WWYD? Dh won't let the kids fly.

[LibraryLover]

Of course. The US doesn't even havve 800 million people. ;) Many are frequent flyers, but you are talking about raw numbers of people (some of the same ones over and over) going through security. It's in the millions, no matter how you slice it. The number of airports is real, and staggering.

 

 

There is a whole interesting rabbit trail there. There's a difference between the number of *people* who fly in a year (many of whom may fly multiple times), the number of people-journeys in a year (so PHL to LAX is one person-journey, and if the person does it 8 times in the year that's 8 people-journeys (and another 8 person-journeys to return), though still one person who flew that year), and the number of person-take-offs in a year (so if you did PHL to LAX via MDW, that's 2 person-take-offs, one person-journey, and one person flying - do it 8 times, with return, and that's 32 person-take-offs, 16 person-journeys, and still only 1 person flying in the year).

 

When you read flight stats, or hear them on the news, take note if they're being careful about these distinctions. It's an interesting exercise in the appropriate use of statistics, and will probably lead you to be skeptical about numbers in the news in general.

Edited April 15, 2012 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

Yes. These last few times, there was a lot of chatter in the security lines. The woman patting me down asked where I was headed etc., in a very friendly way. Even the folks moving the bins through the scanners where more relaxed and it wasn't as tense. Lots of chit chat. As for the bolded; I've always wondered that as well. If one has a chance to go away for vacations, works in college recruiting, close an important business deal, or promote their new book, it's not likely one would give all of that up.

 

This article by the former TSA head raises some good points. He notes that the imposition of airline baggage fees leads to more carry ons which in turn tangles up the check in process. I agree.

 

Previously TSA officials were not to talk to passengers, just process them. Last summer they started an experiment in several cities in which TSA staff would engage passengers in conversation (asking travel related questions), supposedly using Israeli techniques to detect any anxiety or apparent issues which might lead to a second layer of questioning. Some may decry this as a further violation of rights but it seemed quite civilized to be asked how one's vacation was while turning over travel documents.

 

I wonder if some of the people who say they refuse to fly now ever flew? Most people I know who are seasoned travelers for business or pleasure keep traveling.

Edited April 15, 2012 by LibraryLover

[justasque]

Of course. The US doesn't even havve 800 million people. ;) Many are frequent flyers, but you are talking about raw numbers of people (some of the same ones over and over) going through security. It's in the millions, no matter how you slice it. The number of airports is real, and staggering.

 

Agreed! (Just want to be clear I wasn't disagreeing with your previous post. Just having a math geek moment. :D) The negative stories are real, but a very small percentage of fliers experience them.

[Jane in NC]

As for the bolded; I've always wondered that as well. If one has a chance to go away for vacations, works in college recruiting, close an important business deal, or promote their new book, it's not likely one would give all of that up.

 

As I write, I have a nephew who is in Europe on business. I have a niece who flew off for the weekend to meet her brother's two month old son--they reside in another part of the country. Earlier in the week I booked a ticket to see family in the near future. (Shrug.) We are people who like to go places, I guess.

 

Does the OP's husband fly for business? (Maybe I missed this.) Even people who do not have to travel for business regularly may be invited or required to attend an annual conference. Are employers tolerant of employees who won't fly for philosophical reasons?

[Halftime Hope]

Alice, my kids are nearly grown, and I have to tell you that our road trips have to be one of the most memorable things in our lives. We are not by any stretch of the imagination a perfect family, in times, I've despaired that my children will even want to have a reliationship with each otehr as adults because of the seemingly endless ways they could create consternation amongst themselves. (It has gotten better, and I trust they will continue to grow in their appreciation for one another.)

 

Vacations have nearly always been to visit family--we've only gone on one or two vacations that were about seeing a place. But it's the time getting there and back that has been wonderful.

 

Here are some things that have made it special:

 

1) When Dad is along, he is the biggest partier in the car: he's so happy to be off work! If he were the kind of guy who needed two days to decompress, by golly, we'd leave on Monday morning. No cranks in the car!

 

2) We don't generally eat much fast food. One way we've made it special is to allow "vacation" food, relaxing our usual way of eating to allow a milkshake each day.

 

3) a) When the kids were little, we planned squirm breaks--times when we'd plan to stop at a rest stop and throw a frisbee or football. My kids needed that movement desperately. You know the proverbial dad that wouldn't let anyone get out to pee until the family reached their destination 2500 miles down the road? Ha! I would have quitely shoved that guy into the trunk and then enjoyed the rest of the trip.

