Men: We’re Not Actually Bad, We’re Just Drawn That Way

So the recent drama is that a man on a Virgin Australia flight was asked to move his seat away from two unaccompanied minors. Angry outburst from the general public ensues and rightly so. It’s completely prejudicial. I mean if you’re going to move men away from children for fear of molestation, you may as well move them away from the women too. We might get all rapey in Aisle 23 or something. Specially after you liquor us up and give us over priced and defective headsets. My suggestion would be all the men sitting at the front of the plane and all the women and children at the back of the plane. I realize that’s a controversial approach, but feel I have to throw it out before feminists beat us to the punch and suggest men should travel in cages in the cargo hold for everyone’s safety.

We men are monsters after all.

Anyway, it’s all been pretty much blogged, tweeted and Facebooked to death, so I’ll leave that as all having been said. But I would like to add one thing…

…having unattended children that aren’t mine around me, is somewhat stressful. It’s not because I’m not good with kids, because I am. It’s not because I don’t like kids, because I do. It’s simply because there is always a risk of misunderstanding or prejudice that something inappropriate happened between you. There is always the risk that your entire life gets picked over by an army of experts who make their living from deciding grey areas aren’t white enough so they must err on the side of caution and declare them black. There’s always a risk you lose everything that really matters.

As a result, I simply never allow myself to be with a child that is not mine, without also the presence of one of my children. I really like my daughters’ friends too, they’re a great bunch of girls and I would protect all of them if need be, but there’s just a line that I won’t cross. No physical contact, no isolation, no confusion, always a witness. I am always at least somewhat “on duty” around them in the back of my mind.

My point of saying all that is this, if I’m on a plane and you plonk unaccompanied minors next to me, I’d very much prefer to be moved. I mean seriously, get those frakking things away from me. I don’t need the lady sitting behind me, thinking she might have thought something could have happened and start yelling out we have a 23-19…

So much of the humor of Monsters Inc was the paradox between the monsters having jobs of scaring the kids, but the reality was that the kids also scared the crap out of the monsters. We watched the movie as a family probably 30-40 times when the girls were small, it’s a great movie and I don’t need to watch it again to remember it well enough to mentally review it from a Game / Men’s Rights perspective.

It’s pretty easy to do. Just remember Jessica Rabbits immortal line, “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way” and watch the movie again, thinking of the monsters not as monsters…  but as men just drawn that way.

So anyway, right after that scene in the movie, Boo’s (little girl) door goes through the shredder. With her door gone, there’s no way Sully (big blue monster) can never see her again. He loses her forever as the system decides a shade of grey is in fact black. In the words of the CDA lady. “That’s how it has to be.”

Correction. That’s the way it is, but it’s not the way it has to be.

No related posts.

Comments

  1. ar10308 says:

    Frankly, I think they should extend this policy to include moving men at least 3 row radius away from a mother with a potentially fussy infant. You know, for the safety of the mother and the infant.

  2. The MacNut says:

    The flip side of this attitude that men are a threat to kids is that you’ll increasingly see men refusing to help or work with kids not their own. For example, a man sees a crying little girl wandering down the street, her parents nowhere in sight. He may think about helping her find her mommy, but then, reflecting on the recent hullabaloo, he may fear being accused of causing her to cry by abusing her, and so just…walk right on by, fingers in ears to block the cries.

    This is also part of the reason why you see very few male teachers below high school levels, at least in the US.

  3. Suz says:

    “I realize that’s a controversial approach, but feel I have to throw it out before feminists beat us to the punch and suggest men should travel in cages in the cargo hold for everyone’s safety.”

    Might as well, because you know it’s going to happen.

  4. Ian Ironwood says:

    Amen, Athol.

    I recently took the Boy Scouts’ online kid safety regs, developed in response to the lawsuits. It was a very straightforward guide to ensuring that there were always at least two leaders around, no isolation, no touching, etc. within the Scouting environment. The GSA has a similar program. It serves as a good guide for how to behave around any group of unrelated minors to ensure that there are no “misunderstandings”.

    But I also resent it being presumed that a single man is automatically a potential child molester by virtue of having a penis. In fact, it’s not even required for the job. One of the consequences of the sexual revolution was the popular idea that both sexes were entitled to “equal opportunity”, but women were entitled somehow to unequal consideration when it came to their security and peace-of-mind . It’s one of the main points against feminism’s intellectual honesty as an ideology of equality: “We’re all equal, but women are more equal than men”.

