That tired old feminist chestnut that is the ‘gender wage gap’ lives on in the Australian media

It’s hard to believe, but white knight politicians, feminists and media commentators alike are still banging this drum. How many times does the existence of a ‘pay gap’ arising from gender discrimination, need to be debunked before it is finally put to rest?

It’s notable that the relevant Australian Wikipedia entry simply compares the average male and female rates of pay, which is clearly not ‘comparing apples with apples’. By that I mean that we need to compare pay rates for men and women doing the same job (incl. same hours worked), and with the same qualification and experience in order to tease out any meaningful gender-based differences.

While there are certainly differences in the average salary earned by men and women, such differences reflect personal career choices, rather than being an indicator of gender bias in the workplace as is routinely asserted or implied by the feminist lobby. Further, once you drill down into the data it becomes clear that the nature of the gap is  no means uniform ‘across the board’ – which you might expect if it was in fact a meaningful indication of ingrained gender bias across Australian society. (Refer statistical sources provided in this other blog post)

One of the things that feminists don’t mention is that, even when using the average pay rates they base their argument on, the gender gap actually favours women in certain age groups or in certain types of jobs. I would suggest, however, that we don’t all hold our breath waiting for Elizabeth Broderick to take “bold measures” to address those particular areas of ‘inequity’.

Back in March 2014  this article appeared, asserting the existence of gender-based wage  disparity. I emailed Westpac bank requesting supporting information and got a reply from their PR section wanting to know why I wanted the info. I was eventually pointed towards the media release section of their web site where I found this. As you can see no mention of male/female salary data at all, so I’m left wondering where Westpac CEO, Gail Kelly (who also features in this Youtube video), sourced those stats.

This week the ‘gender pay gap’ was mentioned here in an article on news.com.auherehere and here in segments on the Australian morning TV show ‘Sunrise’, and here in comments by Tracey Spicer. Tracey was quoted as saying:

“To be a working woman in Australia is to know that you are valued less than your male counterparts. Our (rising) double digit gender wage gap means you’re earning less than guys doing the same job, you have a reduced chance of making your way to a senior leadership position (particularly if you’re angling to be on the board) and no matter where you are in the business hierarchy you stand a 17 percent chance of sexual harassment on the job and a one in five chance of being discriminated against if you become pregnant.”

Why is it that when I see articles that purport to discuss gender differences, but only provide the relevant statistics for women, I immediately think *feminist author*? I wonder if this technique, i.e. don’t provide any context or basis for comparison, is something they are now teaching everyone in ‘gender studies 101’ because it really is so prevalent now.

The wage gap statistics that Tracey refers to were sourced from a government agency, the ‘Workplace Gender Equality Agency‘ (WGEA) which defines the gender pay gap as “the difference between women’s and men’s average weekly full-time equivalent earnings, expressed as a percentage of men’s earnings.”

As is explained in my previous blog post about the ‘pay gap’, comparing average male/female earnings is utterly unhelpful and inappropriate given the large number of variables involved (of which gender discrimination by employers is only one, and only a minor one at that).

I see in this article that the WGEA has previously been subject to criticism for their interpretation of source statistics.

You might be interested to know that only two out of twenty-nine staff in the WGEA are men. And how many of them would identify as feminists? I’m guessing, almost all. Just putting this thought out there, but could it be that perhaps this situation is introducing some teensy, weensy measure of bias into the Agency’s priorities and findings?

In terms of addressing the agency’s staffing imbalance, dare I suggest that they could probably speed things along via the introduction of an enforced gender quota? I mean to say, feminists are proposing gender quotas right left and centre, and what’s ‘good for the goose is good for the gander’ as they say.

But in the meantime the suits at the big end of town clearly think that pandering to feminists makes business sense, as many are falling all over themselves to support the WGEA’s latest ‘pay gap’ initiative.

Postscript … and on and on it goes:

Workplace gender equality score reveals massive blind spot letting Australian businesses down (17 November 2017)

Andrew Bolt: Let’s ask Waleed Aly the truth about a pay gap (18 October 2017)

Cafe of Confusion (7 August 2017) Video

What we miss when we focus on the gender wage gap (10 July 2017) Why is it so very difficult for pro-feminist researchers to provide like-for-like statistics and an objective unbiased presentation of the facts of the matter. This articles excludes consideration, for example, of the reality that men are more likely to support others and women more likely to be supported. Therefore now, and in the absence of wide-ranging structural reform, unemployment or underemployment of men has a far more serious impact on welfare of affected persons.

