Male Nurse Feels Humiliated By Qantas Policy

[cobl04]

What a disgusting policy.

[Jive Turkey]

Cobbler wants to sit next to young kids. Sick!

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Cobbler wants to sit next to young kids. Sick!

We all do, let's face it. Come on - we're guys. There's nothing we like better that molesting other peoples' kids, on planes.

[cobl04]

I think that's why Samuel L Jackson was so pissed off in Snakes on a Plane.

[Moonlit_Angel]

, cobl.

Originally Posted by feedthetree

However, if a parent must feel that it is necessary to send their child unsupervised, I would expect for them to teach their children a little street smarts. Such as I when I was younger and I traveled unaccompanied. I was told that there were bad people out there, all around me, predators that seek out children to exploit. Then I was given the definition of exploit and not to tolerate it, in an airplane, airport, mall, store, WHEREVER! End result? NOBODY is going to touch me without a severe screaming and hitting hissyfit!

Agreed on the street smarts. That's the thing, though-I am all for teaching kids to be alert, to know if a stranger (or someone they know) is getting a little too invasive with them. Teach them about "good touch" and "bad touch", all of that. Fine. They should definitely learn that.

But I also fear that we run the risk of making it sound like danger lurks around every corner and if someone even accidentally touches you for some reason (bumps into you or something like that) it's time to sound the alarm. If I had kids, I'd want them to be safe, absolutely, but I also don't want them to walk through life paranoid. Plus, if a parent is that worried about their kid encountering scary adults, then I would think that parent wouldn't feel comfortable with letting their kid go on a plane ride alone to begin with. By allowing a kid to go on a plane unsupervised, that tells me you have a level of trust that they know how to behave and that they will be all right.

And, as noted in the article, if a child is abused, more often than not it's by someone they know, and not some random person on a plane.

Originally Posted by feedthetree

Moral of the story: he got his feelings hurt. wah wah wah. That's life.

I assume you'd feel the same way if you were told to move because you were presumed to be a potential "threat" to children, then?

It was insinuated that him sitting next to kids would be a problem because he could be a potential pedophile. I'd find that pretty insulting, too, if I were in his shoes. Especially since they had absolutely no proof for such an assumption other than he was a man.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Yeah, that confused me as I read it. His occupation was totally irrelevant.

Well, the point that's been emphasised in Australia is that the two recent stories of men being moved are both people who, in the course of their profession, we entrust to look after kids - either to rescue them from burning buildings or to look after them when they are in hospital. Both have up-to-date working with children cards. Just to make Qantas and Virgin look more ridiculous.

Anyway, I think the whole thing is utterly ridiculous. I travelled across the Tasman as an unaccompanied minor practically every school holiday period in the late nineties (sometimes with Qantas, generally Air New Zealand). Never molested. In fact, I still have fond memories of two flights where I was seated next to very fun adults ... both males. We played cards and watched TV and coaxed the crew into giving us business class meals.

But I guess it was all a ruse to groom me for sex?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Axver

Never molested.

This made me laugh

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

We all do, let's face it. Come on - we're gays. There's nothing we like better that molesting other peoples' kids, on planes.

You see?

[feedthetree]

I assume you'd feel the same way if you were told to move because you were presumed to be a potential "threat" to children, then?

It was insinuated that him sitting next to kids would be a problem because he could be a potential pedophile. I'd find that pretty insulting, too, if I were in his shoes. Especially since they had absolutely no proof for such an assumption other than he was a man.[/QUOTE]


^ That's so funny you said that. I lived with a roommate and her three children for several months, however we got into a dispute and she packed up my bags and threw me out, stating, "It was for the best interests of the children. I would prefer not to subject my children to your views."

My "views" was that she was a neglectful mother, and I was right. But all in all, being classified as a threat to children pissed me off, but I let it go.

If I were in the same position, I would have moved without asking or any non-compliance at all. That's just me. This whole situation could have been avoided. Yes, the flight attendants could have used more tact- I said that already.

And if it was a policy that was made TO PROTECT CHILDREN, you bet I'd cooperate because to hell with my little sensitive feelings, it's for the greater good. Although I think the policy is stupid, they were just following policy. We all know a lot of abuse happens with someone trusted, so this policy is quite silly. And on an airplane of all places, a person can't even yawn without me smelling their awful pig breath. So yes this policy is STUPID!!!


* Yes I was being tongue in cheek, predators come in all forms, nurses, priests, teachers (often females with younger men aka Letourneau), doctors.

I wasn't raised "paranoid" but honey, I knew the correct definition of exploit. The rest of the kids are raised paranoid, while some are completely unaware that what Uncle Ted is doing is not normal...
What are the statistics here people? On rapes? On incest? On molestation? On child abuse?
Compare that to a person whose feelings were hurt on a plane ride.

Really, tell mr sensitive to lock it up and shut up already. And do away with this ridiculous policy.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by feedthetree

^ That's so funny you said that. I lived with a roommate and her three children for several months, however we got into a dispute and she packed up my bags and threw me out, stating, "It was for the best interests of the children. I would prefer not to subject my children to your views."

My "views" was that she was a neglectful mother, and I was right. But all in all, being classified as a threat to children pissed me off, but I let it go.

