|
recent posts
----------
Even Movie Stars Aren't Immune
Brood Brooding
The Irony Is Not Lost On Me
Child as Taste Receptacle
Narrative Gambit #2,654: Cheap Sentiment & Preserv...
C-Sections Up Up Up
Three Little Words
Diagnosis!
The Way the White Queen Worries
Beware Babar
|
 |
You've got questions, she's got answers. Be among the first to read Elise Mac Adam's new etiquette guide.
Pre-order from:
- Simon & Schuster
- Amazon
- Barnes & Noble
Musical Chairs
Down Under, two airlines, Air New Zealand and Quantas, have apparently decided not to allow men to sit next to unaccompanied children. I wish I could understand this policy.
Of course there are laws that keep adults away from children everywhere. In New York City, the Parks Department has a regulation providing for "Exclusive Children's Playgrounds: Adults allowed in playground areas only when accompanied by a child under the age of twelve (12)." Mere weeks ago, at the end of September, a woman was slapped with a ticket for sitting in a playground while waiting for an "arts festival" to begin. The summons was issued by some ticket happy cops (who had a quota to issue, perhaps?), since the Parks Department itself says that the police should exercise a little discretion with their ticket writing. The regulation has been in place since 1996 and is meant to protect children from pedophiles, stalkers, abductors, and creepy types, not so much professional belly dancers in their late 40s. One can see why policies like this one for playgrounds exist, even if there is some abuse of their enforcement (but that is true as a general matter, particularly when the City is strapped).
When I was in high school, I worked weekends and holidays selling children's clothing in a 500 square foot store on Madison Avenue (I have almost no idea what I was doing there; sometimes you just fall into things). Because the avenue happens to be rather dense with kid's clothing stores, word tended to get around quickly when the periodic rashes of robberies happened. (The stores probably looked like easy targets. They were small, business wasn't always brisk, and I suspect the female population of the stores gave the impression that they were easy to rob.) Anyway, we had a little sign we would prop up when we got word of robberies elsewhere (they usually started around 90th street), and that sign read: "Men by appointment only." Now, I always thought the sign was silly and never invoked it. Women are just as capable of armed robbery as men, men are just as capable of spending money as women, and to a certain extent robberies are random and it is hard to guard against randomness. But even that gesture makes a bit of sense, when placed in context.
But what are these airlines thinking? Do they suspect men will just pounce on the solo youngsters? Have they had a lot of this? Is there the suspicion that men will molest the children in plain view of everyone in the cabin or abscond with them somehow? Do they think children just find men threatening? Quantas doesn't really explain its reasoning except to say that it is simply doing what it thinks its customers want. But it doesn't seem that parents would make that request. I would think they'd be more likely to ask that their children sit near the flight attendants, so that the kids would at least have the sense that someone in authority had an eye on them.
I am not advocating an attitude that is generally trusting of the world and everyone walking in it, but I do wonder if this sort of rule doesn't do everyone a disservice. Does it really help us to treat all men as if they were potential molesters? Is it wise, as a general matter, to separate men from children as much as possible so that each group becomes afraid of and annoyed by the other? Without a clear reason why this would be sensible- this is an airplane, after all, not a dark movie theatre or an open space or a place that could encourage stalking and repeated encounters- I don't understand the rule.
I love Quantas. I love how generous they are with wine and how nice everyone was when I was in Australia years ago. But really, what could be gained by treating all men as if they were time bombs ready to pop at any moment? I suspect it just means women will end up shouldering even more of the bulk of kid wrangling. And I am certain that if I (a woman) were seated next to a solo kid for a long flight just because I am a woman, I would spend more than I usually do on in-flight cocktails.
Or would that mean I'd be too much of a bad influence?
posted by Elise at 1:54 PM
........................................................
said...
I'm a NYC woman who likes to sit in playgrounds after my walks in the park because the playgrounds are dog-free (I have a severe phobia and the leash laws, esepcially in Riverside, are not enforced) and also to be spared harassment from men. If I want to read a book or eat my lunch without being hit-on or terrorized by loose dogs, the playground is the place to do it.
I have never been harassed by a cop or even questioned about being in a playground without a child. My guess is that it's because I'm a middle-class-looking, thirty-something female and seem like a I COULD be a Mom (the fact that I work with children and am obviously comfortable around them may also make people "read" me that way.)Most people probably assume that one of the bigger kids running around is mine (I say "bigger kids" because the really little ones all have adults fussing and hovering.)
Anyway; I agree about the airline policy. Sheer paranoia.
Mary Poppins
12/01/2005 11:11 AM
Elise said...
Sadly, anyone can be ticketed. The woman who complained to the papers in September was a normal-looking woman in her 40s in a turtleneck. The key apparently, is to not sit alone in playgrounds were a sign reading: "Playground Rules Prohibit: Adults Except in the Company of Children." is in evidence. It is unlikely anyone would find you threatening looking and more a way someone could easily add another summons on a day when his or her quota (not that there ARE quotas) hasn't been met.
12/01/2005 4:18 PM
xiaonanok said...
3/19/2007 1:22 AM
........................................................
<< Home
........................................................
|
said...
Elise said...