Spot on, on the big boobie observation. If she was smaller on top the outfit would be 'cute' and 'sporty.' I get that from time to time. My sister (the A cup) and I (D cup) can be wearing the same kind of outfit, but I'm the one dressed inappropriately.

Memo to world: Boobies happen. When it's hot out you might see a little. Get over it.

This is really upsetting because Southwest are nearly always the cheapest airline from Chicago to anywhere west, and also the flight attendants are all usually hilarious, accomodating, and mixed gender. In their casual shorts and polo top get-ups, I've always appreciated their laid-back attitude to service. I flew a few weeks ago from Oakland to Chicago, and we had a bumpy landing. One of them came over the loudspeaker to say "Phew!" and breathe a sigh of relief for us.

This blows.

If I knew how to sew, I'd make one of those vintage Southwest Airlines flight attendant uniforms and wear it on one of their flights.

Even though the top of the first woman's outfit wasn't revealing at all, I still agree with the big boob comment. Nobody would find that green halter top revealing if I, who have small boobs, wore it. The point of a halter is to emphasize smaller breasts, but if someone wants to emphasize their big boobs, go right ahead.

This woman's name is Setara Qassim. That sounds like a Middle Eastern name. If she went on that flight wearing a hijab, she'd probably be kicked off for suspected terrorism.

this is such a disgrace. southwest was my fav airline because of the fun atmosephere but now i totally agree.
BOYCOTT SOUTHWEST!

it will be interesting to see if they defend the flight attendent

long ago before any of this came up, i booked a flight on southwest for this weekend. so on this, what i'm guessing will be my last southwest flight for quite some time, i'm seriously considering showing some cleavage just to get them cranky.

Chest hair and mustaches offend me. Shouldn't the males cover up, too?

In the case of the big-busted woman, I suppose the airline's thinking goes like this: it is possible that a male pilot (and most pilots, of course, are males in this well-paying profession) will catch a fleeting glimpse of the "inappropriately" attired young lady. The sight of the woman's breasts, of course, will force the poor male pilot to have an involuntary erection, thus causing him to be completely distracted and disoriented, perhaps even necessitating that he run off to the restroom to masturbate, if the woman sufficiently meets the standards established by his animalistic fantasies. After all, he is nothing more than the poor victim of his maleness. Accordingly, this buxom female distraction will endanger the safety of the passengers and could cause the plane to crash.

Rather than forcing the woman to cover up, I have a much simpler solution: ban males from flying the planes or, for that matter, doing anything where females are present, due to the fact that -- to borrow the Supreme Court's words when they exempted helpless women from selective service -- men are not "similarly situated" for purposes of thinking when the opposite sex is present. Their dicks take over their minds.

I don't think if she was small breasted she would have looked more "appropriate". I'm small breasted and shirts like that are always cut too big so any fast movements and I'd be flashing my bra (or lack there-of). There's a lot of low-cut tops I'd like but what's designed to show a cute amount of cleavage on an average woman shows off my entire breasts when it's on me. But that's all beside the point. Carry on with the well-deserved complaints for Southwest.

Oh for fuck's sake. This is just stupid. It's not like they were naked or anything. In my opinion, if your naughty bits (boobs, cooter, arse) are covered, then it's not offensive.

My understanding is that, in both cases, SW was responding to a complaint from another customer.

Personally, I think Southwest should adopt a "no bluenoses" policy, but barring that, here's hoping they realize that "I'm sorry ma'am/sir, but there's nothing I can do." is the best response.

It does bring to mind a larger question. I will flag down an employee if there's a problem with my food in a restaurant, or the air conditioning somewhere, or maybe if I need a pillow when I'm on a plane. Who flags down a steward to complain about someone else's outfit? I mean, what the hell?

I would have stuffed the blanket down that flight attendant's throat. Airplane blankets are disgusting, they NEVER wash them.

I agree with all the people who have commented and said this outfit isn't offensive.

But I think whether it's offensive or not is beside the point. I don't think a Southwest should allow it's flight attendants to decide what is and isn't offensive or go by customary complaints. If they want a dress code for their flights it should be clearly stated to the ticket buyer at the time they buy their ticket. Without a clearly spelled out dress code policy, they basically have a free license to discriminate. It's as if police officers were allowed to randomly stop people and publically embarrass them based on the officers personal preferences.

I think you're right, Jessica, it is already being applied discriminately against women who have the audacity to have big breasts.

and I meant customer complaints...

Did you see the opinion piece in the Trib?? http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/takingoff/2007/09/southwest-says-.html
They are thanking SW airlines.
I am just freaked about that. Queen Victoria may come back to celebrate.

how ridiculous....why should it matter what she was wearing? it's not like she was causing trouble or disturbing the peace!

Both of these cases are ridiculous. I mean, they're dressed. Even if they are responding to other customers, those customers should relax. These are young, attractive women dressing a way that they feel is appropriate. You wouldn't catch me in that short skirt the first one was wearing; my legs aren't nearly cascading enough.

