A Reader Who Believes Men Should NOT Be Allowed to Sit Next to Kids on Planes

“The fact is 99% of paedophiles are male. I’m sure this man is a lovely person but the fact is he is 100 times more likely to rape a child than a woman.”

But the problem with your logic is that 99.9% of men aren’t pedophiles, thus there’s no need to move them.

And do you really think a pedophile could get up to anything in a public place like an airplane? Seriously, have you thought that through?

This is why they need to teach statistics in high school.

a) it’s called the “base rate fallacy” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

b) citation needed for this “99%” number

c) and oh, let’s toss in “false equivalency”. One can fight against the silliness of the fear of men sitting next to kids on planes AND fight pedophilia.

and finally d) personal anecdote. When I was 18 I was seated next to a small boy flying alone to his mom after visiting his dad on the other side of the country. Having been in that exact same situation myself, I could see his false bravado. He was putting on a brave face, but he was scared. We talked a lot, we shared jokes, we stayed a little less afraid.

I’m sure a woman could have done that, and maybe if I’d been next to a little girl I could not have done so well talking Barbies. But thankfully nobody assumed that I would molest a kid on a crowded plane.

That’s supreme idiocy. I don’t remember if my kids sat next to a woman or a man when they flew UM to Europe in 2003 at age 9 and 11, but it would never have occurred to me to worry about such a thing.
For one thing, the airline is supposed to provide appropriate supervision from the moment you hand them over until the moment they are given over into the care of whoever you designated on the other side.
Which is not to say that they will be assigned their personal flight attendants – besides, the flight attendant might be male – or that they should not let them out of their sight for 5 seconds. After all, much of the excitement of flying UM is that you are not constantly supervised and have to fend for yourself to a certain extent. At least, that’s how my kids saw it. They were even bummed that we insisted on accompanying them all the way to the gate.
For another, you should teach your kids that this is the one occasion in which they would be positively REQUIRED to kick, yell, scream, scratch, bite and do whatever else is normally beyond the pale to make bystanders understand that someone is trying to harm them.

On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters. However, most researchers assume available estimates underrepresent the true number of female pedophiles. Several reasons for this have been proposed, including a societal tendency to dismiss the negative impact of sexual relationships between young boys and adult women as well as women’s greater access to very young children who cannot report their abuse

Unfortunately that’s behind a paywall. I got that bit from google’s cache of http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1420331

That’s some genuine, grade-a insane troll logic right there. It’s like the guy who reasons “The odds against having two different bombs on a plane are astronomical!” and so always carries his own bomb while traveling so that nobody will blow up the plane he’s on.

The paragraph below was written as a response (on FB) to yesterday’s Blog about the “strange man” incident – but I think it also applies here. I want to point out that these boys and Mr McGirr were on an AIRPLANE, I’m guessing with Pilots, flight attendants and other passengers. When would he have the opportunity to exercise his 100% more likelyness of raping a child?

Even the on the scene reporter appears to think this is stupid. When I was a kid people would stop and ask for directions ALL THE TIME. I do it too – I try to look for someone adult who seems familiar with the area – but, really, sometimes it’s a teen/preteen out walking in the neighborhood. And sure, you can say “better safe than sorry” but are we really? We have gone nuts with the “if it were my child, I would never forgive myself,” but honestly violent crime is down from when we were kids (Google). However, we did not have social media to keep us up to the minute informed about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING no matter how trivial. We are raising a generation of people who will be unable to function as adults b/c we are not giving them the opportunities to make mistakes, get scraped knees and learn from their experiences. I find it sad that this is where we’ve come. We all want our kids to have a childhood like we did – but we refuse to let them live it.

Finally, from the time I was 12 on, I flew across country on my own just about annually. I sat next to whomever I was assigned to sit next to and we’d read, watch movies, whatever. sometimes we would even chit-chat a little bit. It was not an issue in the least.

What idiotic, sexist BS. Referring to pedophilia as a “male disease” is absolutely sickening, and only adds to the rampant hysterical paranoia among parents that all men are out to get their children.

The fact is, women DO rape, molest, sexually harass, and commit other crimes, but the crime is more likely to go unreported due to false “common knowledge” that says women can’t be pedophiles, or women can’t rape men because they’re too weak/because all men want sex all the time, so they can’t be forced to have sex against their will.

People nowadays are quick(perhaps too quick) to believe that a man has committed a sex crime, but people who are victimized by women are likely to be dismissed and shamed if they come forward. Consider that the next time you try to perpetuate the belief that 99% of pedophiles(by which you clearly mean ALL PEDOPHILES) are men.

Other relevant statistics:

3/4 of child molestation cases occur in either the victim’s or the predator’s home – a child is much safer next to a man in an airplane than at home or with relatives

29% of child sexual abuse offenders are relatives, 60% are acquaintances, and only 11% are strangers

I don’t have the statistics for it, but I’m guessing the chance of any child getting molested on a plane is very nearly zero.

I asked my kids about their UM experience and this is what the eldest replied: “… I can distinctly recall that we were only helped by female airline workers.

By the way, this is an industry-wide practise and has been for years. Mountains and molehills people. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5535994/ …”

Just so you know.

Should we ban men from being school teachers as well? How about pediatric doctors or nurses? How about barring men from all daycares, playgrounds, movie theaters (if rated less than R)? Maybe we should just institute a permanent ban requiring all men to stay at least 20 yards away from all children at all times.

Ergg. The report of the fireman made to move on the airplane makes me angry, but this comment makes me livid. And I’m not even sure I can send it to my engineer husband who will just get upset over this woman’s lack of any sort of statistical knowledge.

Nicoline, how is it “mountains out of molehills” when we’ve institutionalized the distrust of half of the adult population?

