Man branded a pedophile for being a man

Source

So I just read this and I must say it is extremely pathetic. Aren't we supposed to move away from things like these? Not become worse?

 

This just goes to show that some things just never change. No matter how much of our society has decided to move on and actually grow up there are still dark tiny shreds of us that wish to hold us back.

 

Seriously what is wrong with society? Just because a man seats next to 2 younger people, he's automatically suspected of being a pedophile. This is just wrong, I understand that it's for safety purposes but seriously? This is what's wrong with society. It's the way we think that makes these things happen, and this is seriously offensive and wrong.

 

Remember kids; women can't be paedophiles!
The double standard hits hard again, it seems. Funny how just being male makes you suddenly a target, but any female is given the benefit of the doubt.
Our society is supposed to be based on equality. Man, woman, black, white, whatever you are, you shouldn't have to be victimised like this just because of something so shallow. And he's a fireman for god's sake, somebody that goes out there and saves lives. I understand that you can't tell that somebody has a public service job just by looking at them when they're off-duty, but really, this kind of thing really is stupid as hell.

 

wow they really might need to be considering rethinking this policy...and i wouldnt have been ashamed if i was that guy. my thought process wouldve been more 'irritated' than ashamed.

 

I wouldn't say "branded a pedophile," he was just asked to move out of concern for the kids' safety. I of course understand & agree that it's an unfair standard to have a woman sit there instead of a man--they couldn't have just asked the man to move to an empty seat? Or sat any unaccompanied children together?

I dunno though, airlines I'm okay with them taking away some personal liberties in order to ensure safety. Though obviously not at the price of sexism.

 

Oh boy...
This is ridiculous. Unless the man was making any move toward the children, there was no need to ask him to move. Just sitting next to them is no reason to ask him to move. If I was him, I'd be furious, this is a horribly sexist move, as well as just plain disrespectful. Poor guy, and they made him change seats with a woman? Stupid.

 

Wow talk about counting the chickens before they hatch. How is a man automatically a Pedophile just for sitting with children? What does that make me racist just because I sit with white people?
That was in no way for "safety" that just translates to, "Oh sorry we count our chickens before they hatch. By the way, can you sit over there? We counted our chickens before they hatch so that means you're going to do evil things to these children because you're a MAN."
Pathetic.

 

like the woman can't be a pedophile. this is just ridiculous. sexism at work.

 

I kind of have to agree with Misty. However, just because you're a guy doesn't mean your a pedo. Women can be pedophiles. The only other thing that bugs me though is why would you let your child be unaccompanied on an airplane? Let alone anywhere when they're barely 10 years old.

The policy of the airline is sexist. Again, women can be pedophiles too, not only men. I really hope the policy is changed that no adult, man or woman, can sit next to an unaccompanied minor. Regardless however, a child shouldn't even be alone on a plane in the first place.

 

sometimes, children have to use air travel. the parents probably took them to the airport and took them through security and up to the gate.

 

And that is exactly how he was branded a pedophile. He was asked to move seats because he was a man and they were afraid he might be a pedophile. There was absolutely no other reason for them to ask him to move. Would you also think that's alright, if it's for safety if they would have told a black person to move because "black people aren't allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children"? The concept is the same, it's the same level of discrimination.

Besides, it's not like you're more likely to molest a child on a plane. You're in public, there's tons of people around you and the flight attendants are supposed to check in on the unaccomponied children often.

Why would you not let unaccompanied children get on the airplane? It's not like you just drop them off and let them figure it out for themselves, the flight attendants and other people who work at the airport look after them and help them. Besides, at 10 you're actually pretty old and should be able to take care of yourself somewhat.

It's a perfectly normal thing to do. I took an airplane alone when I was around 10, it's not a big deal. Admitedly though, the states are always far worse with things like these than a lot of other countries. So that might be why it's not a normal thing over there.

 

This has nothing to do with personal liberties, though - This is prejudice.

This is not surprising to me, though. Men often suffer from this type of prejudice/judgement.

 

I also have to agree with Misty. And I have to disagree with the man who believes that just because he's a firefighter, it somehow means that he's trustworthy in this situation?

Maybe the individual is good? But there's one too many cases where 'good' people have turned out to be killers or molesters. The airline is right to not make exceptions in that regard because you can never know. It's not personal. It's just a preventive measure. Because you know, children have allegedly been molested on airlines.