 

3 b) Caves, battleships, and civil war battlesites are great locations for "squirm breaks." No frisbees or ball needed.

 

4) There is no such thing as packing too many audio books. : ) We still talk about books we listened to on our trips.

 

hth

[Pink and Green Mom]

I haven't read any responses so please ignore me if this has been said already - we flew from Dulles (Washington, DC) to Florida this past January and were told kids under a certain age do nothing other than walk through the regular metal detector. They don't have to remove their shoes and are not subject to further inspections. I forget what the age was - I want to say 12 or 14.

[datgh]

Just to muddy the waters, what kind of screening does Amtrack do? When we where in Washington, DC last year we went through Union Station and it looked like it was set up just like an airport as far as screening goes. It kind of surprised me because I always think of train travel as just getting on and off as you please.

[merry gardens]

If the op can afford the train trip, I vote train. It sounds like they enjoy train trips and her husband voiced an objection to their children flying. A train trip seems like a good compromise-and it also sounds fun!

[NatashainDFW]

I really don't understand so many saying the husband is being selfish and that people should just suck it up and fly anyways. So what do you say in my situation? Tell my husband to suck it up and go through the pat down even though it could send him into a mental health downward spiral? Do I tell him sorry if they decide to pat down your children you have to stand back and have a massive anxiety attack? The man has a concern about his family. If this where a concern regarding car seats would you say he was being unreasonable to require the kids stay in them? I mean come on. If he objected to vaccines would we all be telling the OP to forget what he said and do what she wants? What about if the issue was homeschooling? This seems to be the only subject I have ever seen this board recommend not listening to DH in regards to his children.

[NASDAQ]

I really don't understand so many saying the husband is being selfish and that people should just suck it up and fly anyways. So what do you say in my situation? Tell my husband to suck it up and go through the pat down even though it could send him into a mental health downward spiral? Do I tell him sorry if they decide to pat down your children you have to stand back and have a massive anxiety attack? The man has a concern about his family. If this where a concern regarding car seats would you say he was being unreasonable to require the kids stay in them? I mean come on. If he objected to vaccines would we all be telling the OP to forget what he said and do what she wants? What about if the issue was homeschooling? This seems to be the only subject I have ever seen this board recommend not listening to DH in regards to his children.

 

For mental health issues, my husband uses a combination of CBT techniques, ativin, and (if necessary) an SSRI to control mental health and anxiety. If necessary he removes himself from the situation. That might mean that he would need to travel separately from me and the children. I would absolutely not constrict my children's lives in order to make their father's anxiety easier to manage. I _do_ not do that and have been very clear from the beginning that that isn't on the table. His OCD and anxiety is his own, and he can't limit his children's lives in order to make it easier for him to control it.

[Aelwydd]

I really don't understand so many saying the husband is being selfish and that people should just suck it up and fly anyways. So what do you say in my situation? Tell my husband to suck it up and go through the pat down even though it could send him into a mental health downward spiral? Do I tell him sorry if they decide to pat down your children you have to stand back and have a massive anxiety attack? The man has a concern about his family. If this where a concern regarding car seats would you say he was being unreasonable to require the kids stay in them? I mean come on. If he objected to vaccines would we all be telling the OP to forget what he said and do what she wants? What about if the issue was homeschooling? This seems to be the only subject I have ever seen this board recommend not listening to DH in regards to his children.

 

 

I'm not sure if you're including my posts with this, but just in case, I haven't encouraged the OP to ignore or bypass her dh's wishes. I have pointed out a few issues or arguments that she might want to bring to her dh's attention, so that they can discuss it further.

[kalanamak]

I really don't understand so many saying the husband is being selfish and that people should just suck it up and fly anyways. So what do you say in my situation? Tell my husband to suck it up and go through the pat down even though it could send him into a mental health downward spiral? Do I tell him sorry if they decide to pat down your children you have to stand back and have a massive anxiety attack?

 

He can take the train, and let everyone else cope normally. Don't teach the kids his terrors. Stop the chain.