I responded to the other post, but as I was getting ready to take my son to Jujitsu where he is learning to defend himself, I thought about something .. Half of the grown men I know lost their virginity to their babysitters, actually more than half.. My stepfather lost his virginity when he was 9 years old, that’s the same age as my son. A lot of times those don’t get reported because we teach our girls that men are perpetrators, but not that women are. I have read far more and experienced far more horrific stories that men have experienced with the women incharge of them as young adolescent males.

In another story I had a friend that would allow her lesbian friend to solicit her daughter because she thought it was amusing but got thoroughly offended when her male friend said the exact same thing to her daughter. I don’t find that fair, at all.

Anyone who REALLY had faith in statistics – rather than selectively using them to bolster an already-made decision based on fear – would allow their young boy to interact EXCLUSIVELY with strange men. After all, most molesters are known to the victim. So one should only let ones young boys sit with strange men on the airplane, and them move them if they get introduced and become familiar.

You CERTAINLY shouldn’t let them sit next to your family members given how much more common it is for boys to be molested by relatives than strangers.

What is the statistical, percentage, insurance-table-worthy incidence of children being raped on crowded commercial airplanes?

I’ll bet it’s zero. If it were possible to be less than zero, it probably would be.

So, sure, let’s go with actuarial risk. I can live with that.

Lenore, are you sure you aren’t being had with this letter? It’s from a person named “Pastiche” and it certainly does do a good job imitating a pearl-clutching nitwit.

The person who wrote this nonsense (Pastiche) is sadly under-educated and quite misinformed. I think we can all agree on that.

But the other sad thing is that you posted this on your blog, to drum up more silliness.

Please stick to stories about how to raise free range kids. I find them very useful and am looking forward to my soon-to-be-born twins (first kids). I hope this blog does not start stooping to the level of posts like this one to drum up arguments and outrage those of us who are sane. There are enough blogs like that already. Reading this did nothing but make me angry and put a bad taste to my afternoon. I learned nothing new.

I am hoping someone else will do the math here. But the other component to this entire discussion is that beyond the infinitesimal odds that a particular male would molest a child next to him on a plane, the scenario requires incredibly bad luck.

The child and adult male have booked separate tickets. On most flights there are no unaccompanied minors. The perpetrator will never know if he is next to a young victim until the plane is about to take off. So first there has to be an unaccompanied minor on the flight. Next that minor has to be randomly seated in a row next to the perpetrator.

To make this happen randomly, (and we have to suppose random here because there is no indication pedophiles can rig the airline computers) will require booking many flights, probably over the course of several years. All of this for the outside chance they might sit next to a young child for a couple hours. sorry but there simply is no evidence to suggest that this scenario is worth considering in making policy.

But then it hit me. The airline policy isn’t to protect kids it is so that the women will take care of the kids. The policy is there because the airline believes that a greater percentage of women won’t complain about being next to a child and might actually help that child during the flight. I would bet that in its origins the rule was sexist towards the woman more than the men.

Will, “mountains and molehills” are my son’s words. However, I agree with him that this is (or should be) a non-issue. Most abuse tends to be committed by people a child knows and as someone said above, if you substitute the gender for a race, you’ll see how demeaning and idiotic an argument it really is.

Pastiche, you have opened my eyes. We should, in fact, ban all men from driving.

Since black people are more likely to rob a convenience store should 711 ban them from stores?

Remember: Even if something is exceedingly unlikely to happen, if it can happen to your child in the few seconds you left to go to the bathroom. Isn’t that the code you live your life by?

I wonder why this person even reads free range kids if she is that concerned about the safety of “our” children or really doesn’t see the gender bias here.

Pastiche, think about it! Even if the guy was a pedofile, he’s not going to do something on a crowded plane. If the kid screams, there’s no way to escape. Criminals tend to like low-risk situations, and a locked airplane at 11 km in the air doesn’t seem like a low-risk environment for a pedofile to me. Therefore, you can safely seat that man next to those kids even if he’s a complete stranger without background check.

Brian wrote a solid argument, but there is another point that makes it even less likely. For a child and a sex offender to be seated next to each other on an airplane, the sex offender first had to get a ticket (which might be harder if they’ve been convicted before) and once they have the ticket and have been put through the wringer, someone would have to ignore all the information and seat them next to an UM.

That is so unlikely the chance might as well be zero, so all that is left is unreported offenders, but with the attitude we see nowadays, the chance of an unconvicted offender being on that airplane isn’t much greater.

Basically all this is telling those 2 boys is that they’re going to grow up to be potential predators.

“For a child and a sex offender to be seated next to each other on an airplane, the sex offender first had to get a ticket (which might be harder if they’ve been convicted before) and once they have the ticket and have been put through the wringer, someone would have to ignore all the information and seat them next to an UM.”

Huh? I think this is a stupid policy but to be clear – there is absolutely no way an airline is going to know that a convicted sex offender is on a plane, let alone sitting next to an unaccompanied minor. There is no prohibition on convicted sex offenders traveling via airplane. Airlines don’t run each potential ticket purchaser through the sex offender registry for every state and then mark those tickets with a scarlet SO.

I took my son to meet his cousins and visit his grandparents a month ago. He turned 4 months while we were there. To get there took two flights, a short flight, a 30 minute connection, then a longer flight.

On the way there, waiting for our second flight I needed to go to the loo. While I was scanning the waiting passengers for a likely baby-cuddler, I struck up a conversation with a man about what gate we were leaving from. He seemed like a normal sort of man, so I asked if he would cuddle my wee man for a minute so I could go to the loo. I had been looking for a woman, but only because ladies tend to be more willing cuddlers.