No shirt, no A-cups, no service?

So I am sure everyone here agrees that southwest is being silly. But do you think there is ever an outfit where the airline has a right to make a comment?

For example, if someone showed up in the outfit above in a bikini? In just bra and underwear? In the outfit below? No shirt no shoes no serive?

The reason I ask is because I have seen people in public with those outfits (the last time I was in a supermarket a very attractive woman by conventional standards was wearing just a t-shirt and a thong bikini).

Just wondering where people draw the line between publicly acceptable vs. not, and to what extent businesses can police their establishments.

Southwest can also deny a seat to a person who smells really bad, which I think is an excellent policy. I, however, do not agree that Southwest should have the right to kick someone off the plane for being a poor dresser.

This makes me want to starting complaining about all the other passangers on my next flight just to see what they do.

"excuse me? that lady is wearing too much perfume"
"that man's pants are too tight"
"that man's hawaiian shirt is by far too bold"

Being from Chicago as well, I agree heartily with String_Bean_Jen... I've flown tons of times with Southwest, and I'm always telling other people how friendly and funny their staff is. But this is ridiculous. I think some letter writing is in order!

Lucretia-

Not only that, I have been offended many a time by the images on men's shirts, hawaiian or otherwise. Maybe the next time they have a MALE passenger on their plane with an offensive slogan or half naked woman on their shirt, someone should complain and have him handed a blanket!

Allow me to offer a theory for the underlying cause of the airline's overreaction. I am reasonably certain that the on-board staff did not consult the airline's corporate office for guidance on these incidents but more likely the incidents were prompted by a complaint.

My experience is that, sadly, women are more likely to complain about such things, sadly. Men are often hypocritically puritanical about such matters, but women are often the vocal ones. Why is that?

I believe women who are indoctrinated into the patriarchy have been inculcated into believing that their husbands and sons and men in general should not be subjected to the temptation of female flesh. Heaven forbid the poor dears should have an involuntary erection. Thus, they take it on themselve, unconsciously, to assume the role of zookeepers, protecting their animals from their base, uncivilized natures. Think of it, in a man-free society, how many women really would be offended?

In a non-patriarchal world, men would control themselves and not give their women cause to fear that they would behave like animals.

I think that's a very good analysis, MsPitt.

Women who object to public displays of female breast/thigh/whathaveyou are always doing so for the sake of their husbands or male children.

Which number should we contact? Customer Relations or Public Relations? I want my complaint to go to the right asshats.

hahaha...you said asshat...love that word...

OH! for crying out loud! living in hawaii, you would be surprised what people walk around in...if these people get all bent out of shape over a low cut top and a short skirt...what would they think about a woman in starbucks in a bikini and a towel...oh yeah and no shoes...not even slippers...

women on the planes to or from the island wear bikinis/cutoffs...men wear the big "mumus", hardly anyone wears shoes...it's as relaxed as can be...granted it probably has a lot to do w/ the climate here...but still...there isn't a thing wrong w/ it...if someone is comfortable walking around a certain way...why does anyone else have the right to tell them how to dress?

i don't get it...

i am flying to the mainland this weekend...maybe i will have to test it out...

am I the only one who has the urge to book a flight on Southwest and wear a shirt in support of these women? Preferably a low cut shirt that will show off my obviously far too large breasts?

The sexist pig in me objects to this practice on the grounds that people* enjoy looking at women in "revealing" outfits and that anyone who seeks to prevent women from wearing them is needlessly reducing the total pleasure in the world.

*And by people, I mean me.

Doug S., I suspect that men like you are the reason that, in all likelihood, some women complained to the airline. Even women indoctrinated in the patriarchy realize on some level that it is dehumanizing to women for men to view them in the manner you so piggishly describe. Such women believe the attire at issue is wrong precisely because of male reactions such as yours. The trouble, Dougie boy, is that you shouldn't need to have women policing you with a leash around your fucking balls to stop you from behaving like a dog.

I'd rather drive by car than to get on ANY airliner. So, I'm boycotting them all!!!

Pretty sad that you have to use 10 year old boys as an excuse to cover up 23 year old women.

Sorry, Stacey I have to disagree with your remark about Southwest or any other airliner kicking people off just because they smell bad. They should have no right to kick anyone off just because they smell bad. That is discrimination, as well. People who smell bad have a right to get on a plane. Just like what we are discussing about women who chooses to dress slutty. It is her right to dress like that.

You know, my daughter is going to coming to visit for Thanksgiving, and I usually fly her on Southwest because it's 50 to 100 dollars cheaper. I'll spend the money I don't really have to fly her on another airline because of this kind of crap, and I'm going to write them and tell them so.

Doug S, and by "women" you mean women who live up to the beauty ideal.

"I believe women who are indoctrinated into the patriarchy have been inculcated into believing that their husbands and sons and men in general should not be subjected to the temptation of female flesh. Heaven forbid the poor dears should have an involuntary erection."