Instead of tweeting his ‘support’ for Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher should have coughed up the cash, by Clementine Ford (31 January 2017)

She’s Price(d)less: The economics of the gender pay gap (October 2016) KPMG study for Diversity Council Australia. Exaggerates the significance of gender discrimination – hardly surprising given the agenda of the commissioning organisation. KPMG in turn clearly have their eye on the ball with regards to winning further lucrative ‘women as victims’ consultancies from pro-feminist agencies.

8 September 2016 was ‘Equal Pay Day’. This triggered a flurry of pay gap articles, only one of which challenged the feminist narrative. And oddly that was an article published in news.com.au, entitled ‘How common sense shows gender pay gap is a myth‘.

The others were ‘Closing the gender pay gap won’t just help women. It’ll help men too‘, ‘Will the real gender pay gap please stand up?‘ & ‘It’s time to dispel the myth that women’s choices cause the gender pay gap’ (8 September 2016) None of the pro-feminist articles found it relevant to note that the pay gap favours women in many instances – and in an increasing number of instances – depending on sector, seniority, etc. From the readers comments, many people are far from convinced by the feminist position. This comment from ‘mythbuster’ was a classic:

“Men earn an average total of $27,000 a year more than women”. Yes, EARN, not, “are paid”. That calculation is based on averaging the incomes of all male and all female full time workers. It doesn’t take into account overtime, differences in jobs, female choices. In lower paid, similar jobs they earn more because they do more overtime. There are 12.2 million workers here, split 55/45 men to women. To get equality, you need to conscript 600,000 women out of their homes and into work. You also need to sack 600,000 and put them in front of the afternoon soaps, and then have women support them. There are 1.2 million workers in construction, forestry and mining, 85% male. This pays higher than the 1.1 in health services, 80% women. So lets take about 360,000 women out of counselling or aroma therapy and get them down the mines or out building us houses. That’s where the pay is better, in back breaking, dangerous work. We should also swap some teachers with long distance truckies and oil rig workers, since that will help close the pay gap and the death gap since 93% of workplace deaths happen to men. More dead female workers will be a sign of equality. Its illegal to pay a man or woman a different wage based on gender, if you know of an example of this, please give us the EBA or Award name, otherwise, if you want to be paid like a man, work the jobs women tend not to want to and do the hours men do at it. That’s equality.”

Women catching up to men on wages: ABS (23 August 2016)

“Women’s wages have grown at almost three times the rate of men’s over the past year”

Young men blamed for not believing the feminist misrepresentation of the gender pay gap (Australian Financial Review, 17 July 2016)

Radical proposal to force bosses to fork out extra super for women (3 June 2016)

Opinion: Gap in logic over gender pay discrepancies (8 May 2016)

University of Queensland to host Bake Sale that charges based on gender (3 April 2016) and then ‘The feminist cupcake sale that led to death and rape threats‘ (6 April 2016)

Just thinking out loud now, but I’d love the opportunity to look at these threat messages. Of those that actually exist IRL, I’d like to see how many were sent from newly created accounts with IP addresses that matched those of the recipients.

Higher proportion of gender pay gap ‘unexplained’ in Australia than in US, UK, research shows (24 March 2016) Laughably inane. Headline should be ‘Wage gap found to be insignificant’ … 39% of 3.9% (= 1.5%), only some of which actually results from discrimination

How the work gap affects women, by Jasmin Newman (14 March 2016)

Gender parity still lacking in Australia’s workforce, by Roy Morgan Research (8 March 2016) See chart below – would be interesting to see these results cross-referenced by years of experience in role.

annual_incomes

Gender equality in the workplace can prevent violence against women (1 March 2016) In this article the feminist authors vainly attempt to create a causal link between the pay gap and domestic violence against women. Talk about a reach. And needless to say there is zero acknowledgment of workplace harassment or discrimination against men.

Why women graduates don’t get paid as much as men (14 February 2016) OK, so women freely choose to take courses that lead to lower paying job. It’s not men’s fault, and the only problem seems to be in the minds of feminists. WTF?

