Excerpts from http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet
There's a growing storm surrounding British Airways' policy against
seating children next to male strangers, even when the child's parents
are on the same flight. The policy's impetus? The perceived threat of
a man .ually abusing a child.
Recently, a nine-year-old girl on a British Airways flight was moved
from her seat next to a 76-year-old man and his wife. The male
passenger, Michael Kemp, was first asked to switch seats with his
wife, but his wife refused because of a bad leg that required the
added space of an aisle seat. The stewardess ultimately refused to
seat the girl next to Kemp or between the pair, because doing so would
violate British Airways' child-welfare regulations. Once the flap was
publicized, an airline spokesperson said, "We apologise if Mr. Kemp
was offended by our request, but we have to balance the needs of the
child with those of the adult."
Both Air New Zealand and Qantas have adopted a similar policy banning
children from sitting next to male strangers.
The logic of these airlines' policy rests on the greater occurrence of
child . abuse by men. Men do account for 86% of .ual abuse cases
reported against boys and 94% of cases reported against girls,
according to the US National Center for Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder. But if those statistics were the basis of public policy, we
couldn't have classrooms, sports teams, day care centers or summer
camps led by men.
The memo delivered to children by BA's policy is: Men are scary and
not to be trusted. As Wendy McElroy reasoned, "Kids may hesitate to
approach a policeman or fireman who are, after all, still men. And how
is that message being heard by the boys who will grow into men?"
Not to mention that preventing kids from being seated next to
strangers probably isn't the best way to prevent .ual assault; a
mere 10 percent of child .-abuse cases are perpetrated by strangers.
The policy is irrational and hysterical; worse yet, it's .ist. As
McElroy writes: "One thing is clear: some airlines are going to treat
your father, husband, and son as . offenders simply because they are
male."
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
...George Bernard Shaw |