I bet some of them have also calculated the odds of their husbands leaving them for younger, perkier women.

When a housewife lives on her husband's income and knows he married her for her looks, heaven forbid he now see someone whose looks matches his tastes more than his wife's looks have for years...

"Sorry, Stacey I have to disagree with your remark about Southwest or any other airliner kicking people off just because they smell bad. They should have no right to kick anyone off just because they smell bad. That is discrimination, as well. People who smell bad have a right to get on a plane. Just like what we are discussing about women who chooses to dress slutty. It is her right to dress like that."

For that matter what if someone smells bad *because* she *doesn't* "dress slutty" in very hot weather?

Squeaky Wheel Airlines.

How sad. The first time around, I assumed it was the actions of one rogue employee. Now, it may be a trend. Would these nice Southwestern employees feel more comfortable if all the attractive female passengers wore burkhas?

"Sorry, Stacey I have to disagree with your remark about Southwest or any other airliner kicking people off just because they smell bad. They should have no right to kick anyone off just because they smell bad. That is discrimination, as well."

Jovan, I assume you have not flown coach a lot. Throwing people off who do not practice any sort of personal hygeine, for the sake of everyone else, is one sort of discrimination that I am in FULL FAVOR of, at least on airplanes! :O

Erm . . . can we not use words like slutty? Okay thanks.

While this woman's plight is an outrage, I am sick and tired of seeing people offer up the burqua as a hysterical alternative. To most people in the West, a "burqua" is a catch-all term to describe the head-coverings of Muslim women. Please educate yourself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm

Y'know, I'm now reminded of the Naked Air airline. of this airline:

http://www.naked-air.com/

"While this woman's plight is an outrage, I am sick and tired of seeing people offer up the burqua as a hysterical alternative. To most people in the West, a 'burqua' is a catch-all term to describe the head-coverings of Muslim women. Please educate yourself."

For all I know, ForbiddenComma was not using "burka" as a catch-all term for any hijab including the shayla but actually using it as a term for something like a chador but with a mesh covering the face.

"To most people in the West, a "burqua" is a catch-all term to describe the head-coverings of Muslim women."

I was not referring to the headscarves. I was specifically meaning full-body coverings, due to the airline employee ordering the passenger to cover herself with a *blanket*.

And not to derail the thread too much but... despite what allowances we need to make for cultural differences and such, I will never, EVER see the full-body burkha or chador as anything less than a tool of oppression and humiliation against women. It was specifically designed out of the fears men have towards female sexuality, and is a natural partner for the horror of FGM. (sorry for the minirant... carry on...)

yourfuneralmytrial,

Ordinarily, I do feel like the burkha is a hysterical jump, but I think it makes sense in this case because Qassim is a Muslim name. She might not actually be Muslim, of course. I'm just judging based on her name.

If she had actually gotten on a plane wearing a light, airy hijab that didn't make her hot, someone would likely have complained about there being a "terrorist" in their midst. It would be wrong and obnoxious either way, but stupidity knows no bounds.

This concerns me as a large-breasted young woman who is considered attractive in that patriarchally approved manner. I look breasty in a polo shirt. I look breasty in a turtleneck. Can't large-breasted women exist in our society without someone acting like our every action occurs only to attract male attention? I don't even LIKE attention.

Lastly, I'm sensitive to scents, but I wouldn't complain about the specific person. I would probably just ask if the flight attendant could move me to another seat away from the overly scented person. Because it's my issue, not his or hers.

"It was specifically designed out of the fears men have towards female sexuality,"

That's why some people have promoted it in recent centuries, but I'm not so sure that's specifically why it was designed.

Consider how hairy we Middle Eastern women can be, how so few men (including the ones who gave us these genes!) like to see thick beard and moustache and arm hair stubble on women in public, and how much weaker hair-removal tech was 3000 years ago...

"and is a natural partner for the horror of FGM."

What about those Iranian women who promote chadors and abhor FGM, and what about those Masai women who don't wear chadors yet do force FGM on girls?

Not to derail the thread, but even that BBC thing gets the terminology a little wrong. What they're describing as a "burqa" is what a lot of Islamic cultures would call an "Afghan burqa." An actual burqa in the non-Afghan sense is a three-piece head-covering consisting of a headscarf, a veil that usually ties on over the nose, and a screen/veil part that covers the eyes. It comes down to past the shoulders, but no further, and is usually worn with a chador or another voluminous overgarment of a similar type. In Saudi Arabia, you'd probably wear a burqa with an abaya.

Having been in situations (voluntarily) lots of times where I've been covered head to toe in fabric, with only my hands and face showing, in extreme heat, I can say there are definite advantages to lots of layers of long, loose clothing. Being a Western woman with dark hair and pale skin, I have to say I kind of envy the Muslim women around here who wear light-coloured veils in the summer. I know from personal experience that even having a piece of cloth on your head is cooler than having the sun beating down on your (dark) hair... I like wearing a hijab-style veil.

