While I’m certainly appalled if the alleged behavior is true, I would like to comment on the “guilty by being male” tone of the article’s author.
“Four of these air marshals felt the correct thing to do was to let two of their colleagues escort the woman to her room.”
Of course, I would have felt it the correct thing to do. A drunk woman escorted to her room by two sworn officers of the law. Maybe there’s more (unstated by the author regarding the events) behind that statement…but why is that sentence even in the article? As if a man escorting a woman to ensure nothing happens to her is automatically something other men should have known was wrong?
If you think that men, by the very fact that they’re men, are sexual predators waiting to happen, then I can see the implied tone. However, men don’t think that way about themselves or their co-workers.
If the woman was 10 milligrams from fatal, then I also wouldn’t think it totally unreasonable that someone (although with ulterior motives) might have suggested that he standby to make sure she didn’t go into cardiac arrest, or drown in her vomit, or fall off the bed and break her neck. I guess the rest of a marshals should have known that men are guilty first, and innocent & honorable second. Yes 75 minutes is a long time, but they may not have been checking their watches…because, it probably didn’t occur to them that men, are always evil.
Certainly wanting to check on the well-being of someone later is completely out of line, and should have tipped off the other evil, lecherous marshals that something was amiss.
Yes, in 20-20 hindsight, it would have been better to have notified the hotel staff (ah, female staff), or contact some other female in authority.
Of course, the article is only the tip of an iceberg of facts, and I’d like to think there are more (unstated) facts in the author’s knowledge that has biased this reporting. But, as written here, the author seems to want to convict the other marshals for failure to realize that men (as a gender) can’t be trusted.