The man was happy to help, my son had cuddles, and I got to go to the loo. Wins all around. The idea that he might harm my son never entered my mind, I was more concerned about my son being upset because he couldn’t see Mummy

by the same logic, since 95 % of all nurses are female (http://www.minoritynurse.com/minority-nursing-statistics), it is 20 time more probable that a women nurse will kill somebody by negligence in hospital. We should have a policy that ALL women nurses are supervised (preferably by males) all time during their shifts.
isn’t statistics wonderful?

Even if the in the unlikely event that a child was seated next to a sex offender, how could anything possibly happen to the child in such an open area. Planes don’t exacltly offer privacy. Just sitting next to a sex offender isn’t going to hurt a child, they wouldn’t even know. I have 2 children and I’m sure that it is likely that at some point in their lives a sex offender has seen them and maybe even sat next to them. It’s not like you can tell who they are. Nobody is ever going to avoid that unless you never leave the house or let anyone in. I doubt that planes are at the top of the list for predetors to find victims. I would think they would prefer places that at least have an exit. I have never heard of a case of a child being molested on a plane.

That math just made me cringe.

The success of radical feminism. Were they to treat women in the same vain, there would be howls of protests of chauvinism. A child who is emotionally abused is probably more likely to be abused by the child’s mother but you don’t see protests to keep children away from all mothers to protect them.

I’m wondering if this is reflecting gender bias in society. Most “free range” activities that get into the news in a bad way are because the *mother* let the preteens walk to the convenience store. Society points the accusatory finger toward a woman with great ease. The “males can’t sit next to kids” accuses *men* and there is more of an outcry.

It’s a hypothesis, and of course we know the statistics say anyone who knows your kids is far more likely to be a danger than a stranger. But that’s a difficult sell to the mathematically ignorant.

But I’ve often wondered why the paranoid about terrorists haven’t identified males as the group to watch, but only just brown males. There have been plenty of white male terrorists in the USA, some in the past month, in fact, and as far as I know, no darker-skinned women, ever. So doing racial profiling on women of any kind is non-statistically-helpful.

Interesting, because this post made me think of this from the perspective of liability of the airline. Would you rather get a complaint about a guy who had to move because of policy, or from the parents of a child who was fondled (or worse) on the flight? The child who is supposed to be under the care of airline personnel at that time?

Who is actually harmed by a policy saying men can’t sit next to unaccompanied minors?

Even if it’s rare to have kids bothered on airplanes, it does happen. The risk may be small, but it is not zero.

I’m with the airlines on this one, from the perspective that it’s a business decision and they ought to be able to manage their risk, even if it’s a very small risk. Of course they should handle it in a respectful manner.

This is a fancy bit of nonsense. Of course, as a male, I might actually welcome this kind of policy since I wouldn’t have to be bothered with your snot-nosed brat!

Sisters, there really IS a lot of fear-mongering about men going on. It hurts you, though you may not know it, just as it harms men.

No, the policy does not say that all men are pedophiles. The policy is a matter of risk management. When you lock your door at night, is this because you believe everyone within driving distance of your house is a burglar?

I think we’re over-blowing the “harm” argument. Men don’t have the same rights as women any more? When did they ever, and how is that the airlines’ fault? Not being able to sit next to a stranger’s kid means you can’t play football with your son? Really? Women not being allowed to do things with their husbands? I haven’t been on any flights where the majority of passengers weren’t men.

The airlines are not creating the negative stereotypes; they might not even be reacting to them. Maybe they are reacting to actual incidents or allegations that could hurt their business. They might also be reacting to trends in preferences, which is what service-oriented businesses do.

I think I’m experiencing deja vu. Didn’t we already discuss this in the LAST post? Why is there an entirely new post about the exact same thing as the last post? Anyone have any NICE new free range stories to share instead of hounding this one woman with a different opinion…..again?

If the airline was really interested in protecting kids (or managing risk if you want to call it that) then they’d give kids their own row free of adults, and eat the cost of any empty seats. So Virgin, why do you place profit over the safety of our children?

I had to put my11-year daughter on a plane November 21, 2001. 63 days after 9/11. Her father had Thanksgiving that year. She told him she did not want to get on the plane. I talked to him as well. I offered him an extra months in the summer. He would not budge. Legally, I had to send her.

We had her on Delta. They were still letting parents walk the kids onto the plane and get the kids settled in. We got to her seat. I was thrilled to see that there were men behind on both sides, in front on both side, beside her, and across the row. She was in a cocoon of men.

I looked down at them and said, “Men, this is my only child. She does not want to be on this plane. Her father insists and he will be meeting her in SLC. Please promise me that you will make sure she is safe on this plane.” They all made eye contact and said, “yes, we will”.

Now I knew that there was little chance of anything happening. I had told my child that as well. I made sure she knew that terrorists were not going to be on her plane. But, she was still scared. REALLY scared!!!!! She looked at all the dudes, and I saw her visibly relax.

She had a good flight. They all talked and joked with her. They all walked out behind her and the flight attendant. Her dad had a few moments of wondering why all these dudes were glaring at him LOL.

Never once in all this did I even think the thought that one of those men would hurt her. In all the years I’ve told this story no one else ever asked me if I had that thought. If she had been surrounded by all women I would have asked them to care for her too.

Anyway, final word to Pastiche. Looking in to learning how to use statistics might help you let go of some of the fear. If you really dig into the numbers, it will help you not see evil in every man you encounter.

I still don’t believe it is the responsibility of the airlines to change public opinion. I would like to hear what their motives were in the first place. I am fairly certain the motives have nothing to do with (a) believing most men are dangerous to children or (b) wanting to stigmatize males. But let’s give them a chance to speak for themselves.

I can’t believe we’re making an international issue over who sits next to unaccompanied minors. The majority of adults and kids will never have this experience to even wonder about. It’s not a life-changing experience in any case.