And I would be just as mad if someone tried to kick me off a flight for wearing one (not that I've ever tried) as I am about these two cases...

Sorry, Stacey I have to disagree with your remark about Southwest or any other airliner kicking people off just because they smell bad. They should have no right to kick anyone off just because they smell bad. That is discrimination, as well. People who smell bad have a right to get on a plane. Just like what we are discussing about women who chooses to dress slutty. It is her right to dress like that."

They don't refuse to let them fly unless they refuse the soap given to them. They are allowed to wash off a bit.

As someone who wears a DDD cup, I feel your pain. Anything short of a turtleneck gives me major cleavage, and I don't feel I should be deemed "inappropriate" for wearing the same thing others do.

One good, cheap airline that I've had excellent luck with is Midwest Express -- despite the name, they don't just fly in the Midwest, plus they bake delicious chocolate-chip cookies on the flight! Last summer my mom and I flew from Milwaukee (their hub) to Newark for $190 each, including taxes.

Also, for people who aren't going super-far, there's a new bus service called Megabus that offers insanely cheap express bus tickets, mostly around the Midwest but they've also expanded to Pittsburgh and a lot of cities in California. So if you can, try using these alternatives to Suckwest Airlines!

I'm not going to boycott Southwest over this. From a personal standpoint, there are a lot of reasons for this. They're the only airline that flies from the airport closest to my apartment to the airport closest to my parents' house. It's an extra forty-five minute drive for my parents to pick me up otherwise. My own experiences with their customer service have been top-notch, and their safety record is the best in the business (their only accident in over 35 years was a break failure on the runway landing at Chicago Midway).

That's my personal justification, but I think that, beyond this, the facts don't establish that their is some sort of corporate policy or culture at Southwest condoning this sort of discrimination. Based on the company's own statement (which, I admit, is almost certainly biased in their favor) the flight attendant reacted based on another customer's complaint. My guess is that the flight attendant in question made a snap judgment and erred on the side of the wrong customer. This flight attendant likely acted based on his own biases as well, and used "customer service" as a shield to act and to explain his actions to his superiors. He was wrong, and Southwest was wrong to defend it, but that doesn't mean that this is a wide-scale problem at this airline.

The second incident documented in this post is troubling, but it's not enough to draw any conclusions about how wide-spread incidents like this are. The problem is that it showed up in the news too quickly after the first incident made headlines. The reporting of the second incident is most likely not independent of the first incident. Now, if a third or fourth incident gets reported, then it becomes much more likely that incidents like this are happening frequently on Soutwest flights, in which case I'll take a more negative view of the airline, but not yet.

I'd like Southwest to make their policies on dress more transparent and less up to the flight attendants to decide. I want them to make it clear to their flight attendants that these two women were in no way violating any reasonable notion of proper attire, and that incidents like this should never happen again. I'd like to see them tell their flight attendants that they should be very careful about responding to customer complaints about other customers, and that, unless there is a safety issue involved or a serious behaviorial issue involved (for example, harrassment), that it is appropriate to say, "I'm sorry sir/ma'am, but there's nothing I can do." Finally, I like to see Southwest apologize to these women and offer them reasonable compensation for their troubles.

I want them to make it clear to their flight attendants that these two women were in no way violating any reasonable notion of proper attire, and that incidents like this should never happen again. I'd like to see them tell their flight attendants that they should be very careful about responding to customer complaints about other customers, and that, unless there is a safety issue involved or a serious behaviorial issue involved (for example, harrassment), that it is appropriate to say, "I'm sorry sir/ma'am, but there's nothing I can do."

Well, the problem is that they're not going to do that until it starts hurting them financially. The bottom line is the only thing they'll listen to. I also think it's pretty clear from how they staunchly defended their actions against the first woman that this is an institutional problem at Southwest. I mean, let's face it, when an employee fucks up and it becomes public, the company won't go on the record defending the employee's actions. They'll rush to make it clear that that's not their policy and there was a misunderstanding, as Victoria's Secret did when an employee erroneously told a woman she couldn't breastfeed there. In this case, however, Southwest has made it clear that they stand by the actions of employees who kick women off for having large breasts.

It's only vulgar because we make it vulgar.

Why else do we have such problems? In many states and cites a female can be topless, why? Because males can also be topless, some people don't like it therefore the terror strikes. It's not wrong because it is, it's wrong because we make it so.

We do many things to keep other people civilized and happy and lose our uniqueness in doing so.

I'm a man, but I could care less in seeing a womens breast, whats the big deal? But for most people it is a big deal and therefore will always cause a stir until we get have a "so what?" attitude.

People like her are not the problem, the people who didn't like it are.

Steven

I do not have ample breasts (I'm an A) BUT you bet your ass I'm going to wear low cut blouses if I ever fly SW again.

