No child can be trusted with a man, apparently.

Glance at this article from CNBC.

What’s going on here?

On two separate flights, with two separate airlines (Virgin Australia and Quatas) men were moved from their seats away from unattended child passengers and replaced by women.  Each of these two airlines has an actual written policy in place that disallows men from sitting next to children that are traveling without adults.

An airline, of course, ought to be able to make any rules it likes regarding passenger seating.  If they want to keep men away from children, fine.  If they want to keep haberdashers away from people with webbed toes, fine.  If they want to keep Mac users in odd numbered seats and Windows users in the evens, whatever.  If you don’t like it, fly another airline.  If all the airlines are doing it, start a boycott.

It’s discouraging, though, that this attitude is out there, strong enough to actually make it into corporate policies, that men in general are prone to child predation.  Apparently, some people, in serious numbers, fear men.

Are men dangerous?  Well, yes.  Men are evolved to kill, fight, hunt etc.  Men have more upper body strength and testosterone then women.  Men are, by evolution, more directly violent and more sexually assertive.

Should men be feared?  Some men, probably.  But we live in a civilization and much of the danger that men pose is meant to be neutralized by the force of civilization.  This process fails with regularity.  Individual men freak out all the time, shooting strangers, punching strangers in the nose, and sometimes even doing something inappropriate with unattended children on an airplane.

But it’s a big world.  The fact that these things happen is attributable to statistics.  Run any process enough times and the improbable becomes inevitable.  Fluky things happen every day, both good things and bad things, because there’s a tremendous amount of activity on this planet.

But that two separate airlines would get it in their minds to set written policies separating men from children points out of an irrational fear of men in general.  In order to become policy, this fear had to seem reasonable to an actual policy committee–more than one person–within the company at some point in time.  Or, if the policy was written by one person, it at least had to pass the scrutiny of higher ups for the period of time that the policy was in place.

That all men are potential child molesters is a social reality in some pockets of the world.  These pockets of the world include the administrators of corporate businesses.  Administrators–a generally under-recognized scourge of the human race–tend to take on gross black-and-white points of view because they are given so many decisions to make and are largely sheilded from any real consequences of their decisions.

We can make something out of this, though.  Social attitudes are like yeast, and corporate policy making is like grain mash left in the open air.  Here we see an ambient social attitude finding fertile ground and making itself apparent by it’s success.  The fear of men, and the paranoia for the safety of children has shown itself to us.  The attitude is out there.  Whether that attitude is trending upward or downward we can’t know from this particular pair of incidences, but we do know that it is loose in the wild, creeping and ready to take root.

And at the same time, the myth of total male power over society is shown to be untrue.  Men, as men, have their challenges.  The hidden premises of industrial feminism are firmly lodged in the world of ideas.

It’s out there, men.  Beware.

What is still more sad is that the two young boys in the Virgin Australia case might have been deprived of a valuable experience.  And boys in general might be deprived of valuable experiences every day, just because of a quiet attitude in the hearts of the paranoid.  Depriving boys of chances to interact with a variety of men is demasculating.  When boys are given only a few different men to look up to, they develop a distorted understanding of what it means to be a man, if not a total blindness altogether to the concept of manliness.

I’m tempted to think that a purposeful vindictive desire to deprive young boys of manliness lies at the heart of this idea that men and children should be kept separate.  I’m tempted, also, to think that industrial feminism has an aggressive agenda, wanting to eradicate the male point of view entirely, and insulating children from men wherever possible is part of this agenda.  Preventing the masculation of the next generation is a viable front in the ongoing struggle to demasculate the world as a whole.

It takes a village, right?  We are all responsible for the care and socialization of the next generation, but let’s be careful to screen any untoward ideas from that socialization process–untoward ideas such as those any random man might bear.  Because men are the killers, the destroyers, the predators and the warmakers.  Men are aggressive and aggression must be eradicated.

So, it seems, the proverbial village required for good child rearing must not include any men.  If all children are raised by women, and women only, the next generation will be peaceful and gentle, as all women are.

Right?  Of course not.  Aggression is not a learned behavior.  Aggression is biological and can not be engineered out of us.  What can be done, though, is to teach boys how to manage themselves.  How to channel their aggressive energies into constructive endeavors, such as building, creating, protecting the weak.  Well-socialized men who retain their basic manliness are crucial to this process.  Without these men in their lives, boys grow up confused.

A completely demasculated young man remains a man despite his demasculation.  Most often his male impulses become frustrated through self-censorship.  This frustration can motivate all different kinds of behavior, and we are lucky that such behavior is not often an overwhelming tide of accumulated aggression.  But we can never know what is lost because so many men have been raised to believe that their manliness is inappropriate, that they should think like a woman.  And still more we can never know what is lost in men who have no understanding of what manliness is.