Virgin Airlines Misandry

Responding to the Virgin Airlines misandry

It is well-known that while flying home on Virgin Australia from Brisbane in April, a 33-year-old man was forced to move his seat because he was sitting next to two boys he estimated to be aged between eight and ten, and it is against the airline’s policy for men to sit next to unaccompanied children.

Presumably, this policy would have forced any adult with a penis to move — everyone from Fred Rogers to Abraham Lincoln to the fireman who has saved scores of children to Barack Obama to Jesus of Nazareth.

This sort of  issue is ground zero in the fight against misandry. How should we respond to it?  The men’s movement needs to develop a language to respond to these injustices that speaks to every heart open to reason on a positive and fundamental level.

First, it is well to keep in mind that the overarching problem to virtually all the injustices we write about, this one included, is that men consistently allow their gender to be reduced to caricature. The attributes of outliers and social deviants are permitted to be passed off as cultural norms that define masculinity.

Newspapers, magazines, and blogs are replete with examples of this. Jessica Valenti, a once-prominent feminist blogger and a purveyor of the maleness-is-broken crowd, wrote:

 

Rape is part of our culture. It’s normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it’s wrong. And that’s what terrifies me.

In the aftermath of the Aurora movie theater massacre, Linda Ann Scacco and Molly Turro harrumphed: “Masculinity has become so intertwined with violence that it becomes invisible.”

In contrast, I saw numerous articles touting the heroics of the young men in the Aurora Colorado movie theater massacre, but I didn’t see one — not one — that tied their actions to their “maleness” or said anything close to “masculinity has become so intertwined with heroism that it becomes invisible.”

The fact is, for every James Holmes, there are countless men ready and waiting to do selfless things, kind things, noble things, and sometimes incredibly heroic things. The good things are “cultural norms” that define masculinity, too, and they far outweigh the bad things, but we never hear that. Why? Any attempt to attribute positive characteristics to masculinity is deemed politically incorrect and sexist because, the people who control the public discourse about gender believe, it suggests that women don’t possess those positive characteristics. The charge is, of course, puerile because women also possess positive attributes, but that thinking is a critical challenge we face.

Men, especially young men, are the favorite piñatas of many “enlightened” pundits who write for newspapers, magazines, and blogs. How many more books, newspaper and magazine features pieces will assault us with the epiphany that we now live in a woman’s world, that men are “the second sex,” and that underachieving, rudderless young men, who are being swept aside as women find them increasingly unnecessary, need to find their way to a “new” kind of manhood in the coming matriarchy where they will be the first generation of men to not enjoy the undeserved entitlements of male privilege?

An endless cavalcade of Chicken Little pieces tout and ultimately celebrate the purported oncoming death of traditional masculinity. To read their pieces, you’d have to assume that when young men aren’t inflicting senseless violence on innocent people, they are living in their mothers’ basements and spending their days masturbating to nasty Internet porn and playing misogynistic video games. Foolish boys in men’s bodies, worthless because they are not sufficiently responsible to support a family.

Yes, yes, too many young men are rudderless, and too many young men are violent. But “too many” is all relative, and those young men are but a small part of a much bigger story — so small, in fact, that it’s both dishonest and flat-out wrong to tell only that part of it.  We need to tell that bigger story; we need to remind anyone fair-minded enough to listen that the good far outweighs the bad.

Second, we need to demonstrate that the injustice is a social evil that harms the common good. The airline’s policy is wrong on too many levels to chronicle, but one should stand above all others as a concern to all people of good will: what sort of message does it send to our children when we tell them that men can’t be trusted to sit next to them on an airplane?  What sort of message did it send to the two little boys who were riding on that plane in the news story?

The answer is painfully, and patently, obvious. It tells them that men are flawed; their fathers are flawed; that their uncles, brothers, male teachers, coaches, physicians, neighbors and friends — all of them are flawed. And, yes, dear readers, it tells the little boys themselves that they, too, are flawed, simply because they were born male. Someday, we are telling those little boys, they will be the ones who will be told they have to move because they, themselves, won’t be trusted.