"I'm not going to boycott Southwest over this. From a personal standpoint, there are a lot of reasons for this. They're the only airline that flies from the airport closest to my apartment to the airport closest to my parents' house. It's an extra forty-five minute drive for my parents to pick me up otherwise. My own experiences with their customer service have been top-notch, and their safety record is the best in the business (their only accident in over 35 years was a break failure on the runway landing at Chicago Midway)."

Amen on the customer service. After a horrible incident with United (our flight was delayed four hours because of a malfuncioning toilet, and then only a select few passengers were allowed to fly on that plane, and, upon asking the United workers--in a civil manner--where our luggage would go and where we could pick it up upon landing in Chicago, I was ignored, spoken to like a child, and laughed at, even AFTER I told them my mother's bag had friggin' medicine for her chronic condition...ugh, sorry), I can't turn my back on the great service and convenience that SW offers. Also, I'm out of college and broke, and if I ever want to visit friends, SW is usually the most econimical choice. I think DRC has put forth a lot of good ideas for SW to follow. It will be interesting to see if anything happens.

Oh, and off topic, but I do like the outfit Setara is wearing in that photo. I'm always such a schlub when I go to the airport, in my jeans and hoodie.

ElleMariachi:
Like your mom, I have a chronic health condition for which I take a variety of medications.
After one too many flight delays and delayed and/or lost luggage, I've resorted to carrying my pills in my purse (or carry-on bag) whenever I fly (which is often).
It's a pain in the ass and it weighs my bag down, but I feel much more at ease knowing I won't be without my meds. I'm sure your mom has figured this out by now but I just wanted to mention it.

Cheee-rist. I'm sorry, I thought we were all adults...she wasn't hurting anyone, yeah? Her outfit wasn't causing anyone to spurt blood or have spontaneous broken bones throughout? She wasn't flashing vag? GET OVER IT. We're all adults, and we all get to pick our own outfits! Isn't that neat?! This ain't preschool, folks! Mommy does not lay everyone's outfits out and pick matching socks to go with. You are just gonna encounter some trashy/repugnant/confusing fashion choices. And on a hot day in the Southwest? Psh, I don't look half as good as this girl, but I'd probably try to get away with wearing a bikini. Fuck the heat. However!
If I got to bitch each time I found someone's outfit was offensive...agh. So much bitching would occur. (Seriously, stirrup pants = camel toes, ladies...noooo. That almost DOES make the eyes bleed. Esp on Grammas. Dear jesus.)

I'd be more apt to complain about someone's reek on a plane, but then I'd complain TO that person, rather than whining to a flight attendant.

(Just to be completely upfront, I'm a guy...hope that isn't a problem...)

I find this situation quite interesting for what it says about the corporation’s opinion of this young woman and by extrapolation, possibly all (young) women.
Northwest is a profit driven corporation that has no real interest (or authority) in moral standards beyond upholding what is governed by state law.

Northwest wasn’t acting out of moral objection, rather, they were acting out of economic strategy. The fear was that *someone else* would be offended which could hurt business. Corporations do this all the time. (Scruffy homeless people don’t get too far into the average shopping mall before they’re “removed�.) In privately controlled, profit generating spaces, those who pose a risk to the smooth operation of business are to be removed or “covered-up�.

In this situation the corporation wasn’t offended…it can’t be, it’s a corporation, not a person. I haven’t read all the reports, but it doesn’t seem that any passengers were actually offended either. So, it seems that no one was offended, yet she was “offensive�. The offense is a fiction manufactured by the corporation used to prevent possible future financial losses. (Seemingly from phantom people who will boycott the airline for its lax moral standards).

The employees weighed the costs of offending her against the costs of offending other passengers. In the end it decided that potentially losing her business was a less serious consequence that losing the business of those who “might� be offended. Also, the airline employees assumed that they had the right to tell a young woman what to do (young women are assumed to be quiet, compliant and naïve) even when there were no actual laws or policies prohibiting the behaviour. I guarantee that a businessman who strips to his singlet undershirt might be frowned upon, but would never be chastised.

Maybe the problem isn't Southwest Airlines - perhaps the fashion industry (+ today's rampant "raunch culture" which many young women feel compelled to embrace) that are responsible here.

Women's clothes are getting more and more revealing - I read somewhere that, at a time when American women's breasts are, on average, bigger than ever, women's shirts are getting smaller and smaller.

And remember, if you've ever seen fashion designers in person (I have - I live in New York City and I install furniture at some of these design studios) those women are TINY (size 0 or smaller)!!!

So, you have tiny flat chested women desiging tops, that are going to be sold to busty normal sized women.

Not surprisingly, this creates problems.

Just look at the top that Setara Qassim is wearing in that photo - if she was tiny and anorexic, you wouldn't see anything.

But, since she's a normal sized woman with healthy adult breasts, she's showing WAY TOO MUCH cleavage.

No wonder Southwest Airlines made her cover up!

Would Ms. Qassim REALLY want some horny middle aged guy staring at her breasts for the whole flight?

A couple more points:

I notice that some of the posters have no problem with forcing people off of a plane if they "smell bad".