If I were in the same position, I would have moved without asking or any non-compliance at all. That's just me. This whole situation could have been avoided. Yes, the flight attendants could have used more tact- I said that already.

And if it was a policy that was made TO PROTECT CHILDREN, you bet I'd cooperate because to hell with my little sensitive feelings, it's for the greater good. Although I think the policy is stupid, they were just following policy. We all know a lot of abuse happens with someone trusted, so this policy is quite silly. And on an airplane of all places, a person can't even yawn without me smelling their awful pig breath. So yes this policy is STUPID!!!


* Yes I was being tongue in cheek, predators come in all forms, nurses, priests, teachers (often females with younger men aka Letourneau), doctors.

I wasn't raised "paranoid" but honey, I knew the correct definition of exploit. The rest of the kids are raised paranoid, while some are completely unaware that what Uncle Ted is doing is not normal...
What are the statistics here people? On rapes? On incest? On molestation? On child abuse?
Compare that to a person whose feelings were hurt on a plane ride.

Really, tell mr sensitive to lock it up and shut up already. And do away with this ridiculous policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting from all of this is that you think the policy is stupid, except you think it's good because it's for the good of the children, so you'd follow it, except it's not really for the good of the children because that's now how people get molested so it's stupid, but getting molested is worse than getting your feelings hurt so it's good, but people with pig breath yawn on you in planes which also makes it good, therefore Mr Sensitive isn't allowed to bitch about the policy, but you are because it's stupid?

[yolland]

Isn't the policy probably based more on concerns about people who might engage in obscene behavior in the child's presence (exposure, masturbation, intentionally disturbingly explicit speech etc.)--and the fact that children are usually both less savvy and less confident than adults on how to handle such situations--rather than concerns about 'molestation' per se? I used to manage a large bookstore, and I can recall several instances where we had the pleasure of dealing with male customers who were doing one or more of the above in the children's section.

Not that I'm supporting the policy--AFAIK no US airline has ever had such a policy, and I don't see how it could survive a legal challenge here--but just as a point about the likely intent.

[INDY500]

I'd say lawyers made this policy. Fear of lawsuits, real and frivolous.
How is this any different than male superiors now advised to never have discussions with a female employee in a closed room for fear of a sexual harassment suit?

In a he said/she said, he said/child said situation, whom does the burden of proof fall on?

[martha]

I always leave the door open when I'm alone in the room with a student. ALWAYS.

[Liesje]

Originally Posted by INDY500

How is this any different than male superiors now advised to never have discussions with a female employee in a closed room for fear of a sexual harassment suit?

For real? I meet my boss one-on-one (as we all do, I just happen to be the only person on our team that is female) once every two weeks in his office.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by feedthetree

^ That's so funny you said that. I lived with a roommate and her three children for several months, however we got into a dispute and she packed up my bags and threw me out, stating, "It was for the best interests of the children. I would prefer not to subject my children to your views."

My "views" was that she was a neglectful mother, and I was right. But all in all, being classified as a threat to children pissed me off, but I let it go.

Except that the woman didn't kick you out because she thought you were going to molest her kids and had absolutely no logical reason to make such assumptions. She kicked you out because of a dispute over how the kids were raised. Not liking one's views on something is quite a different situation from presuming they're a molester simply because they're male.

Originally Posted by feedthetree

If I were in the same position, I would have moved without asking or any non-compliance at all. That's just me. This whole situation could have been avoided. Yes, the flight attendants could have used more tact- I said that already.

And if it was a policy that was made TO PROTECT CHILDREN, you bet I'd cooperate because to hell with my little sensitive feelings, it's for the greater good. Although I think the policy is stupid, they were just following policy. We all know a lot of abuse happens with someone trusted, so this policy is quite silly. And on an airplane of all places, a person can't even yawn without me smelling their awful pig breath. So yes this policy is STUPID!!!

Fine, you want to move, that's your choice. Doing things for the greater good is nice. But there's also that whole thing of "proof" and "innocence" and "guilt" that's worth factoring in as well.

But I have to agree with JT here, you seem to be on both sides of this issue at once and it's kind of confusing.

Originally Posted by feedthetree

* Yes I was being tongue in cheek, predators come in all forms, nurses, priests, teachers (often females with younger men aka Letourneau), doctors.

I wasn't raised "paranoid" but honey, I knew the correct definition of exploit. The rest of the kids are raised paranoid, while some are completely unaware that what Uncle Ted is doing is not normal...
What are the statistics here people? On rapes? On incest? On molestation? On child abuse?
Compare that to a person whose feelings were hurt on a plane ride.

Really, tell mr sensitive to lock it up and shut up already. And do away with this ridiculous policy.

No argument that children who are abused suffer a hell of a lot more than this guy on the plane. You're right.

But still, it doesn't mean it's fair for people to make assumptions about whether or not someone will abuse children, and take action without any sort of logical, concrete proof to do so.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by martha

I always leave the door open when I'm alone in the room with a student. ALWAYS.

Right, and I'm guessing you don't take it personally. You accept it as a sad commentary on life in the 21st Century. That's how I view it.

[martha]

It protects everyone.

[Irvine511]

my entire office life feels like conversations behind closed doors.

[martha]

Great. Now I have that Charlie Rich song in my head.

[Irvine511]

i can't say i know it.

my office is very female. there's always intrigue.