This is disturbing. In light of increased security to get on airplanes one woman, a breast cancer survivor, was told she could not fly with her gel filled bra on.
Humiliated cancer survivor Jean Hand claims a travel company told her she could not fly wearing her fake breast – because it posed a security risk.Mrs Hand was close to cancelling a flight to Majorca after she was told by First Choice holidays that her gel-filled breast would need to be checked in with baggage.
The matter was resolved by airport officials, but the 57-yearold was left feeling 'horrified and humiliated'.
'The thought of having to go for hours looking like a lopsided freak filled me with horror,' she said.
As we have discussed before, these security measures are very uncomfortable and offensive for people with disabilities.
I mean at a certain point, enough is enough. Perhaps instead of being so focused on increased security (like asking people with prosthetic limbs and gel bras to take them off) we can start to look at what is causing all of this *terror*. Oh wait, then we have to figure out how the US and Britain are implicated. Well that would be a crappy hero story. *sigh*
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gel-filled bra is new terrorist device..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3946
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Geez, what are the six year-olds supposed to do?
If it makes anyone feel better, US officials permit gel-filled bras and similar prosthetics. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm
Having to explain this to a maybe-not-so-on-top-of-things TSA official is probably an ordeal.
Also, why anyone needs KY Jelly on board I have no idea, but that's also permissible.
sheesh. it bothers me how a breast cancer survivor feels "freakish" because of missing a boob that was cancerous. ugh
"... look at what is causing all of this *terror*. Oh wait, then we have to figure out how the US and Britain are implicated."
Samhita, what did you mean by that? Aren't terrorists responsible for the actions they carry out?
"Aren't terrorists responsible for the actions they carry out?"
Well, sure, but it's downright disingenuous to act as though these things happen in a vacuum.
I think she's referring to the very deliberate strategic role our utter lack of self-awareness plays in the War On Terra. Something brings terrorist attacks on, and it's damn sure not "our freedoms," unless of course you consider decades of meddling in Middle Eastern affairs to the vast detriment of the people who actually live there to be a "freedom." The US and Europe can't rationally insist on continuing these destructive foreign policies on the grounds that doing so would be somehow tantamount to admitting that terrorist attacks against them are justified; that's just stupid. But since that's exactly what we're doing, we have to impute to the terra-ists some sort of irrational, inhuman, baseless rage such that they would fling themselves at us no matter what stance we adopted. Which is bad, because it has the dual effect of dehumanizing the bad guys and morally vindicating basically anything we do to them.
Hence, BushCo-brand Instant Crusade Mix: just add a bloated defense budget and an uncritical media!
I think you missed something very important. Al-Qaeda will make peace with America when, and only when, America converts to Islam. Hamas and Hezbollah will make peace when Israel is pushed into the sea.
Squip, all your other points (some of which I will admittedly need some examples to comepletely understand) are at least argueable. The US and Britan are not completely innocent when it comes to world events.
But, when it comes to terroist attacks, I would not be one to blame the victim.