From the New Zealand Herald:
Air New Zealand and Qantas have banned men from sitting next to unaccompanied children on flights, sparking accusations of discrimination.
The airlines have come under fire for the policy that critics say is political correctness gone mad after a man revealed he was ordered to change seats during a Qantas flight because he was sitting next to a young boy travelling alone.
Auckland man Mark Worsley says an air steward approached him after take-off on the Christchurch to Auckland flight and told him to change seats with a women sitting two rows in front. The steward said it was the airline’s policy that only women were allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children.
“At the time I was so gobsmacked that I moved. I was so embarrassed and just stewed on it for the entire flight.”
The 37-year-old shipping manager, who has 2-year-old twins, followed the incident up with the airline and was told Qantas wanted to err on the side of caution.
And of course, to err on the side of caution is to believe…what, exactly?—that by virtue of his being a male, Mr Worsely was likely to lean over and take himself a little mouthful of boy cock on a crowded airliner flight—you know, just to kinda blow off some man-steam.
This is not political correctness gone mad. This is a company’s moronic decision to view all males as latent child fuckers—and to view all women as incapable of that same offense.
Which, on second thought, it is political correctness gone mad—the second example in as many weeks of a 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.
(h/t Tom Pechinski, via Zacht Ei)
Well, I actually think it would be awesome if I was guaranteed not to have to sit next to a squealing, booger-flinging little monster on a long flight to New Zealand.
But then again, I’m not into “boy cock.”
Oh that’s right. You like to be the catcher, don’t you?
Not all single males are child molesters.
That’s what that guy kept telling me as he locked me in his trunk.
And so long as the woman is not a junior high school teacher, you have nothing to fear.
Quit whining, white boy.
BECAUSE OF THE PROFILING!!!
We should just put the male passengers in their own section for safety. Having a penis makes one capable – nay predisposed – to all sorts of atrocities.
We should then further sort/seat everyone by color. Then by religious affiliation. Then by sexual orientation. Then by age. Then by size. Then by meal preference.
I’m certain this will resolve any future problems. Of course couples flying together would have their own section and those traveling with children would need yet another section. Obviously bi-racial couples or those with any sort of gender confusion would be seated in the luggage compartment. But we must strive for the most divisive and segregated policies possible if we’re to ensure proper group identity and passenger safety. Have a nice flight.
Yeah.. where were these teachers when I was in school? I mean I fucked them… they just weren’t there to know it. Just me and the sock puppet with Miss Jennings….
Wow, lot’s of man-violence on youths down under, huh? Up here in the real world, it would appear things are a little different.
From the last few week’s news:
Boy husband’s next date is with court.
Rochester Mother Faces Child Abuse Charges.
Gastonia mother charged with attempted murder, child abuse.
Youth minister’s wife is accused on soliciting sex from a minor.
Police Say Teacher Aide Had Sex, Smoked Pot With Students.
6Gun, you are extrapolating generalities from aberrational incidents.
Unlike, you know, libs and say…Abu Ghraib.
When I was in turkey I wasn’t allowed to sit next to single women on buses.
[Raises hand, flags down Flight Attendant.]
“Yes. I asked for the Kosher meal…? Thank you.”
Presumably you mean penis size?
Gobsmacked is an extraordinarily underused word here in the states, btw.
That’s nice. Run along now.
After all, you wouldn’t want to be unaccompanied hereabouts.
I guess they will cancel all those “Bangkok Pedophile Vacation Adventures”. I mean if a boy-loving man can’t fly alone and such, what is he to do?
6Gun, you know those are headlines and not indicative of which sex does the majority of sex crimes against children, right? It’s the flavor of the month (or year) to discuss attractive women having sex with their students. Man molests young girls doesn’t make headlines anymore (unless, of course, the man was a priest.)
And, not to quibble, but wouldn’t the PC move be to NOT profile men as child molesters? I’m so confused.
If I see Michael Jackson sitting next to a young boy on a bus – what should I do?
Moonwalk?
Oh come one, like we’re all that sensitive about such a stereotype. I mean, I’m sure the rule at Quantas is to bar women from sitting next to other pregnant women, you know, since they have the tendency to cut the fetus out of the womb these days right?
