Southwest Calls Woman Out for Cleavage: Was the Airline Justified?
SodaHead News
2012/06/20 13:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
281 votes
|
|
17% | |||
|
1,400 votes
|
|
83% | |||
Airlines have a way of creeping into the news any time a passenger plays too much "Words With Friends" or allows his pants to sag a little too much. This week is no different. According to Jezebel, a woman was hassled on a 6 a.m. Southwest flight from Las Vegas to New York a few weeks ago because she was boasting too much boobage. You know... cleavage, baggage, breastage... She was showing too much of her twins. At least, that's what the airline said.
A woman going by the name Avital told Jezebel that she was told her outfit was "inappropriate" because it showed too much of her chest, but she didn't let that deter her. She boarded the plane anyway and, in her own words, "Lo and behold, the plane didn't fall out of the sky... My cleavage did not interfere with the plane's ability to function properly." Do you think Avital deserved to be called out by Southwest Airlines for having too much cleavage, or is her outfit perfectly acceptable?
A woman going by the name Avital told Jezebel that she was told her outfit was "inappropriate" because it showed too much of her chest, but she didn't let that deter her. She boarded the plane anyway and, in her own words, "Lo and behold, the plane didn't fall out of the sky... My cleavage did not interfere with the plane's ability to function properly." Do you think Avital deserved to be called out by Southwest Airlines for having too much cleavage, or is her outfit perfectly acceptable?
Top Opinion
-
Medulla Oblongata 2012/06/20 15:32:35
It's not like people haven't seen some before.
And like the woman said, it's not going to bring the plane down, so why the hell does it matter?
If parents have a problem, don't let your children look.
Boobs are the most natural, most maternal things in the world.
Why is it okay that children see guns & knives being used to kill & injure people & animals in movies, on TV & in video games?
Priorities.
As a child, we also had no TV until I was 8. Then I moved in with my father & became a latchkey kid. I always preferred to go ride my bike or hang out at my best friends' house. It was either that or Gilligan was my babysitter... BORING!
I prefer(red) climbing trees.
We just didn't have any media encouraging us to point them at each other.
I did have a cousin who shot her brother in the forehead (between the eyes) with her pellet gun. It was funny as hell (to us), but she sure got her ass beat. She knew what she was doing. She was angry. But she wasn't trying to kill him. She knew the capabilities of her weapon. She knew it would hurt him but not permanently.
I don't know if kids today have any idea that taking a life is a very big deal. Our military recruits kids in movies & video games with animated advertisements & once they're signed up, those recruits kill people in foreign nations from right inside the US using remote controlled drones that are very very much like playing the video games they grew up on. Nothing is real for them. They don't look into the person's eyes before they pull the trigger. It's easy & detached from the otherwise natural impact one endures from taking a life. It's a very different thing than defending yourself when your life, or that of a loved one, is threatened.
I suppose one could argue the positive aspects...
&&
We just didn't have any media encouraging us to point them at each other.
I did have a cousin who shot her brother in the forehead (between the eyes) with her pellet gun. It was funny as hell (to us), but she sure got her ass beat. She knew what she was doing. She was angry. But she wasn't trying to kill him. She knew the capabilities of her weapon. She knew it would hurt him but not permanently.
I don't know if kids today have any idea that taking a life is a very big deal. Our military recruits kids in movies & video games with animated advertisements & once they're signed up, those recruits kill people in foreign nations from right inside the US using remote controlled drones that are very very much like playing the video games they grew up on. Nothing is real for them. They don't look into the person's eyes before they pull the trigger. It's easy & detached from the otherwise natural impact one endures from taking a life. It's a very different thing than defending yourself when your life, or that of a loved one, is threatened.
I suppose one could argue the positive aspects of that, but the negative ones outweigh them, in my opinion.
We glamorize killing & panic when a child sees a human body... living, breathing & functioning the way human bodies were meant to function.
Our priorities are, in my opinion, incredibly whacked.