That's flatly discriminatory towards fat people and/or folks who's endocrine systems make them sweat a lot.

So, that kind of discrimination is OK, but it's a capital crime if they tell an underdressed woman to cover herself?

Sorry folks, but that's bullshit.

Beyond that - what is it with this "right" for women to expose themselves?

Why exactly would feminists fight for a woman's "right" to parade around half naked?

I really don't understand that mentality at all - especially in light of the fact that most women who dress like that do so to attract sexual attention from men.

Would Ms. Qassim REALLY want some horny middle aged guy staring at her breasts for the whole flight?

I'm sure she wouldn't, whether the guy was young, middle-aged, or elderly.

Thing is, that hypothetical man is responsible for his own behavior. If I see a woman I find attractive, the onus is on me to not stare, ogle, etc., not on the woman in question to cover up.

"if your naughty bits (boobs, cooter, arse) are covered, then it's not offensive"

Queen_Nerd, that's precisely the problem!!!

Some of her 'naughty bits' WERE NOT COVERED, specifically her breasts (just look at the photo!!!!).

If Ms. Qassim had worn a proper shirt that covered her chest, she wouldn't have had a problem.

Gregory, you need to listen to me very carefully. Read each word, look them up if you have to, and absorb them, because you're missing something major here.

*ahem*

One of the more major tenents of feminism is that women are autonomous human beings with the right and the ability to make decisions about themselves and for themselves, without someone having to tell them what is right or wrong, and EVEN IF you do not agree with the decisions they make.

Did you get it this time?

That aside, the fact that you seem so freaked out by women who are showing legs or cleavage says far more about you than it does about the women. There is nothing wrong with showing legs or cleavage. It is not indecent, improper (whatever the hell that means), or somehow wrong.

Women have legs. It is okay for people to see this. Women have breasts, and sometimes we don't want to be covered up to the neck. There's nothing wrong with that either.

If you're that frightened of the slightest glimpse of a portion of a woman's body, perhaps you should take up agoraphobia as a hobby.

A final note: Cleavage is not considered a "naughty bit" in any state's decency laws. In some states, even nipples aren't, but we'll leave that for another discussion. The point being, if you're not seeing more than a bit of cleavage (and all that's showing in that photo is a teensy bit of sideswell), then the "naughty bits" are all covered up. Get over it.

"I'm sure she wouldn't [want some horny middle aged guy staring at her breasts for the whole flight], whether the guy was young, middle-aged, or elderly."

Linnaeus, you have got to be kidding!

It's pretty transparently obvious that Ms Qassim wanted SOMEBODY staring at her breasts!

Otherwise, why the hell would she dress like that?

I'm sure that Ms Qassim has a particular demographic of people that she wants to stare at her chest

Taking a wild guess, and assuming she's straight, I'd bet Ms Qassim wanted attractive young men, her age or slightly older (and perhaps of a particular race - probably White or Persian)to be admiring her breasts.

The point of my observation is that I'm sure Ms Qassim would NOT want men who she does NOT find attractive looking at her breasts!!

I admit, I don't know this for sure - but, I base that opinion on my experience with women.

When women dress in a sexualized manner, they usually only want people who they find attractive to be looking at their bodies.

They often get quite offended whem men who they DON'T find attractive look at them.

Kimmy, first of all, kill the attitude - I really don't want to hear it.

Second, you have not, in any way, explained why it's "feminist" for a woman to dress in a sexualized manner, particularly if the intent of her oversexualized manner of dress is to attract a particular demographic of men to her - which you and I both know is why women dress like that!!!

Kimmy, first of all, kill the attitude - I really don't want to hear it.

Second, you have not, in any way, explained why it's "feminist" for a woman to dress in a sexualized manner, particularly if the intent of her oversexualized manner of dress is to attract a particular demographic of men to her - which you and I both know is why women dress like that!!!

Gregory, I'm afraid I can't quite let this kind of sexist tripe continue on the thread.

You've asked several times why "feminists fight for a woman's 'right' to parade around half naked" or why it's "feminist for a woman to dress in a sexualized manner."

No one said it's feminist to dress any way--sexy or not. It is a feminist concern, however, when a woman is judged and shamed for the way she looks. Last time I checked, anyone can dress in any manner they like.

You've also said that this woman was seeking attention. You looking at this woman in a sexualized way has nothing to do with her intent--and frankly her intent has nothing to do with the point of this story.

I don't particularly care for your attitude either, but that doesn't seem to bother you. And the day that you have the right to tell me to change anything about my attitude is the day...well, there really never will be such a day.

It's feminist for women to make their own choices. It's feminist to respect that women are capable of such. If their choice is to dress in a way that makes them feel sexy, it's feminist to not try to shame them or argue with them about it BECAUSE we recognize that they are capable of making their own choices.

And no, I don't know that women only dress in a way that makes them feel sexy in order to attract men. Some of them do. Some are trying to attract women. Some are doing it because it makes them feel pretty, which lifts their mood and gives them a better day. And some are doing it just because they happen to like that style of clothing.