This, of course, is nothing less than blatant, yet shockingly acceptable, negative stereotyping of an individual based on the actions of a tiny minority of the group to which he belongs. We used to have a word for this kind of stereotyping, and we used to tell our kids it was wrong: prejudice.

We need to get across to anyone willing to listen that under the guise of protecting children, policies like this do terrible damage to them. When we institutionalize the notion that men aren’t fit to be around children, we do nothing but solidify eons-old gender stereotypes that keep men from assuming their proper roles as co-parents and that confine them to the workplace. And since someone has to take care of the children, that task will continue to fall to women, as it always has. No one benefits from this wrong-headed policy, least of all our kids.

That, I think, is the message we need to be spreading.

  • Merlin

    An extract from the article below:

    A nurse was made to feel as if he had a sign that read “kiddie fiddler” over his head after he was moved away from a young girl on a Qantas flight, he said.

    http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/nurse-humiliated-by-qantas-policy-20120813-243t4.html

    Nuff said!

    • yurlungur

      From one of the comments in the linked articles:

      “If Quantas wanted a gentleman moved … perhaps the most dignified way would have been to up-grade him to business class.

      Win – Win for everyone, the child safety policy would have been satisfied, and I don’t think Daniel McLuskie would have minded either.”

      Yeah now he can be feel like a kiddie fiddler in business class.
      \rolls eyes

  • Arvy

    You hit the nail on the head when you say that “[t]he attributes of outliers and social deviants are permitted to be passed off as cultural norms that define masculinity.” Those cultural norms, however, are not merely permitted. They are actively promoted, and certainly not by feminist women alone.

    In the broader context, I would venture to suggest, in fact, that men themselves are the primary perpetrators of much mythology about the “dangerous macho male” and his role in a “frontier culture” that a lot of us seem not to have outgrown completely. Perhaps, then, the greatest challenge would be to overcome the satisfaction that many men seem to find in that “dangerous” self-image and its perpetuation in the current culture of “western civilisation.” Feminists and their sponsors can be counted upon always to use the exceptional to their own advantage just because it works so well.

  • http://none universe

    One more (invisible) green cross award to you for this one, Mr. Harlan.
    Well said.

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com/ manwomanmyth

    Misandry flourishes because there is no consequence for those who purvey it. As I write this, men are still buying Virgin airlines tickets. Just as they bought British Airways tickets when the same policy reared its ugly head.

    Men are effectively financing their own maltreatment when they could so easily be wiping Virgin airlines out of existence, simply by buying tickets elsewhere.

    The day an airline, or car dealership, or sports brand is brought to it’s knees by men simply buying elsewhere is the same day that explicit misandry goes away.

    • Raven01

      Well said.
      I don’t have a major airport in my town otherwise after reading this and thinking on it, I’d be spending a day off walking around their ticket counter in a T-shirt or sandwich-board proclaiming,
      “This airline thinks all men are a danger to children.
      Fly with a company that doesn’t hate you.”
      Stats showing that mothers present a much higher danger to children than strange men might give some a pause too. We wouldn’t tolerate mothers being assumed guilty of horrible crimes on no basis whatsoever so, we should be equally incensed at the assumed guilt of any and every man. Especially when, any and every man actually presents a lower risk to children than their own mothers.

      Goddamn, I cannot wait till these posters pay of with raise consciousness and boots on the ground for massive boycotts of good and services, or marches on businesses and government offices practicing such blatant misandry.

    • Alan Vaughn

      Men are effectively financing their own maltreatment when they could so easily be wiping Virgin airlines out of existence, simply by buying tickets elsewhere.

      Yes that would be great and would probably be a very effective protest that may even bring about change, IF ONLY there was an alternative where men could buy tickets elsewhere…
      It would not be too surprising to discover that this policy, which is nothing more than a gesture by the airlines to appease the feminist lobbyists, the paedo-sleaze hungry media and mangina puppet politicians, is one that is uniformly adopted and gleefully enforced by ALL airlines in the Anglosphere.
      So what are the alternatives? Travel by train or bus, only to find those providers may well enforce the same LOONY and oppressive policy?
      The only safe bet (and where the children might be safe from harm [joke]) might be to drive in your own car or even walk!