[kalanamak]

nm

Edited April 15, 2012 by kalanamak
double post

[NatashainDFW]

I just don't see not flying as restrictive. We drive or take the train but normally drive. Maybe dealing with a husband with anxiety and PTSD brought on by years of sexual abuse is different than OCD anxiety. I know I do a lot to help keep his anxiety to a minimum. He also is unable to leave the house alone (agoraphobia) which is another reason traveling alone just is not possible. We have found ways to travel without causing major anxiety issues I just didn't realize so many people think this is selfish or unreasonable.

[NatashainDFW]

He can take the train, and let everyone else cope normally. Don't teach the kids his terrors. Stop the chain.

 

Well since my children don't know why we drive instead of fly I don't think we are teaching them to be afraid. We are very vocal about good touch and bad touch and that if they are ever uncomfortable that we will be here and defend them. Other than that they have absolutely no clue about their father's past. It is not for them to worry about. Yes we do things differently because of it but even without TSA we would do things differently because of his past.

[kalanamak]

Well since my children don't know why we drive instead of fly I don't think we are teaching them to be afraid.

 

I have heard more than one adult say watching their parent's panic attack was a horrible memory, and an event that terrified them. I wouldn't expose a child to father's panic attack, but I would also not keep them from seeing a grandparent because of father's panic attack.

[NatashainDFW]

I have heard more than one adult say watching their parent's panic attack was a horrible memory, and an event that terrified them. I wouldn't expose a child to father's panic attack, but I would also not keep them from seeing a grandparent because of father's panic attack.

 

Well this is exactly why we find alternate means of travel. It keeps his anxiety under control and in the case of driving is a much cheaper way to visit grandparents! We actually just spent six weeks divided between my mother's and his. I would not subject him to an anxiety attack to cut down on travel time. I just don't find that acceptable. I also will not keep him out of family activities or vacations because I choose to fly knowing he cannot travel without me. (Prayers from anyone willing that this gets better...he is in therapy and on meds but the agoraphobia has not improved.)

[Jane in NC]

Double post.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Jane in NC

[Jane in NC]

So talk to me about major sporting events like the Super Bowl or opening ceremonies of the Olympics with national dignitaries. Do people just go through metal detectors or could they be searched? I know that I have had my bag searched at the National Archives and the museums in DC.

[Giraffe]

We have to fly if we want to have a relationship with DH's family overseas. Oh, I guess we could take a cruise ship over, but that takes a solid week just to get to Europe, then we'd have to get from the port of call to DH's hometown - trains, I reckon. Anyhow, it's just not realistic. So we fly and so far (knock on wood) we've just had to deal with the regular metal detectors. Yes, it's annoying dealing with security, but as PPs have said, security is all over the place depending on the country so we just roll with the punches. DD loves not having to take her shoes off in the US nowadays, though!

 

Does DH like the security we have to go through in the US? No (and he always gets pulled for random screening), but we do it.

[Giraffe]

double post

Edited April 15, 2012 by Hopscotch67

[Mommy22alyns]

I just don't see not flying as restrictive. We drive or take the train but normally drive. Maybe dealing with a husband with anxiety and PTSD brought on by years of sexual abuse is different than OCD anxiety. I know I do a lot to help keep his anxiety to a minimum. He also is unable to leave the house alone (agoraphobia) which is another reason traveling alone just is not possible. We have found ways to travel without causing major anxiety issues I just didn't realize so many people think this is selfish or unreasonable.

 

 

Neither do I. I mean, it's not the best situation, but DH gets very motion sick and just can't fly. So we don't.

[ma23peas]

I just don't see not flying as restrictive. We drive or take the train but normally drive. Maybe dealing with a husband with anxiety and PTSD brought on by years of sexual abuse is different than OCD anxiety. I know I do a lot to help keep his anxiety to a minimum. He also is unable to leave the house alone (agoraphobia) which is another reason traveling alone just is not possible. We have found ways to travel without causing major anxiety issues I just didn't realize so many people think this is selfish or unreasonable.

 

Yes, it can be restrictive...with his type of logic, our family would not have made it to Italy/Tunisia/England/France/Spain...sorry, but who has the time to take a transatlantic sailing and then travel the continents. My children have seen the Rosetta Stone, Trevi Fountain, ruins of Pompeii, incredible cathedrals and architecture...but we would have to say no to those bc we are letting our fears control our paths? And, I was one of those violated/groped...my children were not...I can suck it up and tolerate it until these idiots get their 'exploratory' scannings under some control...but honestly, if it meant getting groped or being exploded mid flight by a psychotic bomber...I'd take the former any time.

