Wow how much more dumb and "LOL" can you get?

Not really...

the more accurate representation of maisntream feminism is more or less... "It's not worth putting effort towards since women are still more disproportionatly disadvantaged societally.   We'll worry about it when Men and Women are both being mistreated on their sex at an about equal amount."

For an similar example... as a Kid, a black kid came up to me out of nowhere and said "I hate white people."

To me, this didn't mean shit, so I just said "Okay." looked at him strange and walked away.  Lauging to myself about how weird that was later in the day.

If I was black, and a white kid came up to me and said "I Don't like black people".   I bet my reaction would be a bit different.

If your talking about the hyperpartisian extreme branches.  Using them as a representative of Femnisits, is like using the KKK as a representative of White America.

I don't think that's quite right. It's more you can worry about it when men and women face equal mistreatment. They will continue to promote exclusively women's issues at that point. Which is fine; they are feminists. But many of them oppose any kind of men's rights movement, which is where the problem arises.

And the gap between black and white Americans is far greater than the gap between males and females.

I wonder how common are male passenger pedophiles compared to female pedophiles?

being forced to change your seat because you are a man and could be a pedophile is very bad, yes

and i also thnk they should rather sit own family in planes away from their kids because only 10% of sexual abuse is from strangers, 30% is from own family members and 60% from friends/neighbours

"Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as 'friends' of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.^[12] Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls.^[12][13][15] Most offenders who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles,^[16][17] although some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.^[18][19]"

that's what these people seem to forget, their own parents not in the planes would have been the same a a bigger danger theoretically. but just  because some parents do that doesn't mean all parents do that? why then acting like every man could be a rapist?

i also think they shouldn't sit black to other black people in planes because the highest murderer rate in usa is between those. potential danger, we should do something against it in advance!

and hundred more things i forgot now^^

7% of male passengers will have sex with children at some time during their flight, compared to 0.3% of female passengers.

With feminism you have an organized movement with particular goals and objectives, and individuals who self identify with the group without actually supporting the goals and objectives.

Most women who self identify as being a feminist are actually "humanists" in that they believe that all humans should be given equal treatment under the law without consideration of sex, sexual orientation, race or religion. They are in favour of empowering women to make choices to live any lifestlye they desire, and have no issue with a woman choosing a more traditional or a more modern lifestyle. They tend to be against the abuse of women regardless of whether it has been committed by an identified minority or religious group. Finally, they don't see the world as a zero-sum game where men have to be unsuccessful in order for women to be successful.

These are not the views and beliefs of mainstream, modern feminist organizations

The kids are lucky that they managed to find the pedo before anything happened.

Could this man not sue the airline for the way he was treated?

But no one is assuming that I'm a terrorist. Maybe my quote was a bit exaggerated (because I rather assumed you would agree with checking more-likely-to-be-terrorist people thoroughly); they're checking me not because they consider me a terrorist (that would be horribly offensive) but because I am statistically more likely to be one. Any implication along the lines of my being a threat is really not intended, I'm quite sure. It's just them being thorough.

I mean, take this example: suppose the police knows that there is some evil terrorist group whose members all have the last name "Smith" and that one of them will be boarding a plane with explosives very soon. The next rational course of action is to thoroughly check all people with the last name Smith boarding airplanes, right? That is the simplest and fastest way of preventing disaster. Doing otherwise will have horrific consequences. And yet, using your moral standards, the police can't do that. Because doing so is obviously going to inconvenience a lot of other people who only happen to have the name Smith, but didn't do anything wrong. It's discriminatory and unfair to those people, similar to people with brown skin in my example, males in this case and whoever else in tons of other situations. If we stop everything that's discriminatory and unfair for the sake of living up to this ideal, we're obviously going to have to compromise on security. That's outright unacceptable, wouldn't you agree?

And I haven't been conditioned to think of myself as dangerous at all. That's ridiculous. I know that I am more likely to be dangerous for someone who doesn't know me and, that being a fact, I fail to see what's wrong there.

I already know that black people are more likely to commit crimes. As I stated, I'm quite alright with "discriminating" against them for the sake of safety, in principle, but with how much history there is with black people having been discriminated against for no good reason, for the sake of not offending people, it's a much better idea to avoid provoking people as such, especially when the threat - somehow harming another passenger in an airplane - is fairly minimal. Of course, the threat of any random man being a threat to children is just as minimal, but in this case, considering males have not nearly as much of a reason to be offended by this, I just don't see why there's so much fuss.

Mind you, to be very honest, I'm not entirely convinced of my argument for this specific case myself. I'm mainly just being contrarian. Because this is honestly such a minor case, both in terms of the threat posed and the measures taken to avert it, that we might as well give this "male discrimination" issue that you guys seem so desperate to push the edge in terms of importance. I'm more interested in the more generalized argument concerning this ideal of people not being discriminated against being more important than avoiding the risk of catastrophe.