To be completely serious, I can’t begin to convey how depressing this is. When simply being male is such a transgression, there is something very wrong.
This goes, though, hand in hand with the on campus leftists who seem to assume that every man is a rapist just waiting for an opportunity to pounce. The thought process, and the assumption about what it is to be male, is precisely the same.
In the airline’s defense, Mark Worsley was sitting next to a young unaccompanied boy while watching Hercules Unchained on his laptop computer.
…
Great, Bumper…
Now I will have visions of Peter Graves dancing in my head all night. Fully clothed, of course.
“Billy, do you like movies about gladiators?”
My favorite flight, age 6: seated next to an australian man with black-framed James-Burke glasses.
He chatted me up and bought me a gingerale with a cherry.
Which, on second thought, it is political correctness gone madâ€â€the second example in as many weeks of a what happens when a westernized country becomes enthralled with identity politics (and overly fearful of victim litigation).
i, Air New Zealand and Qantas are not part of the Australian or New Zealand governments.
ii, What victim litigation, exactly? The US legal system does not reflect practice in the rest of the world.
If in the name of accuracy we’re not going to make any such assumptions, then it follows that it would really suck if somebody went and documented, say, a statewide or even national adult on juvenile crime statistic that indicted more women than men.
No extrapolating, no aberrations. Still with me? I’d be curious just how these “aberrations” track hard statistical numbers.
tw: The Movement has overcorrected.
Damn, carin. I was just going to ask where would they seat Michael Jackson. With or without his kids.
Right; appreciate the clarification. Drop me a line when Jeff posts a domestic violence against kids post. We’ll discuss how gender-neutral airline policy now makes mom sit on the wings.
It’d be for the children too.
Sorry to blur the distinction.
Maybe ANZ could fly all the male child molesters apart from civilians, and Qantas could fly all all the female child beaters?
6Gun,
Totally meant my riposte humorously, sorry if that did not come through.
Now that I’ve thought about it, he’d have to charter the whole flight so he could fly alone.
i, so?
ii, so?
That’s handy data, piator. Ever research Australia’s sexist gender-feminist family law industry? (Or, say, Canada’s or the UK’s?) Depending on your pov, it’s one of the very worst/best on earth …
How is this different than assuming that women get a case of the ‘vapors’?
PITR:
i) Who said they were? Or are you saying that N.Z. & Australia aren’t westernized?
ii) What victim litigation? C’mon. You or I could both go play with Google and find plenty of examples of current victim litigation. Don’t be coy; the US legal system is the most litigious in recorded history. And to assert that this practice isn’t creeping into other societies is disingenuous at best.
I checked.
Under Qantas guidelines it’s possible to have a dingo fly in the seat next to an unaccompanied minor.
Go figure
.
Well.. why do the call it a Cockpit?
Right again. More factually stated, the sexist US civil law industry and its various enabling private mechanisms—as arguably the best examples of prominent cultural bellwethers for both government and private sector sexism, and which could be argued to factor in this particular case—only reflects the rest of the Western world. We can leave out that half the globe that labors under either tyranny or anarchy.
Of course, I admit that making that comparison technically begs the point for gender feminist friends. The connection to Australian sexism is not actually immediate except in, well, a context that includes just about all major cultural references the two continents share.
Again, Africa doesn’t count. Probably North Korea doesn’t either. Or, I’m guessing, the mideast.
There, the male population probably buggers kids on airplanes with greater regularity.
read “they” for “the”…duh
TW “man” i.e. the most potent predator on earth
thank Christ!
I guess maybe this guy wanted to fly Quantas, eh?
iii, Kiwis are from New Zealand; kangaroos and koalas are from Australia.
iv, No, “Qantas” doesn’t need a “u”. US spelling conventions do not reflect practices in the rest of the world.
I guess it isn’t allowed to do any blogging on these airlines, then. See, my blogs are like my children, sometimes. I’m alone with them frequently. Sometimes, (whisper) in my pajamas.
While that may or may not be true, QANTAS doesn’t require a ‘u’, not because of unusual spelling conventions, but because it is an acronym for “Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services”. (Add “, Ltd.” if being formal.)