 

Those with psychological issues, need to deal with it the best they can, but I think with children...as someone else stated...teach them ways to cope and not be ruled by fears.

[AnaShoo]

:iagree: Well said.

 

I also find it unreasonable that because SOME people have had nothing but good experiences with airport security, that somehow invalidates the concerns.

 

I have similar conversations with people who have always lived in safe, suburban neighborhoods. Often such people simply do NOT understand the difficulties those who live in inner-city urban areas face each day. My neighbors in the city spent YEARS bribing the garbage men to come pick up their garbage. Yes, bribing. When I tell suburbanites this they are incredulous and sometimes don't believe such measures were necessary. A common response is also for them to say, "Well, that should be reported!" However, reporting things in that neighborhood results in NOTHING. Literally, no response. Those suburbanites had never lived with the reality of nonexistent city services, and tend to scorn the very real difficulties inner city residents face.

 

The point is that there ARE abuses. There will be abuses in ANY system, because any system run by people will have some who will not act with integrity. The key is to make sure the system is set up to LIMIT the possibility of abuses. Right now, as things stand, there is a dangerous imbalance of power in the name of "safety" and the results are eroded liberties, bad experiences for some travelers, risky exposures to a minimally tested medical procedure (back scatter xray), and we are no safer than we were before.

 

Okay, the problem with this argument is that, as far as I can tell, we're not talking about someone who has vast EXPERIENCE with flying. If you are saying you are paranoid because of XYZ, but it's just because of what you've read in the media, you don't really have a leg to stand on if you are talking to someone who flies all the time WITH KIDS and has seen the reality of it. Your example is the opposite situation.

[NatashainDFW]

Ok let me rephrase that...for a family without the means to go overseas, not flying is not restrictive. If we had the means to travel like that and he refused we may have an issue but since its not even a remote possibility its nothing to be concerned with. Anywhere we can afford to go we can drive. Yes my children have been out of the country but only to Mexico as we lived two hours from the border. Would I love to travel overseas? Well yea but a one person income doing what I do it is a pipe dream for now.

[Audrey]

I agree with your husband. It's not security, it's micro-terrorism.

[garddwr]

Well this is exactly why we find alternate means of travel. It keeps his anxiety under control and in the case of driving is a much cheaper way to visit grandparents! We actually just spent six weeks divided between my mother's and his. I would not subject him to an anxiety attack to cut down on travel time. I just don't find that acceptable. I also will not keep him out of family activities or vacations because I choose to fly knowing he cannot travel without me. (Prayers from anyone willing that this gets better...he is in therapy and on meds but the agoraphobia has not improved.)

 

Praying Natasha. So sad that your husband experienced such a traumatic childhood. It sounds like you are very understanding and supportive.

[NASDAQ]

Obviously you and your husband know all of the ins and outs of his particular difficulties. My husband has never, thank G-d, been abused. He just has garden-variety somewhat-goofy brain chemistry. Just responding that for our family, avoiding his triggers as a family is not on the table, and would not be on the table, were one of them to have to do with the TSA.

 

Of course, I'd much rather take three kids on a plane alone than be in a car several days. I and two kids have car sickness :glare:

[Heather in Neverland]

I think this conversation could benefit from taking the hysteria down a notch.

 

Let's be realistic about this. Yes, I know when all these extra security measures came out they were mishandled and I know the-old-lady-in-a-wheelchair story and the exceptions with sexual abuse survivors...But let's be honest about facts and definitions.

 

Patted down and "groped" are NOT the same thing. People keep saying "I am not letting my young child be groped by TSA!" Maybe you've never been a teenage girl whose teenage boyfriend is actually "groping" her in the backseat of a car but I can tell you, there is a difference. ;)

 

ACTUAL SEXUAL TOUCH does not feel like being "patted" down by the TSA. Give me a break.

 

Now if you want to "take a stand" based on the fact that you don't think you should be put through any security measures at all because it invades your privacy as a U.S. citizen... which assumes no U.S. citizen ever commits a crime on a plane... You know, based on "principle"... Then have at it. Maybe the lines at security will be shorter and my family can get through faster. :D

 

And I promise you, if me or my children are ACTUALLY ever "groped" by TSA then I will boycott with you.

 

 

.

[Parrothead]

I can see some people thinking that the husband is over-reacting. And maybe he is...maybe he isn't. Either way, he's making a stand against something that makes him uncomfortable on his children's behalf, and I certainly don't blame him for that. All parents do that in different ways all the time.