      This very policy could be powerfully exploited if we protest loudly against it.
      Even if it means walking (in large plackard weilding groups of MRA’s) rather than travelling on aeroplanes, buses, trains etc. owned or operated by these misandrist bigots!

      Remember back in the 1950′s in America, when that black woman courageously REFUSED to give up her seat on that public bus…?
      No lines painted on the floor, near the rear end of any buses, where black passengers must sit or stand now!

      Say no more….

  • napocapo69

    let’s start twitting it, something like “#pedophiles fly with #Virgin”…or “#Virgin makes you feel special, #pedophile seats only for men” or “misandry can take you anywhere, fly with #Virgin”

    • Merlin

      Maybe Qantas should be included too. After all, misandy is misandry, it has to be said. Any airline pulling this B.S. needs exposing in my opinion regardless of the geographics.

    • Fidel Johnson

      Yes, Napo,

      as we learn here and elsewhere, shame is a powerful motivator of men.
      Maybe you’re right, and it’s time to use the power of shame for us……
      I believe you have a good point.

    • scatmaster

      http://i.imgur.com/vuQg3.jpg

      Now how to that get here?

  • king1

    Manwomanmyth is right. MEN are our problem, from white knights to mangina’s to the idiots who do not listen or stop to see what is going on around them.

    Misandry/feminism has NO POWER without those vile men who appease, enforce and support it. They should and must be our primary target. Once re-educated, the rest become a moot point.

  • king1

    napocapo69

    let’s start twitting it, something like “#pedophiles fly with #Virgin”…or “#Virgin makes you feel special, #pedophile seats only for men” or “misandry can take you anywhere, fly with #Virgin”

    Nice touch.

    This is what the MRM MUST do, consolidate and attack with numbers that are organised and hit at once when an event occurs. Use the same system that are abused against us.

  • JGteMolder

    I have to point out a caveat: we are all born flawed because we aren’t born perfect deities. It tells boys a lot more; not that we are merely flawed, but that we are less, sub-human, fundamentally broken, fundamentally not good, even evil.

    It is a far greater injustice, than merely not being perfect.

    • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

      I realized long, long ago, pretty soon after I learned to pull up my big boy pants and keep my bowel-movements in storage until I could sit on my training-potty chair, that I, as a man-to-be, was ‘flawed’ and ‘sub-human’ by the standards of my Betters. (Who were all adult women equipped with working vaginas, including my mother but specifically dis-including both my father and the poor schlub whose name appears as ‘father’ on my birth-certificate.)

      I actually had an official FBI investigator call me out for not having been aware of the birthday of the man who is listed as my father on my birth certificate. Well, hell, he wasn’t there while I was growing up, I was ignorant of it, what did I know?

      The last message I got from ‘Beija-Flor Senior’ included the question, “Have you ever looked up your birth-father?”

  • kiwihelen

    A few months ago a woman in my faith community said she would rather I changed her small child’s nappies than a man who was a father of 4.
    My response: I said “you are presuming two things 1) I am not a pedophile because of my gender and 2) I would agree to undertake such a task”
    I almost added 3) and that I wouldn’t stick a nappy pin into said child in the process…but with plastics ya just don’t have that opportunity to shock anymore!

    • http://avoiceformen.com backdatdonkeyup

      Tee-hee, I wish I were a woman. I’d wait for such silly statements and just casually be all
      “Oh no, I’m actually a pedophile, you should go get john to do it.”

  • Robert St. Estephe

    “Masculinity has become so intertwined with violence that it becomes invisible.” There is an endless budget for promoting such propaganda and a huge army of overpaid fully-indoctrinated zombies happy to distribute it, in all its various forms, over a long period of time.

    That is why we must take seriously the idea of “deconstructing” the opposition’s claims using the unpleasant device of continuously citing female violence, from current times, from recent times, from olden times. The formula depends on hiding female violence under a bushel.

    It is not enough to just harp on the latest news story of a violent female (not hard to find), but to undermine the entire historical claim of “women’s inherent non-violence.”