But of course you already knew that…
That’s it? If you’re molesting a turkey you should be thrown off the bus altogether.
Hey, you don’t still have that turkey, do you?
A private airline is no more capable of practicing PC than a private university is of practicing racism or sexism. No, wait…
When I was in Cleveland I wasn’t allowed to stand next to strippers on crack.
I was flying to Baltimore and this absolutely huge woman sat next to me. Maybe I was looking especially delicious and some could say that I was asking for it, but I was sure she was going to eat me when she finished her dry roasted peanuts.
She didn’t have to move. What the hell?
Actually … isn’t QANTAS the national carrier of Australia, making it at least nominally “part of the government” in the same way the USPS is part of the US government?
When I was on buses, I wasnn’t allowed to sit next to honkies.
Did Mr. Worsley have an earring? And if so, in which ear? Is that still an indicator of homosexual pedophilia or am I stuck in the 70’s?
v, Chewbacca is a wookee, yet he lives on Endor.
vi, Look at this monkey. Look at it!
Maybe the NAMBLA T-shirt was a tip off?
i) Who said they were?
“the second example in as many weeks of a what happens when a westernized country becomes enthralled with identity politics (and overly fearful of victim litigation).”
A single case of a company with a policy proves squat about the countries involved.
ii) What victim litigation? C’mon. You or I could both go play with Google and find plenty of examples of current victim litigation.
Go ahead. I’d be very interested in any examples where New Zealand or Australian companies were successfully sued in their country’s courts due to sexual harassment of customers by other customers. I’d be amazed if you actually came up with any such examples.
Actually … isn’t QANTAS the national carrier of Australia, making it at least nominally “part of the government†in the same way the USPS is part of the US government?
Not since April 1989 in the case of ANZ, and 1993 in the case of QANTAS. Private companies both.
I’m so tired of you showing up just to argue and cherrypick for the sake of doing so.
Do you agree with the policy? Yes or no?
Is NZ a westernized country? Yes or no?
Did I say that what they were doing was illegal? Yes or no?
Can a private company engage in PC practice? Yes or no?
Can I write a post criticizing said practice? Yes or no?
Is it valid to argue that said practice is in part a response to the company’s understanding of the current cultural ethos? Yes or no?
Finally, I never made a larger argument about the countries involved—only suggested that such policies grow out of a particular worldview that is increasingly popular in the western world. Is the assertion proof of the premise? No, not conclusively; a single data point does not a trend make. But is it suggestive of a particular worldview?
Yes or no?
Empowering the frequently and easily offended in the name of “toleranceâ€Â.
It bears pointing out that you failed to properly place the period inside the close-quote mark. British punctuation practices do not reflect usage around the rest of the world.
You… goober.
This just proves Jeff’s point about identity politics.
Men profiled as sex offenders – good.
Muslims profiled as terrorists – bad.
Both are supported by statistics. Not all men are rapists; in fact, very few are. But most rapists are men. Not all Muslims are terrorists; again, very few are. But most terrorists are Muslim.
Yet only one of these is acceptable to recognize in security policy. Why? Simple. There are no major advocacy groups to raise a stink and smear/sue anyone who “persecutes” men. One of the worst things about identity politics is that it’s a play-or-lose game. If you don’t play it, you’re at a disadvantage compared to those that do.
(And just to be clear, I support any kind of profiling that is supported by statistical evidence. If there was a wave of Christian terrorism, I would not object to being given more scrutiny as a Christian; in fact, I would deserve it. And it would serve as a reminder that it is incumbent upon me as a Christian to discourage other Christians from such acts.)
I wouldn’t call this PC, I’d call it incredibly poor logic.
As a mom, there is no way (in this day and age) I would have a child travel alone. There, problem solved.
I’d like to see some stats on this one.
I’d like to see some stats on this one.
Yeah, gee, you’re right. OK, how about: “Most terrorists who do stuff like fly planes into buildings, which is the reason we have these heightened security policies in the United States to begin with, are Muslims.”
That work?
Hey, one oughtn’t make sweeping arguments and get pissed when I point out they are wrong. Don’t get your panties in a ruffle.