    The president of the SFWA recently posted an “anti-creepiness” post on his blog that was essentially a Blue Pill guide to making the 20%or so female section of the SF con-going fan base comfortable against the 80% or so (largely adolescent and ‘emerging adult’) male con-going fan base. It lays full responsibility for the feelings of the woman in the lap of the man, regardless of his rights or her responsibilities. Not only is it misandrous and insulting (while making a lame attempt at “girls do it too, sometimes”) but it’s economically silly to alienate 80% of a fan-base to soothe 20%. SF-F cons have always been a seething pit of sexual frustration and testosterone, and if the ladies don’t understand that walking in wearing a Princess Leia bronze bikini in the mistaken idea that it is a feminist sci-fi event, then they have been woefully misinformed.

    Some dudes are creepy. And most of us have been accused of being creepy at one point or another, warranted or not. Perhaps if, gosh, maybe a whole generation of us didn’t grow up with fathers who were alienated or distant, we might have learned to behave better around ladies — but when you eviscerate the Patriarchy and demand equality, you’re just going to have to accept a little awkward creepiness as part of the package.

    And the best way to avoid the “creepy” label? Learn Game. Feminists still won’t like you … but they’ll be more likely to sleep with you at a sci-fi con if you’ve got Game.

  5. Jeff says:

    MacNut said “The flip side of this attitude that men are a threat to kids is that you’ll increasingly see men refusing to help or work with kids not their own.” That would include more and more single mothers with kids. If I was single, not going there.

    I remember being at friends house and their youngest girl (maybe 7 or 8) crawled up and snuggled. I felt so uncomfortable. They said it was not an issue as she had done it to other guy friend of theirs. Don’t want people to get the wrong impression. Its ingrained to my core.

  6. Wendy says:

    Actually, as a woman I take the same precautions. When I volunteer at my kids’ school, and when I host a drop off playdate, I take the same precautions. And If I had the misfortune of being seated next to 2 unaccompanied minors in an airplane, I would also prefer to be moved. But I can see how men feel more vulnerable to public scrutiny.

    @TheMacNut: If I saw a kid crying in distress walking down the street all alone, I would call 911 and stay within eye range of the child until police arrived. If I saw someone trying to harm the child, I would scream and possibly get involved if it escalated.

  7. MILF_in_Training says:

    I’ll add a slightly different dimension to this: if all men re labelled dangerous, then we have no way of separating out those men who truly are unsafe from those who got the label along with their Y chromosome.

    And Ian, as a semi SMOF (SF con term), I understand your point. I never understood why some women feel it’s their sacred right to dress provocatively AND then get upset when heterosexual men have perfectly normal reactions.

  8. The MacNut says:

    “I’ll add a slightly different dimension to this: if all men re labelled dangerous, then we have no way of separating out those men who truly are unsafe from those who got the label along with their Y chromosome.”

    Excellent point, MILF_in_Training. Problem is the feminists would retort that since there’s no way to tell ahead of time which men are dangerous, might as well treat them all as potential molesters until they prove their innocence anyway.

    @Wendy; “When I volunteer at my kids’ school, and when I host a drop off playdate,…” The problem is it’s generally a BAD idea for a man to do EITHER of those things, especially without another adult around, preferably a woman, to back him up, because people are going to wonder why he wants to be around kids so much. Also, your solution to the crying girl problem wouldn’t work well for a man either, his staying “within eye range” could be, and likely will be, interpreted as a pedophile stalking his next victim. He calls 911, the cops show up and see him hanging around nearby, and he could be arrested, especially if another woman scoops up the crying girl and mentions how she saw this “creepy guy hanging around nearby” the little girl. He’d have to do some fast talking to avoid ending up in handcuffs, better he just walk on and act like he never even noticed the little girl. You as a woman on the other hand, could actually walk up to the girl, comfort her, and take her by the hand to a safer place and few if any people would think badly of it. You’d just be exercising your “maternal instincts”. Meanwhile men are barely acknowledged these days as having “paternal instincts” toward their own kids, never mind someone else’s.

  9. Joe Commenter says:

    Yep. I used to coach in a youth sports league. Enjoyed it too. But the risks were just too high. I cannot afford to have some busybody making allegations against me. And as a man, you are guilty in the court of public opinion even if the court exonerates you. It is no wonder that Scouting and other orgs like it cannot get enough volunteers.