Dads, play with your kids in public if you really want to influence public opinion. Be the person who does school/club dropoff/pickup and who volunteers to be a room parent. Coach your daughters’ team. My ex-boss, who was divorced and had custody of his teen daughter, set aside a dad-and-daughter day each summer to take her clothes shopping, and they would include Victoria’s Secret in their trip. (Not my thing, but whatever.) He was never arrested! Like I said, people are blowing this “risk” out of proportion. Let’s not over-sensationalize a few crazy allegations, because that’s what we’re supposed to be fighting against here.

I think maybe one reason people are in denial about the “always a stranger” thing is that incest / family friend incidents are viewed as personal, private matters and usually involve shame on both sides. Not much reason for the cops to call the media if there is no missing kid or fugitive involved. Not much reason for the victims to tell the whole world. I think that’s a good thing in a way. The last thing we need is more media sensationalizing of “the danger among us.”

So it is okay in your opinion for a restaurant to refuse to serve black people or to make them enter through a different door or to sit in specific seats as long as the public wants it that way? And we shouldn’t be concerned because it is “not the responsibility of the restaurant to change public opinion?” As long as the public agrees, companies can be as racist, sexist, ageist, ethicist as they want? Which still begs the question, why do Muslims fly on planes? The vast majority of the US population want them off planes and it is not the responsibility of companies to change public opinion and, in fact, it is perfectly acceptable to cater to racist, sexist, ageist, ethicist public opinion in your view?

Because, of course, we are not actually talking about airline changing public opinion. Nobody really expects men to suddenly be welcome with open arms if this policy is changed. We are talking about airlines making policies that cater to discriminatory viewpoints.

We’re not making an international issue over who sits next to unaccompanied minors. We’re making an issue over a POLICY that dictates that it is unacceptable for HALF the population to do so based solely on the genitalia they possess.

This is not “crazy allegations.” This is COMPANY POLICY. A couple parents deciding Snowflake is too delicate to sit next to a male and a flight attendant finding some nice woman to change seats so the damn plane can get off the ground is a “crazy allegation.” A company policy of sexism and discrimination is well beyond “crazy allegation.” It is the institutionalizing of “crazy allegations.”

And it affects ALL people, men and women, even those who never step foot on a plane. It is part of a whole in society that is increasingly saying that men are not safe around children. It adds to the fear and belief that children are not safe anywhere. It leads to more and more helicoptering. We can’t say “this policy, based on fear of men near children (and there is no other rational explanation even having not been in the board room), is okay but not the one saying men can not work in church nurseries based on the same fear” simply because more people are directly affected. If you can’t see that, we’re simply back to being intentionally obtuse.

Something tells me that your view on this would be much different if it were WOMEN who were being forced to change seats on airplanes based on some stupid fear, regardless of how few were ultimately moved.

Oh brother, you guys.

We’re talking about unaccompanied minors whose parents are handing their little darlings over into the care of an unfeeling corporation. Everything that happens or “seems like it might have happened” is going to be blown out of proportion and there will be complaints and possibly even lawsuits by the parents of some of these kids. Frankly I’d be surprised if this has not happened in the past. Very surprised.

Someone said [paraphrasing] “there’s no right [for unaccompanied minors] to fly,” but didn’t we recently have a discussion about Amtrak or some such which banned unaccompanied kids “for their safety”? Nobody liked it when that happened, did they? It’s good for these kids to be able to fly cross-country and if the airline has difficulties making that happen, whether due to parents’ fears or otherwise, we should be glad they are only making little adjustments instead of canceling the whole program.

The discrimination thing is true, except that men are not a “protected class.” There is no real harm to men here. They are not going to earn less money, die young, or be excluded from elite universities because of whom they can’t sit next to on a plane. As for “harm to society,” this is not a big enough deal to make a blip in everyday life. Why did it even make the news? Did someone die? Did his travels get delayed? We have a recent post on FRK complaining that it made the news when a strange man in a truck told a girl to “come here.” Even though we know of situations where serious crimes have begun exactly that way, we don’t think that’s newsworthy. Yet it’s worth an international outrage that a grown-up guy was asked to please sit in another seat due to airline policy. Some perspective is called for.

“what’s wrong with us saying “this is stupid and wrong and they should not do it?”

I am not prepared to agree that it is “stupid and wrong” until I hear their side of why they implemented the policy in the first place.

Jynet – and like a bunch of hens in a coop, everyone got their feathers ruffled and fell for it. Like I said earlier…let’s move on, ladies and gents.

Let’s see….

Made up data
Made up statistics (base rate fallacy)
Keeps fanning the fire….

If it looks like a Troll, Acts like a Troll….Probably it’s a Troll.

Do Not Feed the Troll.

“Someone said [paraphrasing] “there’s no right [for unaccompanied minors] to fly,” but didn’t we recently have a discussion about Amtrak or some such which banned unaccompanied kids “for their safety”? Nobody liked it when that happened, did they? It’s good for these kids to be able to fly cross-country and if the airline has difficulties making that happen, whether due to parents’ fears or otherwise, we should be glad they are only making little adjustments instead of canceling the whole program.”

Or why not take the rational approach – and the approach they take with every other single thing on planes – if you don’t like your sitting conditions, don’t fly? Who cares if a few kids don’t fly unaccompanied because their parents fear? Unfortunately, kids have to live with the stupid decisions of their parents.

We just talked in the last few weeks about how much influence one parent should have. All agreed that the fear is the parents problem and if those individual parents don’t want the field trip, then those kids stay home while the rest of the class goes. Why exactly is flying different? Why are you supporting the airlines in deciding to side with the fearful parents and knocking the school for doing the exact same thing?

“As for “harm to society,” this is not a big enough deal to make a blip in everyday life.”