Workplace gender equality scorecard puts Australia to shame (26 November 2015)

ANZ bank launches a Super deal for female employees (29 July 2015) And now dodgy interpretation of statistics is used to justify gender discrimination

The Only 2(3) Cents I’m Giving Up Because of the Pay Gap (16 April 2015)

Gender pay gap misinterpreted again (16 October 2014)

Get Fact: do men make much more than women for the same job? (7 March 2014)

Pay gap due to women’s choices, not gender bias (9 March 2015) International Women’s Day 2015 saw a flood of pro-feminist articles about the gender pay gap. I won’t even bother including links here as none of them contributed anything new or useful to the discussion – just the same old debunked nonsense. This article (linked above) was the only one I saw that said anything sensible on the matter.

 

On the sexualisation of children

Most of us are aware of, and concerned about, the extent to which children appear to be becoming sexualised at a younger and younger age. The contributing factors are primarily social/cultural, although physiological factors also play a role (for e.g. diet and environmental pollutants). What needs to be done, and who should be held responsible for taking whatever action is needed to address the situation?

With regards to social/cultural influences, a linkage has been established, for example, between the increasing prevalence of households in which the father is not present, and children becoming sexually active at an earlier age (Source).

Other social factors that may be relevant include the trend towards families having less children, parents delaying having children until they are older, and the increase in the proportion of families where both parents work.

Clearly we must also consider sexually predatory behaviour by some adults, together with the related issues of child sex tourism, child prostitution and trafficking. The latter is more common in developing countries, yet is nevertheless still present here in the first world. It is important to note that both men and women perpetrate and/or facilitate these crimes, and that their victims may be either male or female.

I am by no means an expert in this field, but some of the more significant influences would seem to be:

The example provided by parents, teachers, and carers, & the messages they convey regarding what constitutes appropriate values and age-appropriate behaviour

Parents make many decisions affecting children, for example, what clothes are bought/worn, what films are watched at the cinema, what magazines are purchased, etc. There have been stories in the media about parents who encourage (persuade?) their children to take place in beauty pageants or similar activities that many other would consider questionable.

Who is responsible? In order of significance … mothers, fathers (where one is present), other family members, and carers/teachers. Governments and the courts play a role through the social and welfare policies they put in place, particularly in relation to issues of custody and visitation.

See my post in relation to feminism-inspired programs in schools, as well as the following examples:

LGBT community celebrates 8-year-old drag queen. Critics call it child abuse (9 June 2017)

Reality star Farrah Abraham accused of sexualising daughter, 7, in bikini photoshoot (27 June 2016)

Story about the promotion of dance costumes for young girls and related dance culture (26 April 2015)

Mother of ‘most beautiful girl’, 9, slams claims she sexed up daughter (7 December 2014). Feb 2016 update on Kristina and her mum here

Exposure to media images and stories, particularly for example in tween/teen and young womens magazines, that promote, glamourize and normalize sexually-charged behaviour and styles of clothing

First she became a 13-year-old internet meme. Now, she’s treated like a porn star (23 March 2017)

Sexting: Should teens be left to their own devices? (8 October 2016) Australia

Children as young as 10 years old are sending sexually-explicit images to friends (26 September 2016)

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/cute-or-creepy-kristina-pimenova-may-be-six-but-shes-already-a-supermodel/story-fnixwvgh-1227135126748

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/porn-stars-describe-how-their-families-reacted-after-learning-about-their-careers/story-e6frfmq9-1226888926971

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/vanessa-knowles-pays-for-25k-law-degree-by-stripping-on-the-web/story-fnixwvgh-1226888337382

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/three-porn-stars-explain-why-they-chose-the-porn-industry/story-fnet0gt3-1226917259841

Sexualisation of children (13 February 2011)

Who is responsible? Editors and journalists of the relevant publications (these being primarily women), and parents who ostensibly control TV viewing habits and determine which magazines are purchased and brought home.

The availability and social acceptability of certain products, particularly clothing, that could be seen to facilitate the sexualisation of children

Department stores, for example, often assert that they stock products based on there being a consumer demand for them. Whilst many parents are against stores stocking provocative and age-inappropriate clothing, there is another group of people who are against restrictions or censure in relation to the public dissemination of questionable photos of children in general, and dressing girls in adult-style clothing in particular. Here’s an example of that line of thought here.

