It's not feminist rhetoric, it's simply a new breed of sexism, one that applies equally amongst men or women, that men are less trustworthy in such situations.

Wow... Slow day for news, huh?
Way to make mountains out of molehills. Can't believe anyone is taking this so seriously, xD. Being forced to change one's seat on your flight isn't exactly the worst thing to ever have happened, you know?

"Excuse me, sir, you can't sit there. We have a policy of not letting black people sit next to unaccompanied children"

Is it a problem now?

Feminism repeatedly denies that things like this ever happen. Only women can face prejudice in society and only men can be privileged.

I totally saw this analogy coming, :P.

Anyway,  thanks to our brown skin, my family spends probably ten times as much time as most people at those immigration lines and whatnot. Is that wrong? No, of course not; it's averting risk. While I could feel very embarrassed that they are more or less implying, "look, brownie Arab terrorist" and we do often get looks from people behind us getting exasperated thanks to our processing taking so long, we rather have to deal with it. That's because, like it or not, I am far more likely to make the plane/country explode than white-skinned Mr. John Smith if you only consider my skin color, nationality and such.

I can't see how this is very different; it's widely-accepted (I dunno about accurate, but that doesn't matter) that men are more dangerous than women. Therefore, not letting men sit next to unaccompanied kids is fine. The man in question really needs to not take this so personally.

As for your question, I'd say the only thing wrong with that logic, if it can somehow be proved that black people are more likely to be dangerous than others, is that there's a long history of black people being unfairly treated as such and there is a hell lot more justification to take it personally and be offended.

The problem is that it is discrimination. It is assuming that someone is guilty based on something that they have no control over. I understand your reasoning, but it is wrong to assume that a man is a pedophile because he is a man. Just because it might be more likely that he could be dangerous does not make him guilty of any sort of crime. Discrimination in any form is still discrimination, no matter how you want to justify it.

He sits by children??! That outrageous!! Well then, I guess he must be a serial killer as well.

On the other hand, why were those kids alone on a plane? I don't think kids that age should be trusted to do something like that by themselves. I know my mom would have never let me go on a plane without an adult when I was 10.

There are many feminist groups that are pushing the "all men are (potential) sexual offenders" message pretty hard though ...

I have seen it reported that studies are asking women whether they have ever regretted a sexual encounter and counting that as "rape" to inflate the statistics; and studies that ask women whether they have ever feared physical violence from their partner and counting that as physical abuse to inflate the statistics. These abysmal studies are then picked up by feminist groups and used in marketing campaings to make insane claims like "50% of women are physically or sexually abused in their life"

Such a stupid policy is just unreal, making the judgement on a man just because of where his seat is, he's automatically assumed a possible paedophile.. I don't even.. This is just bullshit.

If that is the case then I've been raped at least 5 times.