Why “panties”?
RACIST!
Well, you know, it’s been a long time since most flight attendants were hot enough to hit on…
As a father, I would not want a strange man sitting next to my son, and I applaud the airlines decision. But also, as a father, I cannot imagine a situation where I would let my child loose to travel unaccomanied like that.
Why panties?
Considering VS sales, somebody has to. Judging by PTRR’s anger quotient I’m betting on butt floss.
Frankly, I applaud the airlines’ actions. Women are clearly better suited to the baby-sitter role than men.
CAPT. OVEUR (Peter Graves): “You ever been in a cockpit before?”
JOEY (Rossie Harris): “No sir, I’ve never been up in a plane before.”
CAPT. OVEUR (Peter Graves): “You ever seen a grown man naked?”
JOEY (Rossie Harris): “Oh sure, but mom said he was just taking her temperature.”
Okay, first of all? They were Swiss. And secondly? Not even terrorists, just “insurgents” looking for a career in aviation. With lacking skills due to insufficient education, it’s clear why they crashed into us like that.
We need to ask ourselves why this happens, and why we don’t properly subsidize flight traning for the Swiss.
How do you ruffle butt floss?
This is some serious bullshit.
Next they’re going to say no clowns in first class.
Oh the insanity.
Lauren,
So would I. For the most part, I don’t think law enforcement is even allowed to keep such profiling statistics. But it’s hard for most people to even name a non-Muslim terrorist group without looking it up. Unless you can find some evidence to the contrary, I won’t try to prove water is wet.
Now try to imagine a world in which the gender of criminals cannot be recorded on the grounds it would lead to gender profiling.
Image the consternation if the male in question had been a young, ARAB male.
I..can’t move him because..that would be…profiling…
But I have to move him because…he might be child molestor….
Can’t…must…can’t…
And then her head exploded.
Knock it off with the sweeping generalizations, TallDave, it’s well known that when water is at a low enough temperature and kept that way it doesn’t drip anywhere at all.
Panty ruffler!
TallDave—Wait for the movie: “Bader-Meinhof is back! and this time, it’s PERSONAL!”
Read the news, Einstein. From the sheer weight of sweeping generalizations, intellectual laziness, and constant stereotyping I’ve seen at the “Feministe” site every time I look at it, I find it pretty fucking rich that you’re demanding attribution here.
Don’t listen to me, though; I probably hew pretty closely to those “traditional conservative values” your site recently bitched about. Whoops! I used the term “bitch.” I’m such a sexist.
Lauren,
I think this is as close you’ll get:
Iraq: Muslim.
India: Muslim or Hindu.
Beslan: Muslim.
Nepal: Muslim.
I’d still like to see some hard stats, but as I said, water is wet.
 But it’s hard for most people to even name a non-Muslim terrorist group without looking it up.ÂÂ
Many people considered the IRA bombers terrorists.
I agree, but we would profile current terrorist orgs, not former ones.
I don’t think they’d be wrong, either.
But, you know, somehow I don’t think they’re the current problem.
Unless they’ve been sawing off heads and shouting Guinness Akbar, or dressing up mentally challenged children in explosive leprechaun outfits.
Do you agree with the policy? Yes or no?
Irrelevant, since none of my comments were about the policy.
Is NZ a westernized country? Yes or no?
Irrelevant since the story was about a COMPANY, not a COUNTRY.
Did I say that what they were doing was illegal? Yes or no?
Who is THEY in this question, Jeff? That’s the point.
If there was a post about Jim Jones persuading his followers to commit suicide, thus showing how dumb Americans were, you’d object.
If there was a post about how the Columbine shooters proved Americans to be unstable gun-bunnies, you’d object.
However, you’re citing the policy of two companies, adopted by those companies without government input, and claiming that this shows Australia and New Zealand are “enthralled with identity politics”. Are you unable to see your problem here?
Is it valid to argue that said practice is in part a response to the company’s understanding of the current cultural ethos? Yes or no?
Nope. For one thing, both companies operate in and across multiple cultures – I imagine they offer halel meals, but this doesn’t mean Australia and New Zealand are Muslim countries.