You know what's not feminist? Slut-shaming, motive-assuming, and condescending to women. Which is exactly why you need to get the hell off your high horse and quit assuming that you know anything about why women do anything they do. You clearly don't.

GREGORY, sexualized by whom, exactly? When I get dressed in the morning, I put on clothes that make me feel pretty and that I like. When I'm wearing them and some skeezy guy (like you, for instance) makes a comment or assumes that I exist soley for his viewing pleasure, it makes me feel sick, and embarrassed of my body. No one should have to be covered from chin to toe just to avoid being objectified and treated like she exists for no other reason than for the pleasure of men. Just b/c you oversexualize breasts and other parts of women's bodies doesn't mean that women do. If it's hot outside, I have the right to wear less clothing so I don't overheat. Moreover, I have the right to wear whatever pleases me, and you're pretty fucking arrogant to say you know why I dress the way I do. It's not for you, asshole. It's for me.

At this point Gregory may have been banned, but dude, LOOK AT THE PHOTO.
I can barely see her breasts at all! I can see a sliver of cleavage down the middle. There's no spillage whatsoever. No side-boob. No nips.
So your hysterical claim that "her 'naughty bits' WERE NOT COVERED, specifically her breasts (just look at the photo!!!!)" is ridiculous.
There's nothing naughty about a breast in the first place, and her skin is barely visible. She's top-heavy, for sure, but that's not a crime.

It's pretty transparently obvious that Ms Qassim wanted SOMEBODY staring at her breasts!
Otherwise, why the hell would she dress like that?

Um, because it's summer? Because she thought it was a cute top?
By your line of thinking, "taken" women who wear cute, strappy tops MUST be looking for attention from *other* men - why else would they dress that way? What motivations could women *possibly* have besides attracting men, right? I'm in a LTR and I have a flat chest but in the summer you best believe I wear pretty sundresses and strappy tank-tops, whether I'm going out to brunch, to a BBQ or walking the dog. And it's not for you, fella.

I can't believe the tizzy Gregory got himself into. I keep looking at the photo and wondering how he could say her breasts are not covered. What's that green fabric that completely encapsulates each breast, then? I mean, you can clearly see that each breast is thoroughly covered. It's just a slight sliver of skin in between.
Does the outrage stem from the fact that it's a deep v-neck? That each breast is covered seperately and not by one larger expanse of cloth?
This is just so ridiculous.

"One of the more major tenents of feminism is that women are autonomous human beings with the right and the ability to make decisions about themselves and for themselves, without someone having to tell them what is right or wrong, and EVEN IF you do not agree with the decisions they make." - Kimmy

Isn’t that essentially the right to do whatever one wants without judgment or accountability? The idea that this should be considered the right of anyone is highly problematic.

The idea is that women are capable of making their own choices. We don't have to like them, or approve of them, but we don't have the right to try to make their choices for them. If someone does something which harms another person, then they can be held accountable. If they are doing something that involves themselves and harms no one, we have no right to ask them to do anything differently. Even if it's something we don't like, and/or would never do ourselves. Otherwise what are we holding them accounatable for? Offending us? You have no right not to be offended. Making us unhappy? No one has a right to be happy about all things all the time. People make their own choices, and feminism is about women being treated as people, not as children who have to be guided and corrected.

I'm pretty sure that "...as long as her actions don't harm others" goes without saying, noname.

Though I have to say I don't think feminism entitles women to live their lives without any critique whatsoever. Or men, for that matter. I don't think the law needs to step in, but I'm in favor of examining one's own choices and behaviors.

Linnaeus, you have got to be kidding!

It's pretty transparently obvious that Ms Qassim wanted SOMEBODY staring at her breasts!

Otherwise, why the hell would she dress like that?

No, Gregory, I am most certainly not kidding.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that this woman dressed the way she did at least in part because she thought it would make her look attractive to others.

There is a considerable difference between the following:

1. Noticing Ms. Qassim, thinking, "Hey, she's attractive," or even, "Hey, she's hot," and then going to back to whatever you were doing.

and

2. Staring at her the whole time.

So, no, it's not at all obvious she wanted to be stared at.

SarahMC - Maybe it goes without saying, or maybe Kimmy's comment effectively illustrated the entitlement I often notice here.

Well she just cleared that up, now didn't she?

I'm sorry, noname, I didn't realize that giving you credit for realizing the obvious was considered entitlement. I'll remember that in the future.

SarahMC - Sort of. Of course I found the "Offending us? You have no right not to be offended." comment quite funny coming from a feminist.

I apologize for being snippy. I’ll cool it until I can play nice.

I see where you're going w/ the "offending us..." joke.
There's a difference between being personally offensive towards a person or group and unwittingly "offending" someone's sensibilities, of which you couldn't possibly be aware.

Two examples:
Person A calls Person B a "n****r." That is offensive to Person B and to people of color in general. That's wrong and hurtful.