You are correct in a vacuum. If this was the only thing going on in this realm, I’d roll my eyes and brush it off as another weird airline regulation to go with the hundreds of other weird airline regulations. However, it is not in a vacuum. It is one thing in a growing list of things that treat men as second class citizens in relation to children. It is a move in a direction that most of us agree is bad for society. Are we supposed to wait until these rules are everywhere and then say “damn we should have done something about this back in 2012 when airlines started moving men sitting next to children?”

Every time an entity gives validity to this fear that children are a threat from men, more and more people buy onto the notion and the harder it comes to combat. The more people who buy into the notion, the more people who consider it dangerous for kids to be roaming about. The more people who consider it dangerous for kids to be roaming about, the more arrests and CPS action we get for letting out children roam about.

“The discrimination thing is true, except that men are not a “protected class.” There is no real harm to men here. They are not going to earn less money, die young, or be excluded from elite universities because of whom they can’t sit next to on a plane. As for “harm to society,” this is not a big enough deal to make a blip in everyday life. Why did it even make the news? Did someone die? Did his travels get delayed?”

So discrimination is only bad if it happens to a protected class? Gay is not generally a protected class so we can discriminate against them? How about your children? I believe at least one is latin american (I could be mixing you up with someone). Ethnicity if not a protected class either so we discrimination against your kids is no problem, right?

Or should we only care about discrimination is someone dies? We only care if someone is lynched.

And, again you seem to miss the point where one thing is a part of a whole. Nobody actually earned less money, died or was excluded from elite universities because they had to drink out of the water fountain on the left instead of the one on the right. We still think it was an appalling way to treat people.

So, SKL, if airlines suddenly decided that women could no longer sit in exit rows because women are prone to getting hysterical in emergencies and can’t be trusted to remain calm and help everyone off the plane, you’re okay with that? It’s a stupid stereotype of women, but only a few people are going to be affected, so no problem. Who cares what it says to your daughters and the rest of women in society. They aren’t going to “earn less money, die young, or be excluded from elite universities because of” where they sit on a plane.

“Where is ‘he’ going to rape a kid on a plane?”

No one’s really explained that yet.

Well, I’m a businesswoman, so maybe that’s why I feel uncomfortable convicting a corporation of spending its time and money to make a change for no good reason whatsoever, when we have not heard their side of it yet. It’s easy for us to jump up and down and scream that what somebody else did was stupid, since we don’t have any actual skin in the game. I would rather hear both sides and address the company’s rationale, than holler about what we outsiders think the rationale might be.

I don’t think child molesters are particularly rare. True, it’s unusual for a stranger to molest a child, but maybe that’s because it’s unusual for a child to go and sit right up against a stranger (and possibly sleep on him) for hours at at time. Which is what happens on planes.

JR, who’s getting burnt down?

I guess I should be glad that I live in a world where the biggest social injustice is that unaccompanied kids on planes are seated by women instead of men.

I’m sure you know that most cases of molestation (and other pedophile behaviors) are never reported at all, let alone to the mass media.

Pastiche sounds like a troll to me.

This just seems outrageous to me. I would like to share a story from my childhood which has left a lasting impression on not only myself, but my mother as well.
When I was about 4 my very young single mother was travelling across the country via a Greyhound bus with my 4 year old self and my 1 year old sister. Mum was given some bad information at the start of the journey and found halfway through the trip that she would have to buy and extra ticket for my toddler ticket and would run out of funds before we would reach our destination.
At some point when we had to change buses the bus driver told my mother that each of the children would have to sit in their own seat. As the bus only had paired seats she had to put either my sister or myself in a seat next to a stranger. As I was the oldest and presumably the more responsible, she seated me a few rows ahead of her in an available seat next to a US military member travelling in uniform. Im sure I talked the poor guy’s ear off most of the trip but apparently he liked me because he passed me a $100 bill before disembarking the bus and told me to give the money to my mom.
Due to this man’s generosity we were able to make it to our destination and I know I enjoyed the independence and responsibility of sitting with a stranger.
This just goes to show you that not every “stranger” is dangerous, and sometimes they can save us when we most need a hand up in the world.

Ah, but Jp Merzetti, you have a penis…and that’s apparently where it all went wrong.

According to this source, Pastiche’s stats are wrong:

http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/child-sexual-abuse.asp

“Women are the abusers in about 14% of cases reported against boys and about 6% of cases reported against girls.” This is assuming that the numbers aren’t under-reported, for which there is a significant argument, as other posters have pointed out.

SKL: You’re saying we should support prejudice to protect corporations from liability, and wonder who will protect the airlines. The answer: judges, and they’ll quite likely rule that the airlines can’t protect you against any and every eventuality.

You’re arguing that it’s “no big deal” since it won’t affect men’s ability to get jobs, etc. etc. The problem is that if we accept it here, we are reinforcing acceptance elsewhere — men will be blocked from entire fields, because we’re possible child molesters who couldn’t possibly have any ability to nurture.

If, for example, there were a real risk factor, all unaccompanied minors would automatically be given aisle seats (so that the child would always been in plain view of attendants plus more passengers than in any other position.) That would reduce the risk near zero right there with no prejudice toward any class of people. Apparently Virgin Atlantic’s concern for liability, if that’s what’s really driving this, never extended that far before.

Everyone on here who have said it’s impossible – it DOES happen. It happened to me when I was 13 – I never reported it because I was too embarrassed. Do a google search and you’ll see it has happened to other children, as well. In fact, Delta was SUED when it happened to a 12 year old girl a couple of years ago. Here’s the article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-3366947.html

Virgin is simply trying to cover themselves against a similiar situation happening. This is not just a knee jerk reaction. It’s been happening to to others. Who cares if it’s a rare situation if you end up being sued?