    It’s a pity really. Good role models are being scared away by the big brother legal system.

  10. Bob says:

    “all men are monsters” only seems to apply to heterosexual men. Those same people excoriate the BSA for banning gays.

  11. RedPillNewb says:

    It’s no problem to scoop up and comfort the crying girl if you have a badge on. So if you’re sort of extra-masculine and a patriarchal holdover from another era and armed to the teeth, it’s totally OK, but if you’re just Regular Old Fashioned Patriarchal then it’s no good.

  12. H says:

    I hate sitting next to kids on a plane. Might ask to be moved for my comfort.

  13. Sean says:

    There is a HUGE difference between not wanting to sit near kids (for any reason) and being classified as a potential child molester because you have an XY chromosome pair. The difference is in who chooses.

    I don’t want to sit next to unattended children on a plane. Most of the time, I don’t want to sit near attended children on a plane. This is for my own comfort. When someone says I am not permitted to sit near children on a plane because I’m a man, that’s a patently false generalization being applied to me. I’m being labeled a probable child molester, and I would be deeply offended were that to happen.

  14. FeralFelis says:

    My former husband was AMAZING with kids. He was the nurturing one of the two of us, and I often encouraged him to do something (teach, volunteer, whatever) with kids. He declined, saying something to the effect of, “A grown man who is good with kids, or wants to be around kids, is automatically suspected of being a perverted child molester.”
    That was one of the saddest realizations I ever had, and it happened 12 years ago. I think things have only gotten worse since then.

  15. Shanna says:

    Wow, times have changed.
    In the eighties I flew across the country to visit my real dad several times. I sat next to all kinds of strange people, and I sat in the smoking section so I could smoke (I know, so bad!). I was 14.

    We have a middle school age daughter. I noticed last time she had a sleepover my husband wouldn’t speak to any of them or even come out of our room after everyone had pajamas on. I thought he was overreacting at the time, but perhaps not. He is just being careful.

  16. Athol Kay says:

    @Shanna – oh yeah, it’s not safe to come out of your bedroom once the pajama party starts. I go to bed early when they have sleepovers.

  17. a random guy says:

    I would be absolutely fine with kids being moved away from me. I might even pay for such a service, though for a reason I will mention shortly,

    But you don’t just buy tickets in general and then play musical chairs at boarding. You buy a SPECIFIC seat. So now, I paid money with the understanding that I would get a seat, and because of some irrelevant person I have never met, the airline is attempting to unilaterally renegotiate our agreement? Furthermore, now that it is the day of the flight and I am already at the airport, doing such is essentially a coercive business practice.

    It’s not that I want to sit next to kids (If anything, I would pay 10 bucks extra for a flight with no children under the age of twelve permitted). It’s that if the airline felt there was nothing wrong with me, the only reasonable thing to do would be to move the CHILDREN, and continue to abide by the terms of my prior agreement with the airline. That is not what is happening.

  18. The MacNut says:

    Yep, all it would take is one kid telling his/her arents about how “nice” the dad was and next thing you know nasty rumors are spreading around the neighborhood about how he’s stalking kids and no one is allowed to play with your kids anymore, and your whole family is shut out of the neighborhood social scene. And that’s the BEST-case scenario.

    Personally, I would have gotten myself a nice hotel room for the night of the sleepover, just to be safe. ;)

  19. The MacNut says:

    “I would have gotten myself a nice hotel room for the night of the sleepover, just to be safe.”

    Now that I’ve thought about it a bit, it’s probably best for men to just not allow sleepovers at their house. All it would take is the man of the house accidentally walking in on one of the guest kids in the bathroom (doesn’t matter which gender) and that kid telling his parents in the wrong way for things to get really ugly.

    Paranoid you say? Not in this anti-male pedophile-fearing climate.

  20. Louise says:

    My husband is a cub scout leader, and they are not allowed to be alone with a child ever. When he once had to take a boy home who was ill, two other cubs had to go with him, so that there would be two of them with him coming back as well. When they go camping as they sometimes do in summer, the cub leaders are never allowed inside the cubs’ tents. This is all quite sensible I think, it is for the adults’ protection as well as the children.

    But not being allowed to sit next to children on an aeroplane, in full public view of everyone, strikes me as quite bizarre. What on earth can anyone do to a child on a plane, when surrounded by other people?

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Man Sex Life: Men: We’re Not Actually Bad. . ., How Walkaway Wives Run A Dirty [...]

Speak Your Mind

*