 

But I'm surprised by all the "he's so selfish" comments. He's not selfish. He's protecting his children. Whether some people think it's over-reacting, over-protective, etc. is besides the point. Protecting his kids is what it is to him. He still made provisions for other ways that they can go travel and visit family. Good for him. Now if he'd said "They're not flying and sorry but no train either, it's too expensive and I'm not paying that kind of price, your family will just have to come here," well, THEN I'd maybe I'd think differently. But he's not.

 

I'm also surprised by some of the comments insinuating the wife should do it anyway and "I'd do this and let HIM go do that" and so forth. I really doubt most of us would go do something with our children that our husbands were VERY against and uncomfortable with, and I know if there was something *I* was very against and uncomfortable with and I said "I don't want my kids doing this" and my husband blew me off and said "Too bad, I'm doing it anyway, you can't tell me what to do, I'm doing this with the kids, YOU go do that if my way makes you so uncomfortable," there would be some SERIOUS problems in this house.

 

OP, take the train. It'll be fun. Make an adventure of it. Respect your husband's comfort level on this one because any parent who has a strong objection for reasons of safety and protection of the kids shouldn't just be brushed aside like their feelings don't matter. And it's hardly like there's NO merit to what he's saying. We've all heard some of the stories. I know some people think "it probably won't happen anyway" or "it's tolerable" but plenty of other people don't think that way, and he's one of them, and, really, how do you argue with that? If I felt strongly about something like that, I wouldn't want my spouse fighting with me about it. (As it is, we NEVER fly so I haven't had to make that choice, myself).

:iagree:100%

[Parrothead]

If my DH were even passively preventing the formation of a strong relationship between my kids and my parents because of a paranoid fear that's just not based on reality AND which makes no sense as a protest (as others have pointed out, the airlines don't have any control over these measures, and most of their business is business travelers anyway) then that would be a deal breaker for me, and something that would not stand.

How exactly is he preventing a relationship?

 

That is what I don't understand. Many are saying the dh is preventing a relationship with the grands. How exactly is he doing that? He is not saying the kids can't see the OP's parents at all. He is just adding a day or two of their travel plans.

 

If your dh said he didn't want you kids to fly for whatever reason would you divorce him? You state that it "would be a deal breaker for me." Not something I think would be worth throwing away a marriage over.

[Parrothead]

Yes, it can be restrictive...with his type of logic, our family would not have made it to Italy/Tunisia/England/France/Spain...sorry, but who has the time to take a transatlantic sailing and then travel the continents. My children have seen the Rosetta Stone, Trevi Fountain, ruins of Pompeii, incredible cathedrals and architecture...but we would have to say no to those bc we are letting our fears control our paths? And, I was one of those violated/groped...my children were not...I can suck it up and tolerate it until these idiots get their 'exploratory' scannings under some control...but honestly, if it meant getting groped or being exploded mid flight by a psychotic bomber...I'd take the former any time.

 

Those with psychological issues, need to deal with it the best they can, but I think with children...as someone else stated...teach them ways to cope and not be ruled by fears.

If only getting groped would be some kind of protection against a psychotic bomber. Even TSA's head has said (linked earlier in the thread) that the security measures essentially don't amount to a hill of beans. (My paraphrase)

[Alicia64]

Double post. Oops!

[Alicia64]

How exactly is he preventing a relationship?

 

That is what I don't understand. Many are saying the dh is preventing a relationship with the grands. How exactly is he doing that? He is not saying the kids can't see the OP's parents at all. He is just adding a day or two of their travel plans.

 

I doubt this will matter for the conversation, but my dh is very supportive of my parents. When they visit he rolls out the red carpet.

 

He's not at all happy about restricting our air travel. He just thinks what's happening is wrong and the beginning of more liberties taken from us. . . that this is just the beginning.

 

This really is a right vs. wrong issue. He really believes what the TSA is doing is wrong and ineffective. The little boy in the wheelchair just got patted down a few weeks ago. And the whole argument of "it hasn't happened to me yet". . . you mean, if it happens to others but not you . . . whatever?!