Here’s another article talking about the issue and other issue that arise from it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/global/07minors.html?pagewanted=all

Namely Air France, who had a string of complaints about kids being molested when traveling alone, decided to only seat children alone with no adults. This caused an issue when, on one flight, oxygen masks were deplored and an 8 year old and 10 year old didn’t know how to put their masks on because there was no adults around to help (stewardesses eventually helped them.). Luckily they worked it out by sitting all unaccompanied minors together so a stewardess could easily help them. Honestly, I think sitting all unaccompanied minors together close to stewardesses – who are paid to help people – makes sense.

Here’s another article talking about the issue and other issue that arise from it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/global/07minors.html?pagewanted=all
Namely Air France, who had a string of complaints about kids being molested when traveling alone, decided to only seat children alone with no adults. This caused an issue when, on one flight, oxygen masks were deplored and an 8 year old and 10 year old didn’t know how to put their masks on because there was no adults around to help (stewardesses eventually helped them.). Luckily they worked it out by sitting all unaccompanied minors together so a stewardess could easily help them. Honestly, I think sitting all unaccompanied minors together close to stewardesses — who are paid to help people — makes sense.

“Well, if there have been incidents or alleged incidents on Virgin (or any other airline), do you think they are likely to publicize them? I’m thinking that would (a) not be great for business and (b) lead to even more overreaction and irrational demands on the part of parents.”

Come now, SKL, you claim to be far more intelligent than this. I don’t expect that AIRLINE to publicize it at all. However, for every child molestation there are at least 2-3 people involved outside the airline and molester … and that is only if charges are not pressed.

“I’m sure you know that most cases of molestation (and other pedophile behaviors) are never reported at all, let alone to the mass media.”

You are correct that little Susie getting molested by uncle Dave is not going to get reported beyond maybe the local news paper. Rampant molestation of unaccompanied minors on planes is actually going to make the news and grapevine. If this was limited to Virgin, I could see possibly not hearing about it in the US as Virgin is not a major player in the US. Virgin is a major carrier where I live and is very well-thought of.

“Just how many incidents of inappropriate behavior do you think are necessary to justify a policy of some sort?”

Well that just pretty much throws out free range parenting out the window because this is EXACTLY helicopter parents’ argument. Most helicopter parents know in their head that the odds of stranger abduction are low; they simply don’t care. Why? Because stranger abductions DO happen, albeit rarely, and life would really suck if it was your child so why risk it. The thinking that leads us to convictions for letting children walk to Pizza Hut because it is just too dangerous.

This is yet another reason to molestation-proof your child and not try to control the world around her. Women molest children too. For all the flight attendant knows, she just moved a perfectly nice gentleman out and a sadistic child molester in, particularly considering this is a woman who just agreed to give up her nice child-free seat to sit next to a strange kid who may or may not be a total obnoxious brat as far as she knows. I think I’m more comfortable with the odds of the random stranger who blindly selected the seat next to my child not being a child molester, even if male, then I am the woman who chooses to sit next to my child on a plane for 4 hours. I don’t generally enjoy sitting with my child on a plane for 4 hours and I adore her.

Teach your children to react and empower them to do so and you have absolutely no fear of who they sit next to on a plane. Unlike stores or parks, no weapons can be involved. The child can’t be abducted. A mere spoken “stop” or “leave me alone” can be heard by many people, most of whom would happily intervene because most people want to protect children. Flight attendants and other passengers are walking up and down the aisles nearly constantly – even while the seatbelt light is on – to grab attention. With the removal of blankets and pillows from most domestic flights, I’m not really sure how the molestation could occur, especially considering there is likely a 3rd person in the same aisle. You’d have to be pretty damn brazen to start fondling a kid with no cover and a 3rd person sitting right next to you.

SKL, I don’t deny that it is possible that it has happened. Until recently, although this thread has been pending for days, nobody produced any evidence that it had. Stranger abduction happens too. I don’t think that you can come up with a single fear expressed by helicopter parents that has never happened anywhere in the world and is a complete figment of the parent’s imagination. They’ve all happen, probably repeatedly. There are bad people in the world. I hope my child never runs into one, but I am not going to live in fear that she will and I am not willing to brand an entire half of the population as a potential one based solely on the gender they happened to be born. You can choose differently, but I am not going to stop speaking out against something that I believe is wrong (the continued treatment of men as a danger to children, not where they sit on planes specifically). Through numerous threads, I’ve gotten the impression that you don’t particularly care for men in general so I don’t imagine that your opinion that it is okay to stigmatize them is going to change either.

Donna, did you read Sarah’s links? It is apparently not all that rare even. Also, an airline employee posted on the other thread that she sees all kinds of stuff you might not expect to encounter on a plane “because there are so many people who would see you do it.”

Every time I’m on a plane, there are long periods of time when the aisles are blocked by the dang food/refreshment carts, and another significant chunk of time (if not the whole flight) the seatbelt sign is on. I think it would be pretty easy to do stuff to a kid (kids are usually afraid / embarrassed to speak up) if you were so inclined. Other people would probably assume that since you are sitting with the kid and acting familiar, you must be the child’s caregiver or relative.

I agree that people need to teach their children what to do and say if someone bothers them on the plane. Of course, this requires not being in denial that anything can possibly happen on a plane.

Donna, I have no problem with men, thank you. A lot of my favorite people are men. I don’t think men need to interpret this measure the way you are interpreting it. In one of Sarah’s links, the victim’s dad even said the child should not have been seated next to a man.

It seems some airlines have determined that unaccompanied minors are statistically safest sitting next to a woman, and yet we are forcing them to adopt a policy that is actually less safe for the kids. All because the truth hurts some hypersensitive men. The great dads in my life would be in favor of Virgin’s policy, because they themselves would not ask their daughters to sit next to a strange man for hours.

