantas had a case to answer for unlawful discrimination against men.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Michael, Interestingly enough, only 1% of child molesters are gay. The vast majority are heterosexual partners of one parent.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#5)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Interestingly, New Zealand has human rights legislation, but it only applies to government. Air New Zealand is a privatized corporation, so the human rights legislation appears not to apply to it. This is a serious flaw. Obviously corporations and individuals should be held to the same human rights requirements as government.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    For some, fear is stronger than reason, it seems. Ridiculous, sad, and childish.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    As a man, I should be bothered. As a libertarian, I shouldn't be. Dislike of children I'm not related to is the tiebreaker: I hope Delta adopts a similar policy so I can avoid sitting next to children without seeming unsociable. But I don't think it has much to do with anti-gay bias. Men aren't allowed to sit next to girls, either.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#8)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Roy, I don't think this is about gays, but pedophiles. The policy is not to allow men to sit next to unrelated children. What is offensive, as well as ignorant, is to assume that all men are potential pedophiles.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    What is offensive, as well as ignorant, is to assume that all men are potential pedophiles.
    You're overreaching to nastify an already-nasty mentality. They're not assuming that all men are potential pedophiles, they're assuming that men are more likely to be pedophiles than women are. And it's not an assumption, it's true (if New Zealanders' pedophile demographics are similar to American). But, offensive? Sure.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steven Sanderson on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    What's next for the kiwi's? Religious hysteria concerning vast chambers beneath child daycare centers where kids are sexually abused and then sacrificed by hordes of adult satanists? Communities incarcerating large numbers of their own residents because of suggestive/manipulative investigatory techniques that produce confused testimony from toddlers? Or will the kiwi's create their own unique religion-induced nightmare?

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#11)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Roy, I think we agree that it is offensive, but the policy is not justified statistically. Most child molesters are closely related to the child. On a statistical basis, the airline would have to forbid parents from sitting next to their own children.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#12)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Well, I think it's certainly a stupid idea. But seriously, who wants to sit next to unaccompanied minors on planes? Who wants to sit anywhere near any kids on a plane? I don't see any harm to men here except for feeling like their entire gender are now presumed pedophiles. Maybe the real people who have a complaint here are women for being forced to sit next to these unsupervised kids.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    "Most child molesters are closely related to the child. On a statistical basis, the airline would have to forbid parents from sitting next to their own children." I'm going out on a limb here, being to lazy to google, but I'll bet the seed for this rule is some report of guys messing sexually with not-related kids on airplanes. When/if there are reports of kids' relatives doing the same, then they'll have to figure something else out.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    OK, I probably should have read the linked article before opening my mouth. "A Qantas spokesman confirmed the Australian airline, which operates domestic flights in New Zealand, does not allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men. The spokesman said the airline believed it was what customers wanted." So you try to please some customers and in doing so you PO some others. Quite the pickle.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Good points about family members being the most likely to harm a child. If I ever have kids, I'll tell them strangers are ok, watch out for Uncle Ernie. "Do you think it's allright, to leave the boy with Uncle Ernie?"

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    Maybe the airline should seat only one person per row to make everybody happy? Or maybe we should live in plastic bubbles so we never have to interact with other human beings? Madness I tell you...madness.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    In protest, men could refuse to offer help to the passengers and crew during emergencies, even if they are in a unique position to offer it at little or no cost to themselves. I disagree that corporations should be immune from constitutional protections that citizens enjoy from their governments. They operate in the state: they should be subject to the laws of the state; taking the argument to its logical extreme, if the entire country were privatized, there would be no constitutional protections whatsoever. It's good to see some recognition here of institutionalized anti-male bias.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    I disagree that corporations should be immune from constitutional protections that citizens enjoy from their governments. They operate in the state: they should be subject to the laws of the state
    The logical outcome of this policy -- not some silly slippery-slope extreme -- is that churches would not be allowed to advocate a particular religion. Newspaper editorials would not be able favor editors' opinions over others'. My boss could not fire me for calling him a jack*ss on my own time. TL would be required to give conservative causes equal access to advertising.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#19)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Oh great, now *I* have to sit next to them. Yet another reason not to fly.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    kdog: Maybe the airline should seat only one person per row to make everybody happy? Maybe Boeing or Airbus can design a lowcost "skinnyjet" that has only one seat per row? Or Quantas and Air New Zealand could institute adult only and children only flights? Or frequent fliers could become really subversive and ...gasp!... use another airline???