If you're going to allow children to travel alone--both parents and airlines should make sure it's actually safe. Minus the sexism no doubt attributed due to common cases of molesting.

 

I was (almost) in a similar situation when my dad was considering moving to South Dakota (I live in New York, with my mom, and he's about 20 minutes away). Obviously South Dakota is not easy travel distance, but court orders mandated visitation rights for my dad. My mom had a job and we're poor, so if we were going to fly out to visit him, it wouldn't really make sense for my mom to go with us. That's got to be a common case, with the divorce percentages these days.

I think I was about 9 or 10, at the time.

I meant it's not as if they waved a flag screaming "pedophile! pedophile!" or made him register as a sex offender. Out of concern for the kids, they asked him to move. I think any reasonable person would undergo the tremendous inconvenience of standing up and moving a few aisles down if it meant creating a more comfortable atmosphere... especially a public servant, like a fireman.

I said in my post that it was wrong to replace the man with a woman (though most children feel more comfortable around foreign (to them) women than men, I find), and I feel the same way about race. But asking the guy to move? Totally understand and am fine with.

 

What they did was not that much different. They made him move because of an act that he had not comitted. By your logic, it would be alright to put someone from Iraq in quarantine to make it safe. Afterall, he might blow up the airplane. The act itself of moving has nothing to do with it, it's the principle. They made him move because he's a man, because of prejudice.

There is absolutely no way for them to have known wether or not the man was a pedophile. And for all they knew, the woman could have been one, as the kids were boys and not girls the odds of her being attracted to them wouldn't be far off from the odds of him being attracted to them.

Also, it's very doubtful that this actually made the atmosphere better. More than likely it made it worse, as the flight attendants clearly told him why he couldn't sit there. It made it a lot less comfortable for the guy, and probably others since they might have thought that he actually was a pedophile.

 

I do agree that it isn't a tremendous inconvenience, but the problem I have here is the reasoning behind the moving of him. The basis of moving him was nothing but the fact that he was a man, and that, to me, doesn't make sense. And Chev posted the two articles regarding molestation, but calling it common is taking it a bit too far, simply because molestation is not common.

Most children feel more comfortable around foreign women, because of this. Kids aren't exactly smart, but if they see a man gets moved because he might do something bad, don't you think that will lead to them assuming that men generally do bad things to you? Many women molest children as well, it's just not as widely "known"/noticed. Statistically, yes, more men molest kids than women, however, it varies from study to study.

Studies of sexual misconduct in US schools with female offenders have shown mixed results with rates between 4% to 43% of female offenders (Source)

7% is not really much of a difference.

It's just the assumption that because men might molest a child, they are told to move. If the child asked for it, or if the parents specifically asked for it, then I get it. But if no one asks for it, then they have no reason to do so. (Also; the reason they do this, I believe, is not for the safety of the child, but to avoid law-suits, which is ******ed)

 

In fairness, this might just be my school but I had very few male teachers. Maybe one or two a year, out of nine classes. So the stats might be affected by that; obviously though I know women can molest children as well, just saying, that study might not be totally accurate.

Anyway, I never said (or, rather, meant) it was okay based on sex, just that I was fine with asking an adult to move away from unaccompanied children. Not every adult is a rapist or a pedophile, but I'm okay with being extra cautious (within the realm of reason) if it saves just one kid from that experience.

 

If they can pay someone to execute tremendously crucial tasks, such as distributing coffee and peanuts, then surely they could afford paying someone to, idk, watch those kids ? I did travel alone by plane or train when I was 10 or something, my memory is a bit fuzzy but I think I was indeed being constantly watched. Asking that man to move wasn' t just stupid, it was lazy and careless.

 

Of course, it may be inaccurate, but it's still not that uncommon, is my point.

But I agree, asking an adult to move is fine, if there is a free seat, etc. But in this case, he was replaced. Of course, if it saves a kid from the experience, I agree, it's worth it, but keep in mind that only being accused of being a potential molester can be devastating. False rape accusations ruins lives, and if the general thought process is "It's better if a woman sits next to this kid, so s/he won't be molested," it will lead to hostility from many, including me. If someone asked me to trade places due to that, I would start some serious sh|t, as there is no basis for the assumption. (Statistics can't be applied to an individual).

I am, however, very interested in the appearance of the man in question, as that may have a significant impact on the judgement call.