*edit:
I would also note that I remember when The BugsBunny/RoadRunner Show was taken off the air in the 70s because Wile E. Coyote was considered too violent (apparently because of the very large anvils he continually tried to drop on the Road Runner's head).
I don't necessarily believe that one sin excludes the other however. In other words, if there is too much violence on TV, we should give showing sex a pass. I think sex is a grown up subject, and kids shouldn't be subjected to it before their time, due to the consequences of the emotional changes it causes and the risks it involves.
It sounds like you grew up in a very responsible family. I had only a few chances to hunt when I was young, but I did get the opportunity. I got more chances to go fishing than hunting, and that was something that taught me a lot of patience and was a good experience.
They have a hell of a good safety record (or at least they always have had).
Yeah, they seem to be prudish boneheads when it comes to stuff like this, but they really are otherwise a good, safe, inexpensive airline.
http://voices.yahoo.com/10-un...
They have a record/reputation for being incredibly prudish. They tell their employees to use their own personal judgment to determine what is/isn't acceptable attire & behavior. This causes loads & loads of problems because some staff are deeply prudish while others are vastly more open-minded.
This woman isn't lying. She's just telling about yet another Southwest incident.
This airline really needs to organize itself better regarding these policies. They contradict themselves all the time. There are at least two publicized incidents like this per year at Southwest. One can only imagine the number of incidents that are not publicized.
The point is that there is no rhyme or reason with Southwest. I've also had very good experiences with them. But that does not mean that I'm ignorant or unwilling to see that there are flaws in their policies that cause confusion & problems for their passengers & crew members.
Were this woman actually lying, other passengers on the flight, as well as other crew members would have said so. No one is disputing her story... not even Southwest. Southwest stands behind its crew members' decisions. They simply try to quell the negative publicity by giving the passengers free flights as compensation for their "inconvenience."
It's a very poor management decision, in my opinion.
However, on the other hand, setting clear, strict policies regarding attire, might indeed be diffi...
&&
The point is that there is no rhyme or reason with Southwest. I've also had very good experiences with them. But that does not mean that I'm ignorant or unwilling to see that there are flaws in their policies that cause confusion & problems for their passengers & crew members.
Were this woman actually lying, other passengers on the flight, as well as other crew members would have said so. No one is disputing her story... not even Southwest. Southwest stands behind its crew members' decisions. They simply try to quell the negative publicity by giving the passengers free flights as compensation for their "inconvenience."
It's a very poor management decision, in my opinion.
However, on the other hand, setting clear, strict policies regarding attire, might indeed be difficult to "police" properly. How the hell can an airline actually have "fashion police"? (Fascism = Fashionism??) That doesn't exactly make sense either, does it?
I personally believe they need to stop making such judgment calls entirely (I'd be in FAR more favor of them prohibiting stinky people from boarding than prohibiting people showing too much skin or underwear from boarding).
No, I do not believe this woman is lying. Too many people have been thrown off Southwest for the same/similar "offense" & no one is disputing her claims (except you & you weren't there).
It's good that you have never been delayed due to something like this. I hope for you that your luck continues.
But don't be so naive to think that because you have never witnessed it, means it never happens.
Southwest's policies state that the flight crews are in deed responsible for making the judgment call regarding whether or not a passenger is dressed appropriately.
That is why on some flights, a person cannot board wearing a certain outfit, while he/she can wear the exact same outfit on another flight & have absolutely no problem whatsoever.
Southwest's policies are exactly what you said they aren't. It is absolutely in the flight crews' job description.
I simply corrected your statement that it isn't their job. It is their job.
Personally, I think that isn't fair to them or the passengers.
...because I agree with you.
The sexual and social revolution of the 1960's liberalised the dress code in the USA. Cleavage is seen as a celebration of womanhood and in contemporary USA is not seen as offensive unless nipples are on display.
Showing cleavage is the fashion now; or should I say it's the "IN" fashion.
This lady wasn't falling out of her dress by any means.
Nothing but stupid claims now days!