The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Please move sir, lest you molest > Comments

Please move sir, lest you molest : Comments

By Peter West, published 21/8/2012

What is the risk posed to an 'unaccompanied minor' from sitting next to an unaccompanied male on a plane?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
As a male Primary Teacher, I feel the force of this attitude often. Over the 25 years I have been in schools, I have seen a steady decline in the number of males signing up. Is this one of the reasons?

It has certainly changed my practice. I am very careful to ensure I am never alone with a student, I turn sideways to avoid the enthusiastic hugs of kindergarten children and I never offer physical contact for comfort or any other purpose, without the child's permission and adult witnesses nearby.

I am fortunate in that I have built up a strong reputation with the families in my school. Other colleagues have not been so lucky, and accusations have been made.

Children must be protected but this is going too far.
Posted by rational-debate, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 8:07:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is the type of fear that feminists and feminism has tried so hard to install in our society.

If one man is guilty, then all men are guilty. Is that not the message to do with sexual assault, domestic violence.

Somehow as a man I must have this magical 'omni potens' to stop another man from committing the smallest offense.

However statistically a child, on an aeroplane has more chance of being killed in a crash, then of being molested by some undesirable male aboard an aeroplane in full public view.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 8:10:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know how to stop this of course don't you. Rile the feminists up and convince them it's an affront to women to stereotype them as natural free unpaid babysitters.

See, the problem is men will never be considered victimised, especially when someone shrieks 'Think of the children!'.

C'mon stop being precious, BE A MAN! Awe, poor little men are offended, wah wah, HTFU!

But, if you turn it into an affront on the Downtrodden Martyrs of Society (ie women for those unfamiliar with my work), you'll have the airlines shaking in their boots in no time. It's sexist!, it's discrimination!, it's misogyny! if it's aimed at women.

So, quiet down on the supposed trivial affront to those privileged entitled paedophile rapist men, and start harping on about how it's sexist to think women should have to look after children.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 9:07:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if the statistics would bear out that it is mainly women who were responsible for placing these unaccompanied minors onto planes in the first place? But apart from that…

One alternative could be to reframe the public discourse that it is NOT 'sexist to think women should have to look after children' on the basis that the most any man can do is 'start' an egg – it is women who 'make babies' and hence make responsibilities.

Another is…

People who constantly blather on against same-sex marriage with 'think of the children' may be on to something – but not in the way they imagine.

Firstly – allow same-sex marriage – then when the need arises a gay male couple could produce their marriage certificate (as proof of their gayness) and be able to supervise any unaccompanied girls. And vice versa for a lesbian couple supervising any unaccompanied boys.

This could be regarded as providing a social service to mitigate any potential problems created by heterosexuals.
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 9:36:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Humans are dangerous creations, especially males. The airline policy regarding children is well founded. Sure, the chance of sexual molestation may be small but it exists.

Problem is that we are half-human and half-animal. The human side of our psyche is taking a long time to displace the animal side. History shows it may never succeed.

We have to deal with the reality of what the bulk of humans are: a very dodgy lot as the interest in child porn demonstrates!

http://dangerouscreation.com
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 10:16:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Register your disapproval by NOT flying on airlines which have this policy.

It also happened to Boris Johnson.Great read btw

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634055/Come-off-it-folks-how-many-paedophiles-can-there-be.html
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 10:23:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy