I just got home from a one-week multi-city trip and have so much catching up to do. But with the furor over the new airport security screening procedures that have just gone into effect in the US, I have some thoughts that I simply must share before my head explodes. This is truly a lose-lose situation as neither of the two new options is reasonable or acceptable, at least not for those of us who have, or have had, atrial fibrillation.
Are They Taking the Easy Way Out Because of the Uproar from Men?
I didn’t experience any differences from the usual screening procedures at DFW Airport in Dallas when I left last week because I didn’t go out of Terminal D, the only terminal that currently has the full-body scanners. But when I went through O’Hare Airport in Chicago enroute to Atlanta this week, I noticed something odd—the only people being subjected to the full-body scanners, at least at the checkpoint I went through, were women.
In light of the recent uproar from men, such as the “don’t touch my junk guy“, is TSA going after easier targets? Do they consider women to be more compliant and less likely to object to the full-body scans? Or do they think that if women opt out, we are less likely to complain because for years we have been accepting some pretty invasive secondary screening? At least it seemed invasive to me. In fact, for years I’ve used my airport security story, “The Federally-Mandated Groping”, in speeches about stress and heart disease since the stress of being a road warrior contributed to my own heart disease. Now, with these invasive new “groping protocols”, I have lots more new material.
So how many women terrorists have we seen in the US? Does more intensive screening just for women make any sense at all?
Religious Exemption from Invasive Pat-downs
And now there is word that Muslim women won’t be subjected to pat-downs below the head and neck, for religious reasons. So what about those of us brought up in religious households where modesty was a virtue?