 

But -- as far as my parents are concerned -- they like my dh better than me. :tongue_smilie:

 

Alley

[Night Elf]

Okay, the problem with this argument is that, as far as I can tell, we're not talking about someone who has vast EXPERIENCE with flying. If you are saying you are paranoid because of XYZ, but it's just because of what you've read in the media, you don't really have a leg to stand on if you are talking to someone who flies all the time WITH KIDS and has seen the reality of it. Your example is the opposite situation.

 

And the problem with the opposite argument is that however small a chance is to be picked for a pat down, there IS a possibility that it can happen. That's not paranoia, that's reality. And a pat down is still a touch. Being touched lightly is still being touched. Yes, we are a family who chooses car trips over planes because of this practice. I'm not trying to make a financial stand. I just don't want to go through security. Maybe it's a bigger deal for me because I would be using one of America's largest airport hubs, Atlanta Hartsfield. Security is such a hassle and a huge bottleneck. The last time I flew, it took me almost an hour to get through security. Yes, it was uneventful and for that I'm grateful. However, I do know a man who travels weekly on business and he's been patted down many times. Fortunately for him, he finds it amusing and posts on facebook as soon as he gets to his gate.

[stripe]

I know that I have had my bag searched at the National Archives and the museums in DC.

I had my purse searched going into Galleries Lafayette (a shopping mall) in Paris in 1997.

[Heather in Neverland]

I doubt this will matter for the conversation, but my dh is very supportive of my parents. When they visit he rolls out the red carpet.

 

He's not at all happy about restricting our air travel. He just thinks what's happening is wrong and the beginning of more liberties taken from us. . . that this is just the beginning.

 

This really is a right vs. wrong issue. He really believes what the TSA is doing is wrong and ineffective. The little boy in the wheelchair just got patted down a few weeks ago. And the whole argument of "it hasn't happened to me yet". . . you mean, if it happens to others but not you . . . whatever?!

 

But -- as far as my parents are concerned -- they like my dh better than me. :tongue_smilie:

 

Alley

 

I get it. But just for clarification, is the issue the actual "touching of a person" or "scanning of a person" that upsets him or just the idea that these extra security measures exist at all? Is it the actual touching or the principle behind the touching?

 

.

[Harriet Vane]

Okay, the problem with this argument is that, as far as I can tell, we're not talking about someone who has vast EXPERIENCE with flying. If you are saying you are paranoid because of XYZ, but it's just because of what you've read in the media, you don't really have a leg to stand on if you are talking to someone who flies all the time WITH KIDS and has seen the reality of it. Your example is the opposite situation.

 

I am personally speaking from extensive experience flying with kids.

 

I have flown multiple times, with kids. Our family loves to travel. We have been to Switzerland, England, Scotland, Mexico, Canada, and Guatemala, in addition to various trips within the US.

 

Sometimes we get through security just fine, but we have had some negative experiences with airport security other times.

 

We have been patted down (the entire family). It was done by a soft-spoken female who was gentle. While I am grateful that the experience was "not that bad" (it truly wasn't that bad) I am still APPALLED that citizens for whom there was NO reasonable suspicion of a crime were searched. This is unconstitutional.

 

I dealt with some unbelievably insensitive TSA representatives in Atlanta on one occasion who would not let me retrieve my daughter who could not see me or understand that I had been detained. (My daughter was younger at the time.) My attempts to explain that my little girl was wandering off without me were treated as though I was being combative and difficult and they would. not. let. me. explain. Thankfully my daughter heard the commotion as the agents were yelling at me (yes, their voices were raised) and she came over to where I was. No, they didn't apologize.

 

These were the same agents who also stood on either side of me and first one said, "Sit down, ma'am" and then the other said, "Stand up please." I literally sat down and stood up THREE TIMES before pointing out to them that they were giving me conflicting orders and that I was happy to submit to what they wanted but could they please decide together if I should stand or sit.

 

My point still stands. The argument that a procedure is okay because some people do that procedure kindly does not address the question of whether or not the procedure is appropriate in the first place.

[stripe]

My point still stands. The argument that a procedure is okay because some people do that procedure kindly does not address the question of whether or not the procedure is appropriate in the first place.

That's just it.

 

It also doesn't address whether the procedure actually increases security, or just our perception of such.

[Mrs Mungo]

Not true. Both are about Constitutional violations. Rosa Parks just had the support of the rest of the Montgomery bus riders, where flyers who object to the unconstitutional nature of these policies have no support, because everyone wants to do what he wants to do.