    Here is a tampon-load of hard evidence, good for years of counter-punches, should you choose to use them:

    “MYTH: Women are Inherently Non-Violent”

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/07/myth-women-are-inherently-non-violent.html

    & a bonus selection:

    “A Feminist Killing in Florida by Priscilla Bradford, Murder-Coaching Mom – 1980”
    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/09/feminist-killing-in-florida-by.html

    • MrStodern

      We need to take the word masculine away from the feminists. It needs to belong to sane people again. It needs to belong to men again.

      This will require more than just defining it ourselves and operating on that definition in our daily lives, though that should be the first step. It’s like self-ownership, you have to start by not letting other people determine parameters for you.

      I’m seriously considering doing some postering of my own, with posters saying things like:

      “AMERICA WASN’T BUILT BY RAPISTS. IT WAS BUILT BY HEROES. HEROES THAT STILL LIVE HERE, WATCHING OVER EVERYONE.

      WHY DO YOU LASH OUT AT THEM SO?”

  • gateman

    Why stop at prohibiting men from sitting next to children? Surely as potential rapists men should also be forbidden from sitting next to women.
    There are 3 alternative solutions I can think of to deal with us evil males – :
    1 – “male class” at the back of the plane
    2 – all males to be handcuffed when boarding a flight
    3 – female-only flights (pilots and stewards included, just to be safe)

  • yurlungur

    Snakes on a plane isn’t as silly as Virgin’s policy of moving men who sit next to unaccompanied children.

    People are perfectly happy to leave their children unaccompanied with a male teacher, but when someone says “hey man it’s for the children” People abandon all common sense.
    why?

    I guess the roving male is seen as dangerous. Only when the authority’s stamp their approval upon your persona are you deemed “safe”.

    • Arvy

      Perfectly happy? Not so sure about that. The widespread paranoia, along with men’s own very legitimate fears of false accusations, is slowly but surely weeding males out of the teaching profession as well. They’re all but extinct at the primary level already.

      There really is method in the feminist madness, not dissimilar to religious cults to which they bear some striking resemblance. If they can isolate and indoctrinate the young boy slaves at an early age, the shackles are often firmly affixed for life.

      • MrStodern

        Until some lying cunt stabs them in the back, that is. No faster way to turn a man red pill for life than that.

        • Sting Chameleon

          Or said lying cunt tries to kill them, as it happened to me.

          • MrStodern

            Whenever I say “stab them in the back”, I mean it figuratively AND literally.

  • MrStodern

    “The attributes of outliers and social deviants are permitted to be passed off as cultural norms that define masculinity.”

    And is it any wonder women started that crap? Feminists constantly hold the fact that the majority of the 1% are male as indisputable proof that men run this joint, that we’re privileged. Use of this by the man-hating hijackers of feminism is not an accident, and its acceptance by so many women isn’t one either.

    More and more do I become thoroughly convinced that women literally cannot see men they don’t find attractive. Guys living on the street who are in poor health sorely outnumber the Brad Pitts and Johhny Depps of the world, and yet women seem to be unaware of this. I think it’s because they literally lack the ability to physically see them. Until they do something horrible, that is, or provoke/offend them in some fashion, then they’re on the radar, but as an enemy, something to be destroyed. This makes it insanely easy to convince women that the outliers and deviants literally define masculinity, because those are the only men that seem to exist to women.

    Makes me sick it does.

  • Stu

    They used to have a name for people we treated like this. They used to make them sit at the back of the bus too. How long will it be before we see signs on shops saying…….we don’t serve men…….oh wait……there already is…..gyms, social clubs, health services, including entire hospitals, cruises, some places don’t just send us to the back of the bus, they throw us off while it’ s moving. Oh well, us lower forms of life need to know our place.

  • John A

    As you get off the plane politely ask the flight attendants why their airline does not trust you to sit next to children. Both Qantas and Virgin do it, so boycotting one or the other won’t help. Boycotting extra services is an option.

    One positive was that the polls on smh.com.au showed around 11% support for the airlines (81% against, 8% undecided). People are slowly waking up.

  • Jay

    Agree with the sentiments Pierce. Keep on going with your work, you’re an inspiration to people such as myself.