The members of that group see such photos, and such clothing, as “cute” and “harmless fun – just like playing dress-ups”. Their views seem to be akin to the criticism of so-called ‘victim-blamers’ as practiced by feminists. In other words, they feel that others who say that pre-teen girls should not be wearing skimpy/provocative clothing are ‘sick’ (or even accuse critics of being paedophiles themselves), and that girls of any age should be able to wear whatever they want without judgment or fear of repercussions on themselves or others.

‘I’m sexy and I know it’ dress for tots disgusts parents (28 November 2017)

Pole dancing video sparks backlash on Facebook (12 July 2017)

House of Fraser forced to remove ‘provocative’ Calvin Klein advert after shoppers complain that it sexualises children (14 March 2017) UK

Child models in bikinis spark controversy at fashion show (19 July 2016) USA and Would you let your pre-teen daughter pose like THIS for a fashion brand? (Australia)

Best & Less accused of selling ‘sexualised’ children’s clothes (3 June 2016)

Mother objects to short shorts for young girls (10 February 2016) Video

Online retailer Missguided slammed for selling ‘offensive’ top (1 December 2015)

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/texas-dad-challenges-school-dress-code-labeling-sexist/story?id=30704598

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/mothers-outrage-at-unsuitable-girls-clothing-strikes-raw-nerve-20120814-246tw.html

Reader ‘Molly Black’ writes: “As for the sexualising of young girls—it isn’t paedophiles grooming them, it’s their own mothers dressing them like little tarts. I had lunch in the Kings Rd on Saturday and I couldn’t believe the way 11,12 and 13 years old girls were dressed , often with their mothers. ‘Mini-me-s’ and looking at older men too to check out if they were being given the once over.” (Source)

Who is responsible? Retail owners/managers, product manufacturers, and parents (primarily mothers)  who make clothing purchasing decisions

Exposure to poor role models in popular culture, e.g. actors, models, pop stars and social media ‘celebrities’

Who is responsible? The artists in question (again, who appear to be primarily female) and the companies responsible for creating/marketing their image

See ‘Baby-faced Instagram star posting sexy snaps‘ (16 January 2016) and ‘Thanks Iggy big butts are ‘in’ for teens’ (28 November 2014)

Exposure to pornography

It appears that the influence of pornography on early onset of sexual activity by specific individuals may have been overstated, although one would imagine that its effect as part of the broader social milieu is still likely to be significant. See http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/porn

The issue of pornography in general is addressed in this other blog post.

Who is responsible? The producers of pornography, the models/actors featured therein, and adults responsible for either facilitating or failing to exercise control over childrens access to porn.

Passive exposure to sexually-charged advertising on billboards, magazines in stores, and free-to-air TV

This is the ‘white noise’ of sexualised messages and imagery that we are all unwittingly exposed to as we go about our daily business.

Who is responsible? The media. Companies that advertise products. The advertising/marketing agencies (most of whose staff are female) who create the ads. To a lesser extent, bureaucrats within government agencies that make determinations as to whether ads are acceptable.

Diet and environmental factors affecting children

It has been established that the early onset of menstruation can be triggered by body weight reaching certain thresholds. Given an increasing number overweight children then it seems likely that this is an increasingly significant factor in early development, and in some cases the subsequent early onset of sexual activity. The presence of certain household chemicals is another possible contributing factor.

See:

Something is happening to our kids, and it’s time we talked about it (29 July 2017)
Poor kids hit puberty sooner and risk a lifetime of health problems (24 May 2017)
http://mums.bodyandsoul.com.au/kids+health/health/why+girls+are+maturing+early,12327
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/16/early-precocious-puberty.aspx
What causes girls to enter puberty early? (5 February 2015)

Who is responsible? In terms of economic disadvantage, primarily broader societal and economic forces. In terms of dietary choices and product purchasing decisions, primarily parents/children, but also food processing companies and supermarkets.

Conclusion

Clearly,  the increasingly early sexualisation of children is a significant social issue. Is it also a gender issue? It shouldn’t be, as both boys and girls are affected, and both men and women share responsibility for creating the environment in which this phenomenon is occurring.

At the same time though, I’m not seeing a lot of patriarchy at work here. It is largely women who create and purchase the magazines in which sexualised images of girls are portrayed, their pages filled with messages conveying the idea that dressing and behaving like a tramp is a desirable expression of excitement, independence and maturity. It is women who design, market and purchase provocative clothing lines aimed at tweens and young teens. It is female celebrities, actors and pop stars who twerk and nipple-slip their way across our TV and cinema screens.