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    I would be willing to bet that the majority of airline passengers are adults and not children traveling alone. How about banning children under a certain age from traveling alone? If a parent or guardian wants their child to fly on a plane, and that parent or guardian is not able to travel with their child, then they should have to pay an airline appointed nanny to accompany the child.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Roy, you're taking it for granted that the rights of individuals scale up to corporations of any size whatsoever. This is not obvious, but it may be unresolvable due to ideological differences. The extreme example was intended to suggest this question of scale; instead, due to an unfortunate lack of imagination, a point that should be open for discussion was dismissed with irrelevant examples. Citizens who live in a state should be guaranteed the protections of the state impartially, whether or not they are employed. Corporations are not soveriegn entities.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Seems like the anti-male bias of the airline is being supplemented with an anti-unaccomapnied child bias of TL readers.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Of course this is a stupid policy but we should pause for a moment and, in light of kdog's NY reference, remember how pervasive is the force from which such things come. The fears seem to me at least as congential as they are misinformation-driven. Those of you out there who are fathers: think about all those weird looks you get when you enter, with your child, the traditionally mother-dominated zone of the playground. And then think about when your child is off playing maybe twenty yards away, and you look like just some guy sitting on a playground park bench. The women there look at you, a lot of times, like you're the headmaster of a leper colony. To combat such phenomena with reason and statistics is always going to be difficult, probably just as difficult as combating racism in the same way.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Kdog, Actually, I believe my solution makes sense. It limits the liability of the airline from the potential lawsuits of p!ssed off men, that is should it happen here in the lawsuit happy USA, and also protects the company from a lawsuit of parents that may have had a child on a flight that was violated. Just a thought... I am not saying this is the right solution but I do believe that moving children to a seat away from a man is an irrational solution.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#26)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Mac Lane,
    Roy, you're taking it for granted that the rights of individuals scale up to corporations of any size whatsoever. This is not obvious, but it may be unresolvable due to ideological differences.
    Right on both counts.
    The extreme example was intended to suggest this question of scale; instead, due to an unfortunate lack of imagination, a point that should be open for discussion was dismissed with irrelevant examples.
    I can certainly imagine that any private organization larger than X people be partially treated as a public good: we live in one under modern employment law. I didn't intend to dismiss the question from discussion. It would actually be interesting to discuss, but after a couple beers to obscure the fact that we have no common starting ground from which to argue. Barring that, I'll limit myself to vaguely humorous snarks for the remainder of the thread.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#27)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Perhaps unattended children can be seated next to overweight passengers who must buy two seats anyway, most of whose bulk would actually be two seats away. With that head start, the kid should be able to outrun the would-be molester.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    To combat such phenomena with reason and statistics is always going to be difficult, probably just as difficult as combating racism in the same way.
    It is a form of bigotry. And there is a commonly held view (often called competitive feminism), that there are no men's issues per se, and that all of women's problems must be resolved before a single issue confronting men can be considered. At least one of those issues is relevant to this site: unequal sentencing of men and women for the identical crime. There are men's rights activists who concern themselves with institutionalized anti-male bias; some of them can be found at this site.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    I wasn't referring to your post specifically macro...just the general tone of the thread. I would say no solution is necessary because there is no problem. This airline is out of its mind. glanton..I get those looks at my nephew's little league games. A lot of people, and now one confirmed airline, have their minds in the gutter. Irrational fear seems to be on the rise across the board.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#30)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    The logical outcome of this policy -- not some silly slippery-slope extreme -- is that churches would not be allowed to advocate a particular religion. Newspaper editorials would not be able favor editors' opinions over others'. My boss could not fire me for calling him a jack*ss on my own time. TL would be required to give conservative causes equal access to advertising.
    You seem to be confusing human rights with freedom of expression. There is no conflict between the two.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#31)
    by Punchy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    kdog-- Was that a Tommy reference I saw in your post? NICE....

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Kdog, I agree with you 100%. There really is no problem. Air New Zealand has created a solution in search of a problem.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    If there is only one unattended child on a flight why not seat him/her near the flight attendants station beside either a man or a women, but ask all the women passengers near by if they'd mind sort of generally keeping an eye on the kid. If ther is more than one, seat the kids together and ask nearby women passengers the same thing? Maybe compensate agreeable women with fare reductions, or?

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Apparently I'm not the only one to have failed to read linked article. From the link... "Ms Paul said Air New Zealand tried to seat children near a crew area so crew could keep an eye on them and, when possible, children were seated next to an empty seat." It's actually a great read - the word "gobsmacked" is used and that there is apparently an actual gvt. position of "National Party political correctness eradicator." Who'd a thunk it.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Oh, and the next sentance is: "Sometimes this isn't possible, so the preference is to seat a female passenger next door to an unaccompanied minor."

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Apparently I'm not the only one to have failed to read linked article.
    I didn't read it, either. I still haven't. This sort of barely-meaningful issue is just more fun to discuss if everyone is ill-informed.

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    I, for one, didn't read it Sarc. It seems like such a silly controversy(if it even deserves that description). And any half decent marketing or PR department could work wonders with this to generate "gobsmacks" of goodwill for the airlines. "Fly the kid friendly skies of Quantas!" or some such thing. "We 'guarantee' the safety of children". I'm sure their insurers could come up with an appropriate 'malpractice' liability package as well...

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Why roy, edger, I'm stone gobsmacked at your comments! Maybe it'd be fun to change my handle to "TL Political Correctness Eradicator."

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    TLPCE? Ouch! Owwwwww! It hurts to even try to say it! ;-)

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    I'm gobsmacked that there actually is such a word as gobsmacked! :-)

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    "I'm gobsmacked, gobsmacked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

    Re: New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Gambling? In here? I'm gobsmacked at your effrontery! Signing off now... can't take it anymore......... ;-)

    New Zealand Airlines Ban Men From Sitting Next to Children on Planes | 42 comments (42 topical)