And I think we’re confusing ourselves on the “rarity” of this kind of risk. Men who get aroused by young flesh are not that rare. Stranger abduction is rare because the abductor takes a great risk in trying to lure or snatch a child, and isn’t usually successful. But here, we’re talking about someone putting a youngster practically into the guy’s lap and leaving her there for hours. We can’t apply the rarity of stranger abduction to this case.

SKL: Please don’t stigmatize me or other fathers because we’d rather have our children be capable and unafraid than sheltered from every possible thing that could go wrong.

Sarah’s stats neither surprise me nor sway me. Let’s say she could dig up 30 kids this happens to every year. Millions of children fly every year. It’s statistically insignificant.

“But here, we’re talking about someone putting a youngster practically into the guy’s lap and leaving her there for hours. We can’t apply the rarity of stranger abduction to this case.”

Of course we can. Let’s start with the incredible unlikelihood that a given person beside a child is going to be a molester. Now, let’s assume the child is completely ill-equipped to reply — given that other kids scream “STRANGER DANGER!” at my four year old, I’d be surprised to find a kid who wouldn’t freak out at a bad touch.

So, now we’ve got a kid who is completely uneducated in dealing with strangers (unlikely) seated beside a child molester (extremely unlikely). What are the chances the molester is going to act while trapped in a tube in the air, surrounded by hundreds of other passengers, possible air marshals, etc. etc.?

I mean, really? This is what you’re trying to scare us with? By your logic, I shouldn’t send my child outside, because a lightning bolt might hit them. Heck, taking my child in a car is an insane risk, by your standards.

Men are increasingly stigmatized in our society as potential perverts. I’ve had people in parks demand that I prove I’m my child’s father. I’ve had people snatch up their children and flee from me because I dared to speak to them….while in the presence of my own young child.

So, no, I don’t think this is because “the truth hurts some sensitive males.” I think it’s because your level of reaction is ludicrous, and one more piece of the picture that’s being painted where all men are likely rapists or perverts. And frankly, I’m more than a bit sick of being treated with fear because I happen to have a given piece of anatomy.

Ben, nobody is saying keep kids inside, or off planes, or keep them tied to their parents. The whole point is to facilitate a young kid’s independence in being able to travel without a parent. I said nothing suggesting any change in behavior by parents or children.

Do you think it is better to let these things happen and then have the horror stories spread around? Does that make you feel more trusted as a man? Vindicated?

I’ll tell you what. I’m pretty free-range, but I was molested as a kid, and so were many women I know. It’s not rare. And every case involved a male. Some friends, some strangers. It’s a crime of opportunity. This is a fact. And putting a child next to a stranger creates an opportunity. For which there is an easy fix. There is no pitchfork-wielding involved here; just a mild, quiet seating policy that hardly ever even gets noticed.

If it weren’t for FRK, I would never have even heard of this policy. So much for the airlines’ fearmongering.

You want to choose to feel offended. I can’t help you there.

By the way, as a woman, I can’t quite sympathize with your self-pity over this horrid airline seat discrimination. Wanna trade grievances?

Here’s a better question: change the group being stigmatized from men to, say, homosexuals. After all, many children’s parents might be uncomfortable knowing that a homosexual was seated near their child. Deeply conservative Christians would argue gleefully that homosexuals are trying to recruit the kids.

So, what if the “quiet, unobtrusive” policy was moving homosexuals away from children? Would you be as supportive then? After all, it’s just a little policy. No one is really hurt by it, right?

When did anyone here or anywhere “declare every male a pedophile”?

I thought we were against exaggerating bad stuff on this site.

@SKL: The airline policy declares every male a pedophile. At least a potential pedophile. Why else move them away from children?

So Yan, what about the dad who was quoted as saying his daughter (who was molested by a man on a flight) should not have been seated next to a man? Is he calling you and himself molesters?

Dr David Kenneth Cochrane Registered Sex Offender Six Counts of rape including minors, three counts of indecent assault all involving patients dating back to the early millennium. Psychiatrist 6 months in Jail, 2 years probation, including 6 month license suspension. North Bay Canada Ontario and now re-employed for the regional health centre. etc

Online poll in the Sydney Morning Herald asking if people were for or against the policy of not sitting men next to unaccompanied children – 81% said they are against the policy, so the majority of people who read the Herald do not believe all men are rapist – hooray

“I’m sure this man is a lovely person but the fact is he is 100 times more likely to rape a child than a woman.”

Anytime a comment starts with something like “I’m sure this man/woman/gay man/gay woman/etc… is a lovely person, but. . . ”

You always know there is something nasty and rotten following it.

I bet men are more likely to rape women than they are to rape children, so it’s probably better if they sit next to the children and not the children’s mothers. But I think women are more likely to be serial poisoners. Hm. Since poison is a lot easier to get onto a plane than a gun or a knife, maybe women shouldn’t be allowed on planes at all?

Aren’t meaningless statistics fun?

Why doesn’t the airplane company just screen passenger ticket lists against public police files, and take it from there? Not 100% effective, to be sure, but would have a limiting effect.

I would hope “SKL” would read more of this website and come to appreciate the many problems associated with bubble-wrapped kids. . . and the many problems associated with fearmongering.

I like the above post which notes the grave danger posed to our children, that of being struck by lightening!

Captain America, I’m one of the most active people here and have been for years. My kids are about the most free-range kids in my county. They even have male teachers and coaches, oh my. Not sure if that changes your perspective or not. Too bad nobody seems willing to read Sarah’s links. I think her posts are among the most sane here.