Finally, I never made a larger argument about the countries involved
I quote you again:
“the second example in as many weeks of a what happens when a westernized country becomes enthralled with identity politics “
Which westernized country would this be, Jeff? The People’s Republic of Air New Zealand? The Kingdom of QANTAS?
I applaud this progressyve step on the part of the wallaby-humper airlines, but it doesn’t go far enough. Clearly, the only way for womyn and chldryn to be truly safe in close proximity with you Y-chromosome-bearing latent rapists is for all men to be required to surrender their phalluses before being allowed to board the flight. It’s a travesty anyhow, that we ban guns and knives and nail clippers from airliners, yet still allow men to board bearing their fearsome PUMP ACTION RAPE RIFLES!
Then that’s your answer. Everything else you say is irrelevant. You don’t think the airlines are doing anything representative of a progressivist western cultural ethos that embraces identity politics.
I do.
Well, the link takes you to a program by the Canadian government (that’s the first example), and it’s my opinion that a COMPANY can act in a way that reflects the cultural ideals of the COUNRTY in which it operates (which is, presumably, how they’d please the market), but you disagree with that —or at least, you don’t think the policy is representative of anything more than the policy.
Which is all you had to say—and which is one of the points (and the important one) on which we disagree.
The rest is just you wishing to parse and pick and try to diminish my argument with silly bits of sophistry.
And I’m not interested in playing games with you.
If only Phoenician was capable of more sophisticated sophistry, he’d almost mimic an adult.
Where are the Phonecians now, I mean, you know, as in advancement? Oh, yeah, that’s right: Lebanon: the epitome of tolerance, technological advancement, etc. and so-forth.
Heh: turing word: “steps” as in none taken.
Jeff, it appears that Qantas and ANZ have hit a nerve. Perhaps you’d like to explain yourself . . .?
I’d like to see some stats on this one.
Poot.
As for current non-Muslim terrorist organizations, I think we’re forgetting about Africa and South America. Muslims, all of them, I’m sure.
Not sure what you are refering to, Lauren.
A large amount of terrorism in Africa is muslim-related. And even in South America, we had that Hezbollah-connected bombing of a synagogue in Argentina.
Where are the Phonecians now
All over the place. And, for that matter, you’re using one of their inventions right now…
But, what the hell, I picked the moniker as a nom de guerre after literally 30 seconds thought. I would have put more effort into it if I’d known wingnuts were going to be digging up references to Ba’al and regularly confusing Phoenicia with Carthage…
Mine swivels and tilts, with excellent lumbar support. Green leather, dontchaknow?
For PITR – you stated:
So I wasted a few minutes and Googled “Australia sexual harassment”. 1.8 million hits later and I found as many examples as you could read in 100 years, so you can begin to be amazed now.
Here’s a legal firm that specializes in bringing these cases to trial.
Here’s a high-level briefing on the 1984 ‘Sex Discrimination Act’
I found plenty of examples where suits were filed and won, but Jeff has a filter that’s preventing me from providing the links because most contain the word ‘sex’, I assume. In any case you can look them up yourself to increase your level of amazement.
I then Googled “New Zealand sexual harassment”, got 1.6 million hits, and decided not to waste any more time on your education. I’m certain your amazement gland is already highly over-stimulated at this point anyway.
Hell, I’ll bet 30 seconds of thought is your outer limit for any one time.
PiaToR: What war, exactly, is that–the war of obnoxious pedantry?
Cry “Havoc,” and let slip the red herrings of war, right Antony?
Steve Jobs is a Phoenecian?
Uh, that’s NOT political correctness. It’s sexist profiling, the sort of thing political correctness works against.
PC terms are usually non-specific to age, gender, nationality or religion. This doesn’t compare at all, you’ve just misused the term.
Basically, stupid, old or conservative people just look at everything they don’t like and call it “PC GONE MAD, I TELL YOU! MAD!”.
Usually it’s something more like too many fat kids or darkies moving into their suburb, or women being allowed to drive etc.
Right railroad, that’s why the first thing I saw many liberals do after the shootings in the DC area was to start telling us that white males are the primary culprits of such acts. Or that white males are responsible for most domestic terrorism, after the Anthrax attacks.
