“
...victims who suffer sexual assaults such as groping, stroking or fondling are often silenced by the normalised notion that these things are not a serious crime...”
the serving of meals, when they’re waking you up or going around with the duty free or you’re coming in to land. There needs to be a situational opportunity there.”
She explains that the in-flight observation carried out by cabin crew is positive, creating “monitors” but adds that this also has the secondary, potentially problematic effect that “when the monitors withdraw, you’re left in a stage of feeling that nobody is watching you…there’s a huge sense of ‘what I do literally isn’t noticed, and that if it is noticed, nobody’s going to challenge me’.”
Another important factor that may be particularly relevant is the use of airline advertising, where cabin crew are sometimes presented in a sexualised or objectified light. Recent examples include the Virgin advert, which featured model-like female cabin crew in red stilettos and figure hugging suits being ogled by hapless businessmen, before ending with the slogan “Still Red Hot”. Meanwhile the controversial Ryanair cabin crew calendar features bikini and underwear shots of real staff members and is sold in-flight, as well as being used to advertise fares, under the tagline “Red Hot Fares and Crew”. Quilliam says such advertising harks back to memories of the overtly sexual “I’m Mandy: Fly Me” adverts and may in fact play a part in the problem of in-flight frotteurism and sexual assault. She explains that these adverts both “perpetuate and exacerbate an existing cultural prejudice about cabin crew being sexually available”, potentially putting them at greater risk of sexual harassment from passengers. This is an issue already flagged up by the UK union Unite, which is currently surveying its members to determine levels of in-flight sexual harassment. The Unite website expresses its concern over the “increasing tendency to use sexual imagery, and messages in advertising to sell flights, which give the wrong impression of cabin crew,” and “could lead to an increase in sexual harassment.” Similarly, the Flight Attendant’s Association of Australia has recently spoken out about sexually provocative airline adverts. FAAA Secretary Jo-Ann Davidson said: “Such suggestive
December 2012 Aviationsecurityinternational
www.asi-mag.com 25
advertising portraying cabin crew as part of the product they’re selling sends wrong messages and puts cabin crew at risk of sexual harassment and abuse – all for a $10 air fare.”
And even if it is not cabin crew themselves but fellow passengers who are subjected to harassment or frotteurism, Quilliam says, this perceived notion of aeroplanes as liberal zones for sexual activity may still be a triggering factor. Such adverts, she says, “create an
expectation that the whole thing is more acceptable on a plane.” Finally, it is vital to be aware that victims of in-flight frotteurism and sexual assault are likely to suffer the same problems faced by victims of these crimes in wider society. Victims who suffer sexual assaults such as groping, stroking or fondling are often silenced by the normalised notion that these things are “not a serious crime”, and the suggestion that those who object or report perpetrators are “uptight”, or “overreacting”. Many would be surprised to learn that the UK legal definition of sexual assault specifically includes any kind of contact where “the touching is sexual” and the victim “does not consent to the touching”.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48