“A real man would want to protect these kids, as well, and not get his feelings hurt that he was being treated unjustly”

I’m just glad that your assessment of a ‘real man’ has no bearing on me whatsoever. A ‘real’ FRK would evaluate the actual costs involved and not assume it to be ‘hurt feelings’. A ‘real’ FRK wouldn’t be labeling people who respectfully disagree with the cost/benefit analysis as not wanting to ‘protect these kids’.

“someone who can cause her emotional scars for the rest of her life because he stuck his hands in her panties”

Let me be clear: doing that is absolutely heinous and reprehensible. But the only way something that doesn’t go beyond “sticks his hands in her panties” on a single occasion could cause emotional scars for the rest of her life is if she’s subsequently surrounded by people who constantly tell her it’s supposed to.

“something that happens regularly on airplanes.”

Now it’s “regularly?”

“It’s a win win situation for everyone.”

You’ve made the case that an individual man shouldn’t care about being stigmatized or that we shouldn’t care about an increasingly pervasive tendency to regard men as a dangerous class. You haven’t quite succeeded in showing how it’s a “win” to a perfectly innocent man to be inconvenienced for the sake of a child he had only positive intentions toward, or for society to continue down this path. Maybe in your view it’s nothing we should care enough about to matter, but a “win” usually involves something actually positive.

Only if a man is somehow capable of believing that he wasn’t going to harm a child but she’s somehow safer not next to him anyway, does this make sense.

It’s rather like the TSA — pick an intrusive and offensive method that satisfies public paranoia, ignore other effective methods.

Sarah (and SKL) I’m going to start with my main point.

Sometimes non-evil non-stupid people really do pay attention to your case, and understand it, and disagree.

As my grandmother’s friend liked to say “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”.

The costs include: simply having a policy that has to be communicated to all staff, and effected. The latter is probably bigger, in that you must modify your seating software to handle more special cases, and your seating is now less flexible. Now you have to get a travelers gender before you can let them pick their own seat. You can’t let a female/male pick seats in the same row as an unaccompanied minor, or they might happen to switch seats from assigned. Or you have the cost of explaining to them why the woman has to sit between the child and the man. And while you’re willing to dismiss ‘hurt feelings’ you are going to incur the cost of having to explain this to passengers, which is a cost. And if you do seat a woman next to two kids, and she’s a no-show, and you only have a man as a standby, then you have to juggle things and find a single woman to take the empty seat next to the kids so your stand-by man can take the seat vacated by the single woman.

And we have the cost of further institutionalizing the idea that random men are dangerous, and random women are safe (assuming you’re going for the ‘women can sit next to kids, but not men’ option). In one of your cited examples, it was a woman who tried to molest a boy, and the boy’s attempt to raise the issue were ignored. THAT is a cost. Women also sexually molest kids, and when we assume they don’t, we further stigmatize the victim.

And yes, ‘hurt feelings’ AKA the right to not be assumed a predator, is a cost. My feelings don’t trump everything, but if you’re willing to ‘hurt the feelings’ of nearly half the population in this case, then there must be a ton of other ways in which you don’t think men should be able to interact with children. An airplane is not particularly unique, and is certainly one of the least common ways in which children are sexually abused.

I’m fighting the temptation to keep arguing, because the argument has been made. Which is why I started with my conclusion.

@Monica the important difference being that they subject everyone to the same level of screening. And it’s impossible to measure the preventative effect of screening. But in principle I agree, locked cockpit doors, and awareness of the new paradigm that hijackers are ready to die are the big things keeping us safe.

I would actually agree that profiling of potential child molesters makes more sense from a threat analysis POV in that it’s not a crime that can happen by proxy. You can’t get someone else to do your molesting for you, but you can get someone else to do your bomb carrying for you.

Since most pedophiles are family or close friends, you should be more concerned about the mom than a stranger on a plane. What exactly is the guy going to do, molest the kids in front of a bunch of people? Not likely. Sure anything is possible, but I’ve been riding public transportation since I was a kid and NOT ONCE did anything bad happen unless you count smelly people or not having the right amount of change. In fact, the only time something bad ever happened to me was when I was with FRIENDS (or so I thought.). And by that time I was 17. Bad things can and do happen, but usually, if you’re going to be molested you will probably know the person. I feel safer around strangers sometimes!

p.s. i let my 3 year old talk to strangers. My philosophy is if you teach your kids to be smart about who they are talking to and about what, then talking to strangers could actually be a benefit. You don’t want your kid who is hurt or lost to be scared to talk to some nice strangers who will help, right?

Edit last comment: “trying to put our kids in a bubble is going” — isn’t going, rather

The only women who support this policy are pedophiles themselves. They want a greater chance to sit next to unaccompanied minors. It is obvious this reader like to touch little kids the facts support themselves.

Sorry Lenore, but I’ve recently read an article about how the airlines let down unaccompanied minors in their care, and there have been quite a few cases of sexual assault on minors from men sitting next to them. I believe I read it in the NYT, but can’t be sure.

Nate said,
” And do you really think a pedophile could get up to anything in a public place like an airplane? Seriously, have you thought that through?”

My fiance worked for a large airline and he told me, Yes, it happens quite frequently. Molestations AND rapes. That’s why they changed their seating policy.

Warren – I so agree with you. I don’t have your 20 years fo parenting experience, but I’ve been active in the Scouting movement (as a member and as a leader) for nearly that long. I’m used to dealing with all kinds of kids, and since the Candian program has been co-ed for about 20 years, girls as well as boys. To be told that I have to move seats for “the child’s safety” when basically another randomly selected person will be put in my place, whom *I* don’t know, goes against my personal policies of “keeping a child safe” He/She is safe with me – I don’t know about the other person.

@ Ben Trafford – You’ve had people take their kids and run in parks? OMG….I’d be shouting after them – “Make sure you tell your kid why you yanked him away from his playtime in a panic – because you’re an idiot!”

Andrew