All of this is presented, by a particular group of women (and the occasional mangina), as being some noble expression of ‘girl power’. See some graphic demonstrations of that perverse mentality, here, herehere, and here.

In an article entitled Sexualised girls are seen as less intelligent and less worthy of help than their peers‘ the bad guys are those people in the community who make certain value judgements concerning sexualised girls, rather than the adults who allowed them to become sexualised in the first place.

A petition I came across on change.org provides another such example of the whacky logic of liberal progressives. This was summed up in the title of a reddit discussion thread, “So, telling girls they shouldn’t dress sexually is sexualising women“. In other words it is the person who discusses or draws attention to the fact that a girl is dressed like a hooker, who has compromised judgement/morals … not the girl in question or her parents. How frighteningly short-sighted, shallow, and foolish.

sexualising

And now upon viewing the fruits of their self-indulgence, that same group resort to heaping of blame upon the male gender. A more mature and reasoned course of action would be to accept a degree of accountability and to direct their energies to turning things around. The problem though is that there is an obstacle preventing progress in that direction. And that blockage is gender feminism.

On the other hand, men hold the majority of elected positions in government and within the ranks of CEO’s and thus could institute reforms to more effectively address many of the factors noted above. A small minority of men (and women) also participate in child sex tourism and other paedophile activities.

If there was ever an issue for men and women to set aside ideology and work together to protect future generations, then this is the one.

See these related sources:

Tracey Spicer: Why do men think it’s OK to comment on my pre-teen daughter’s looks? (5 February 2017) Australia. Apparently it’s all men’s fault. Tracey doesn’t like men on planes either.

Stop the sexualisation of our children. Right now, by Kylie Lang (8 December 2016) Australia

You’re A “Bigot” If You Don’t Support Pedophilia (31 May 2016)

Children with sexualised behaviours need support, not silence and stigma (27 May 2016) Australia

Controversial sex-ed program will teach Aussie toddlers about cross-dressing (6 March 2016) Australia
“Children are sexual beings and it’s a strong part of their identity, and it is linked to their values and respect”

I see articles about young girls being “sexualised” all the time, but never about boys (1 December 2014) Reddit mensrights discussion thread
Feminism, consumerism & the sexualisation of girls
Don’t blame advertisers for the sexualisation of children

Tramps like us: Target and modern day misogyny (20 August 2012)
Study: Girls as young as six want to be sexy (17 July 2012)
Sexy clothing for young girls makes up 30 per cent of the market (10 May 2011)

Sexualisation in child beauty pageants (wiki entry)
http://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2011/jun/06/sexualised-children-media-blame
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/37158.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-22002324
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008009/Sexualisation-children-blamed-parents-want-bond-them.html
http://www.womensforumaustralia.org/significant-issues/premature-sexualisation-of-children
http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/DP93.pdf
http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-who-is-to-blame-for-the-over-sexualisation-of-children-171919-Jul2011/
Twelve going on 20: Are girls reaching puberty earlier? (10 August 2011)

On the issue of traveller safety

The issue of traveller safety encompasses many topics such as sexual assault, robbery and scams, motor vehicle accidents, food poisoning, STD’s, animal bites, etc. Within the mainstream and online media however most attention is directed to sexual assault, and most media coverage of traveller safety focuses on threats to the personal safety of women. It’s as if males are immune from muggings, drink spiking, motor vehicle accidents, etc, or are deemed  to be incapable of benefiting from advice.

Nevertheless, out in the real world, males are just as vulnerable to these threats as are females. No one questions that women are deserving of support and advice in relation to the issue of traveller safety. But it would appear that men being men, well you know, they should just suck it up. Or something.

Actually I just read a post in a feminist blog that informed me that men don’t need this sort of advice because men “can look after themselves“. Well to the extent that men *can* look after themselves whilst travelling, they do so chiefly by following the same sort of advice that they offer to women (and then get called victim-blamers!). Funny thing that.

Aside from feminist bias I can’t think of a logical reason why journalists persist in compartmentalising, along gender lines, their coverage of this issue … that is unless the goal is simply to perpetuate a myth of eternal victimhood.