  • Turbo

    @ John A

    That was a good poll result, which proves that the airlines statement that they are responding to what the public want is complete BS.

    I emailed Qantas, Virgin and Air NZ a few years back regarding this policy. As i have mentioned, Qantas and Virgin have this policy and were unapologetic about it, and Air NZ do not, at least not back then. I still have their responses on another computer.

    Back then I also stumbled upon a complete list of all airlines worldwide that followed this bigoted policy, but I can no longer find it. Perhaps someone here has it or can find it.

  • tallwheel

    I’m a little hesitant about the idea of emphasizing the positive aspects of masculinity. When you celebrate maleness for its heroism, providing for others, etc., you are simultaneously reinforcing an expectation that men MUST embody these characteristics. That’s how we end up with stories of “heroes” who gave their lives at the Aurora theater. And that’s also how we end up with men who think themselves less of a man than others. The same thing happens with women too. If you say that women are more nurturing, you are also in a way enforcing the idea that women are inherently better suited for the role of primary caregiver.

    I can understand the need to counter all the anti-man rhetoric that’s so common today, but I’m not sure that replacing it with another expectation is the best thing in the long run.

    • MrStodern

      We need to take the positive/negative thing out of the equation as we regain control over the definition of masculinity. We need to treat it as a neutral term. There’s nothing inherently good or evil about masculinity. It simply is.

      • tallwheel

        agree 100%

  • blueface

    In response to various comments here, I respectfully disagree that boycotts won’t work. We are way too small to bring an airline to its knees, but we don’t have to.

    First of all, we don’t need to boycott all airlines. Just Virgin.

    Yes, I know the others are guilty too. If you think we are letting the others off the hook, you are missing the point. To affect change, you’ve got to consider carefully what you are doing and why.

    This misandric policy is, in effect, window dressing. A cost-nothing-to-do-nothing sweetener for the feminists. It is not core business.

    Don’t forget, they won’t give up any seats so that the kids can be in a row on their own. Virgin, Qantas, and all other misandric airlines don’t feel so strong that they themselves will lose the price of one ticket. One.

    If a boycott caused a dip in sales for one airline for one month, just one month, it would be a success. Fifty seats, a hundred seats down would be enough.

    Maybe it will take a few such incidents. This month Virgin, and when the next guy gets embarrassed in three months time, the next airline to hit the headlines.

    If it is targeted enough to cause a noticeable dip each time, you’ll find airlines soon making a press release about valuing male customers and dropping the policy.

    The most effective statement would come from a cancellation.

    Airline competition is fierce, so if enough people are boycotting Virgin to become noticeable, Qantas or Jetstar will want those people to fly with them instead. What better way to attract them than renounce this policy?

    In fact, to boycott more than one at any one time, because of our size, would be counter-productive. We don’t need to hurt them all. Just one. Once. In one month.

    And again. And again.

    This month. Virgin.

    Why Virgin? Because John McGirr made CNN and a number of newspapers.

    Thank you for flying with anyone else. I know I am.

    • Merlin

      All airlines should be included if there is any misandric content in the small print. Highlighting one airline in particular seems rather questionable to my reckoning. Is misandry any more important if it discriminates against an Australian in comparison to an American, Canadian, Englishman etc.

      If you are calling out misandry, then lets hear the shout on any biased airlines.

  • Teerex

    I agree with everything except a sentence in the the last paragraph.

    “When we institutionalize the notion that men aren’t fit to be around children, we do nothing but solidify eons-old gender stereotypes that keep men from assuming their proper roles as co-parents and that confine them to the workplace.”

    I don’t think the concept that men are unfit to be around children is eons old at all. I think it came directly from the notorious Frankfurt “School” and their “critical theory” horseshit and didn’t exist in any widespread manner until the 1960s. I could be wrong on this point and so much male gender-specific historical information has been perverted and subverted by Marxists and feminists that it would probably take some decoding.

  • John A

    This just won’t go away… another lame attempt to justify discrimination against men.
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/sex-and-the-single-airline-passenger-20120816-24bg6.html?rand=4615457
    These assholes are too full of their feminist, Gender Studies indoctrination to realize that very few of their readers actually agree with their crap.