 

Wants to do? Or needs to do? Are there alternatives to taking a bus across town? Sure, there are many. Are there alternatives to flying if you have to be in Houston to visit an injured soldier on Wednesday, be at the Pentagon for a briefing on Friday and be back at your post on Saturday? Nope. Therefore, the comparison is unreasonable. You cannot be suggesting that nobody should have a job that requires air travel?

 

I really don't understand so many saying the husband is being selfish and that people should just suck it up and fly anyways. So what do you say in my situation? Tell my husband to suck it up and go through the pat down even though it could send him into a mental health downward spiral?

 

He wouldn't need a pat-down unless he refused to go through a security scanner.

 

This seems to be the only subject I have ever seen this board recommend not listening to DH in regards to his children.

 

HA! You must not pay very close attention. Almost the *only* time that not listening to your dh is suggested is when an OP says up front that they are a patriarchal family, believe in female submission and not listening to the dh is not an option.

 

So talk to me about major sporting events like the Super Bowl or opening ceremonies of the Olympics with national dignitaries. Do people just go through metal detectors or could they be searched? I know that I have had my bag searched at the National Archives and the museums in DC.

 

We've had bags searched at local hockey games, never mind a big event.

 

Okay, the problem with this argument is that, as far as I can tell, we're not talking about someone who has vast EXPERIENCE with flying. If you are saying you are paranoid because of XYZ, but it's just because of what you've read in the media, you don't really have a leg to stand on if you are talking to someone who flies all the time WITH KIDS and has seen the reality of it. Your example is the opposite situation.

 

Right.

 

That's just it.

 

It also doesn't address whether the procedure actually increases security, or just our perception of such.

 

That isn't an issue that is in contention.

[AnaShoo]

Ultimately, this is all gonna be a personal decision. I feel bad for the OP because I think her dh is taking a stand that means, well, nothing in the grand scheme of things (maybe he can convince Occupy Wall Street to take up the cause? They could sure use a real one, and that would actually make the news!). But, that's their decision.

 

Personally, we're not going to stop flying because of a fear of the occasional bad incident. I accept it may happen, and I have had to deal with irritiating TSA agents before. I mostly hold my breath until we get through. Since the military sends us all over the world, we're forced to fly if we want to ever see our families. Plus, travel is very high on our quality of life list. Being stuck with only driving as a choice (which does put your family in genuine danger, fyi, for all those who like to think flying is scarier) is just not okay for us. But I know other people are fine with this. My mother-in-law hates flying, but will still fly to see us because she cares that much. Still, I'm sure she'd be perfectly happy with her life if she never had to leave her hometown. I don't really get that, but I'm glad she's willing to come see us anyway!

 

And that's really why I think taking such an extreme stand that really only hurts you, not the people you want to hurt, doesn't ultimately make a lot of sense.

[stripe]

That isn't an issue that is in contention.

 

?

 

You mean, we all agree about its constitutionality, or lack thereof, or that we all agree it's effective, or not? I hadn't observed that in this thread. I must not be very observant.

 

I think when a person (the OP's husband) is objecting to something, he has a reason, and personally I find it more interesting to discuss this point of view instead of "Should one listen to one's husband as part of a family discussion," and how do we evaluate what to do?

 

When my husband objects to something, I tend to consider if he has a point before deciding my next move. I believe citizens have not only the right but a duty to stand up for justice, so the idea that he feels injustice and unwarranted/unconstitutional/intrusive actions are taking place and he objects to them, interest me on a philosophical level.

 

I didn't eat grapes for my entire childhood because my parents boycotted them. Did their lack of grape-buying bring down the grape economy? No. But they didn't do something they felt was morally wrong. And that's never too small a step to take.

 

However, I guess we could just turn it into a "what's the best way to travel" discussion instead.

 

And I'll leave that to you all.

[Mrs Mungo]

?

 

You mean, we all agree about its constitutionality, or lack thereof, or that we all agree it's effective, or not? I hadn't observed that in this thread. I must not be very observant.

 

Whether or not one believes it is constitutional (and SCOTUS has said that it is), it is the way that it is currently. Whether or not one believes it is effective for security, it is the way that it is currently.

 

I think when a person (the OP's husband) is objecting to something, he has a reason, and personally I find it more interesting to discuss this point of view instead of "Should one listen to one's husband as part of a family discussion," and how do we evaluate what to do?