And so it is that much of the online discussion of traveller safety is devoted to women railing against the injustice of being unable  to dress like a hooker – according to local mores – without getting approached with offers of work.  Oh, wait, perhaps the patriarchy made them do it? Just what is the big deal about briefly modifying one’s normal fashion style? Those people promulgating this crazy notion of polite compromise as being akin to outright capitulation, have a lot to answer for.

Guys, on the other hand, seem to be able to enjoy their holidays just fine without the need to show off their butt cheeks whilst shopping in the market.

No, no-one deserves to be harassed or raped. In an ideal world we could wear whatever we chose, and go where-ever we wanted at any time of the day or night, without attracting judgement or a violent response. 

But it’s not an ideal world, and it is foolish to ignore patterns of behaviour correlated to higher levels of threat, in favour of feel-good public rituals and esoteric babbling about the need to “educate” men and boys. Sounds a lot like comfortable insulated upper middle-class delusion to me. The criminal underbelly of society, along with the mentally ill, naughty boys (and girls!) one and all. They just need a good talking to, and a couple of good Powerpoint presentations should do the trick.

Christian schools have been teaching the “do not steal” lesson for a couple of thousand years now, and we still seem to have a bit of a problem with theft. I am not saying that there is no place for education, but I sure wouldn’t be relying on it as the biggest stick in my armoury.

Oh, but heaven help any man who attempts to join the discussion and helpfully suggest tips like “don’t get drunk or take drugs”, “dress conservatively” or “don’t walk alone at night”, for they are immediately labelled victim-blamers and rape-apologists!

This theme, that the behaviour of women never causes nor contributes to the problems they encounter or anything bad that happens to them, is a feminist mainstay. And dare you suggest otherwise then you are the bad guy, even if you really don’t think you are … because your mind has been corrupted by “cognitive bias’ and ‘systemic sexism’. Move over Scientology!

An example of a recent article about traveller safety that demonstrates this narrow fem-focus can be seen at http://www.chiangmainews.com/ecmn/viewfa.php?id=3795

An alternative position is provided by this article – http://matadornetwork.com/change/travel-safety-is-not-a-gendered-issue/

Did you know that some airlines have a policy of not seating unaccompanied minors travelling on airplanes next to men? I guess that haven’t read my post about female kiddy-fiddlers.

Airline discrimination table
http://mensrightsmelbourne.com/2014/03/24/sydney-fireman-john-mcgirr-accuses-virgin-of-discrimination/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_sex_discrimination_policy_controversy

And so in April 2014 a Australian feminist journalist by the name of Tracey Spicer wrote an article about how she didn’t want her children sat next to men on flights – see the article and related discussions here and here. This article in a feminist web site contributes nothing to the debate but there are some interesting points buried amongst the readers comments.

Yet despite the fact that men on planes are a cause for concern, on account of them probably being perverts and all, these men stepped in to help the flight attendants when help was needed.

Oh, but I love this article, it contrasts feminists silence about men being required to sit away from unaccompanied children, with the requests of ultra-orthodox Jewish men to be sat away from women.

On a positive note, in July 2014 an article by Amanda Blair entitled ‘We’ve become too paranoid about men in the company of children‘ highlighted the way many people assumed the worst when men were observed in proximity to children in playgrounds, shopping centres, etc. This UK newspaper article addresses the same issue, as does this item.

This blog post discusses an article by Wendy Tuohy on the same topic, but which in this case drips with hypocrisy bearing in mind the pronounced feminist bias of her prior repertoire of articles and offerings on social media.

This family-oriented tourist attraction in England has taken the step of banning unaccompanied adults from entering, though I suspect that unaccompanied women would not encounter a problem.

 See also:

Air India starts selling seats in female-only section (17 January 2017)

Angry woman slaps airport worker in London after missing her budget flight with Ryanair (13 January 2017) UK

Businessman tests airline on gender discrimination by saying he can’t sit near men (25 October 2016)

Women-only train carriages? What a ridiculously regressive idea (4 May 2016) Australia. Pro-feminist article attracting more that 1,200 comments

City of Perth trials pink ‘female-friendly’ safe bays with better security (13 April 2016) Australia

Women-only ‘pink carriages’ idea for Aussie trains causes controversy (5 April 2016) and ‘Pink carriages’ for women only draws fire from feminists and commuters

Travel advice: Five places that women shouldn’t travel to (3 December 2014) The focus of this article appears to be mainly ideological dangers. In such places one might catch sexism from a seat in a bus.