Some groups are open game, some aren’t.
Railroad Stone, you sound like “Phoenician in a time of Romans”, but on a different tack. You dismiss Jeff’s premises without details, nitpick his definitions, complain about conservative old farts, and expect this to stand as stunning reason.
I’d say “Try again”, but I expect that, just list “Phoenician in a time of Romans”, you’d just cherry pick your responses, and not say anything meaningful.
Railroad Stone —
You’re new here and you don’t know me, so I’ll cut you some slack this time. But if you wish to comment here again, try not to be as much of a dickhead on your second try and you were on your first or I’m likely to think ill of you.
What is PC about this policy is the airline’s suggestion that they are engaging in a particular set of actions in order to protect a more socially sanctified good—keeping children safe—with children here the new protected group. And as with many PC-tainted policies, the ends are presumed to justify the means, meaning that a bit of social engineering (the sexual stereotyping disguised as concern for the children) is allowable in order to bring about those ends.
Political correctness, by the way—which has its roots in Marxist-Leninism (before being adopted somewhat jokingly by the cultural marxists of the 60s and 70s)—is today committed to protecting particular groups from offense or harm by policing (and, often times, sanctioning) not only language (which is how PC is often defined) but also the actions with which those groups are to be addressed, confronted, or treated, with the goal being to bring about a “better society.”
Here, that protected group is “the children.”
If you are interested, I have a number of posts on this site about linguistic totalitarianism, how it translates to philosophy and into public policy, and its origins in interpretive theory. You might do a search for “hermeneutics” or “intentionalism.” If you want to discuss this stuff, I’m fine with that. I welcome the debate.
But don’t drop in here and treat me like some stereotype.
Phoenician,
You feculent, little coward. If you’re going to require that Jeff prove an Austalian company’s adherence to the cultural norms from which the company itself originated, and from which the vast majority of its customers come in order to show that its behavior is in obeisance to liberal pieties emblematic of the larger cultural ethos, then while you’re at it, you vile, slinking goat-fucker, why don’t you explain this:
Sound familiar? (and on July 4th, you weeping, little fucktard!?)
So, you have no trouble attributing the beliefs of a single blogger onto the whole of America, but you can’t extend that perogative to Qantas?
You are, truly, a shabby, torpid little man whose only redeeming quality is that, apparently, you have an imaginary passport to “Phonecia” which, hopefully, will someday place you just inside the Syrian border, where you will meet the end you deserve.
But, remember, if you hear the words “useful” and “idiot” in the same sentence, that means they like you!
Good luck!…..
asshat.
These discussions are so educational. You learn who to take seriously and who not to.
For example, the blind oblivion of Lauren’s doubt about terror stats (give me a break, how ‘bout we recount terror attacks for the last four years, I do Muslims and you do everyone else, I’ll give you a head start of 1000).
You might try google if you can’t wait.
Phoenician is in a class of its own with regards to childish indignation and “debatois malhonnête,” of course.
Of course there’s the studied dismissal of the term “political correctness” itself. A refreshing admission that words mean things, even by way of denial.
tw: gave. I gave the passenger next to me a copy of International Small Arms magazine to read during the flight.
All over the place. And, for that matter, you’re using one of their inventions right now…
I always wondered where the Cheese Straightener came from.
Thanks Phoenecia!!
Uh, I believe it’s common knowledge that when you throw out conjecture like “most terrorists are Muslim” the burden of proof is on you. Asking for evidence and/or clarification of that statement is not willful ignorance.
Since when is the initial statement only characterized by the last four years, as opposed to the last one, ten, fifty, or hundred? As I said, clarification. Ain’t to much to ask.
Hey T. Marcell, you forgot this one
As far as I’m concerned, Americans weeping because they’ve lost their spouses, their mothers, fathers, sons and daughters in these illegal, stupid wars are a good thing. The rest of us outside the US should look on at the sight as we would look on at a dog having its nose rubbed in an indoor accident, and for the same reason. Distasteful, yet necessary for housetraining.
Thank you. You have a knack for doing the nicest things.