 

When my husband objects to something, I tend to consider if he has a point before deciding my next move. I believe citizens have not only the right but a duty to stand up for justice, so the idea that he feels injustice and unwarranted/unconstitutional/intrusive actions are taking place and he objects to them, interest me on a philosophical level.

 

I didn't eat grapes for my entire childhood because my parents boycotted them. Did their lack of grape-buying bring down the grape economy? No. But they didn't do something they felt was morally wrong. And that's never too small a step to take.

 

I boycott Nestle. I have for many, many years. Am I hurting their bottom line? I'm sure that I'm not really, but I refuse to give them my money. This is different, imo, because the airlines have little to do with airport security. Are air travelers paying the TSA each time they fly? Nope.

 

However, I guess we could just turn it into a "what's the best way to travel" discussion instead.

 

I didn't say it was the best way to travel. I said that I agreed that a boycott is not an effective way to change TSA policies because far too many people have no other option to do their jobs, and it isn't the TSA that is affected when someone doesn't fly. The changes that have made in TSA policies have come about by people complaining to all levels of government.

[5kidsforME]

He is being unreasonable and honestly, a bit foolish and hardheaded.

 

 

but the screener I had used her gloved hand to go INSIDE my bra and underwear...I wanted to scream..it was a month later that so many complaints were being voiced....I just wanted to go to a chair and get away from her....it was awful...but would never convict me not to fly....especially to see my parents!!!

 

Uhm. Did you read what you typed??

[5kidsforME]

I don't get the logic in saying you were groped and had horrifying and awful experiences with airport security that made you want to scream, yet the DH's position is unreasonable and foolish. :confused: If anything, you proved his point.

 

 

 

:lol::lol::lol: Amen!

[justamouse]

?

 

You mean, we all agree about its constitutionality, or lack thereof, or that we all agree it's effective, or not? I hadn't observed that in this thread. I must not be very observant.

 

I think when a person (the OP's husband) is objecting to something, he has a reason, and personally I find it more interesting to discuss this point of view instead of "Should one listen to one's husband as part of a family discussion," and how do we evaluate what to do?

 

When my husband objects to something, I tend to consider if he has a point before deciding my next move. I believe citizens have not only the right but a duty to stand up for justice, so the idea that he feels injustice and unwarranted/unconstitutional/intrusive actions are taking place and he objects to them, interest me on a philosophical level.

 

I didn't eat grapes for my entire childhood because my parents boycotted them. Did their lack of grape-buying bring down the grape economy? No. But they didn't do something they felt was morally wrong. And that's never too small a step to take.

 

However, I guess we could just turn it into a "what's the best way to travel" discussion instead.

 

And I'll leave that to you all.

:001_smile:

 

We don't eat grapes, either.

 

The guy doesn't hate flying. He's not laying down a patriarchal My Way or the Highway. He's not saying that he never wants them on a plane, period. He's saying he refuses to have his family be subject to a law he finds to be violating their persons in this instance.

 

If he were saying that the family were not allowed to visit her parents, that would be something all together different. That's not the case. He is offering to pay a high price for a different solution he sees as a compromise.

[MrsBear]

For what it's worth, I'm the one who will not subject my children to the potential pat-down with TSA, nor will I consent to their being sent through the back-scatter scanners, so we drive wherever we're going, and often it's thousands of miles clocked to and from wherever we're going. Not flying does not equal not traveling.

 

DH doesn't agree with my position, but he respects it and does not try to convince me to fly.

 

We've actually found a nice compromise too - since he doesn't have the time off to drive with us on long-distance vacations, he'll fly in the day we're arriving and fly home after I drop him at the airport and we start heading home. My older DS loves road trips and really enjoys them. Before the TSA changes, he flew a lot, and doesn't know why we're not flying now - he just knows he loves the road trips we make. Our 1 year old is great in the car too. I don't drive more than 2-3 hours in any given clip, making sure we stop to have fun, explore and see things. I plan extensively so that our road trips are filled with tons of fun and lots of learning opportunities - much more than we'd ever be able to do if we flew.

 

In May we have our longest road trip to date planned, going in a huge loop from where we live through the southwest, up through CA & OR, then back home across the northwestern states. All total, I'll drive more than 5,000 miles over a month (35 days) - but to me it's totally worth it.

 

The OP's husband has offered a compromise, travel by train, I don't see anything wrong with that if she's willing to travel by train.

Edited April 16, 2012 by MrsBear