Person A wears a shirt that exposes her shoulders and upper chest. Person B is offended by this because (s)he considers it immodest and doesn't believe women have any business showing skin in public. Person A didn't do anything wrong. She didn't hurt anyone. She is "offending" simply by existing!

There's a big difference.

Thank you, SarahMC. I was having trouble coming up with the best way to explain that (I have a migraine today, so I'm not thinking my best). You did an excellent job.

Would Ms. Qassim REALLY want some horny middle aged guy staring at her breasts for the whole flight?

That's the wrong question.

1. If she does, that's her right. She wasn't violating any prohibition against public nudity, so what business is it of yours whether she wants people to look at her cleavage or not?

2. If someone chooses to look at her breasts, that's on them, not her. She can't control, and shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of other people. Her shirt doesn't cause other people to look.

Beyond that - what is it with this "right" for women to expose themselves?

Why exactly would feminists fight for a woman's "right" to parade around half naked?

It's her right to be able to dress in a manner she feels comfortable in without assholes coming along and trying to shame her for it. She gets to choose which clothes to put on her body.

I really don't understand that mentality at all - especially in light of the fact that most women who dress like that do so to attract sexual attention from men.

So what?

Why does it matter if some women dress a certain way because they think it attracts men? You have no idea what this woman was thinking when she got dressed, or even if she's attracted to men. For all you know, she's going out tonight to have dinner with her girlfriend. It doesn't matter why she choose to put on a particular outfit- she doesn't deserve to be treated poorly and humiliated by the airline because of how she's dressed.

SarahMC - Maybe it goes without saying, or maybe Kimmy's comment effectively illustrated the entitlement I often notice here.

No, I'm pretty sure it went without saying.

Argh, I just wish people like Gregory who get all hysterical about how disgusting women's bodies are would ask themselves WHY they find breasts so offensive. Really, sit and point out to me WHAT SPECIFICALLY is so offensive about breasts. Do they kill people? No. Do they fire missiles at people? Well, unless you've been watching too much Austin Powers, no. Do they contribute to world hunger or spread disease? No. When you look at it logically, people's freak-outs over breasts make absolutely no sense. As Steven pointed out, it's only vulgar because we make it vulgar. There is nothing INHERENTLY disgusting or immoral about breasts. They just happen to be a defining characteristic of a much-maligned group of people, which is why they're considered so crude and disgusting (because apparently feeding babies is the most disgusting thing in the world...we should just let the little brats starve, I tell you!).

Finally, I just want to say that I think that shirt is hella cute. Although I'm not Middle Eastern, my hair/eye/skin coloring is similar to hers, and green is definitely the best color for me, but you'd be surprised at how hard it is to find cute clothing that comes in non-heinous shades of green!

SarahMC – Basically you are saying that the first example is offensive because racial slurs are wrong, while the second is not because showing ones shoulders is not wrong. Of course, your decision on which is right and which is wrong is based on which offends you. This circular logic does not work. Personally, the first example would offend me while the second would not, but both examples essentially show one person taking offense to another. There is no fundamental difference between your two examples in terms of the offense taken.

I always get frustrated when people start talking about entitlement in these debates. Like I'm supposed to be grateful for the bits of freedom that I have, but certainly shouldn't feel entitled to them! They can, after all, be taken away if I get too uppity.

I'm going to spell out exactly what people are entitled to do in this kind of situation:

The woman in the halter top can wear it if she thinks it's cute. She can wear it because it makes her feel pretty. She can wear it because it makes her feel sex-ay! She can wear it because it's the only thing clean. She can wear it because it's hot out. All reasons to wear the halter are equally valid. None of the reasons makes her slutty. No... not even if she wanted to be enticing.

Passersby can see the halter and think it's cute. They can see it and think it is sex-ay! They can see it and disapprove. They can see it and have no reaction. None of those reactions entitles (ah, that word) other people to shame her or publicly reduce her to an object for their lust.

Think whatever you want... lustful thoughts, disapproving thoughts, positive, happy thoughts, no thoughts at all... but don't try to control me just because you have a hard-on or a hang-up. It isn't going to work.

Argh, I just wish people like Gregory who get all hysterical about how disgusting women's bodies are would ask themselves WHY they find breasts so offensive. Really, sit and point out to me WHAT SPECIFICALLY is so offensive about breasts.

I'm just speculating here, but I wonder if some of the people who object to the way this woman dressed do so because they're uncomfortable with how they feel, and they don't know how else to deal with that.

Linnaeus, that's absolutely right on.

Noname, give me a break.

SarahMC, OK. We're off topic anyway. Not that it matters, but I think Ms. Qassim is very well dressed.

And it's Linnaeus for the win. That's totally it. People who get uncomfortable around boobs blame the person who owns the boobs for MAKING him/her uncomfortable. It's a cycle. And it happens because boobs are usually attached to women, and women are hated in this world.

I'm just speculating here, but I wonder if some of the people who object to the way this woman dressed do so because they're uncomfortable with how they feel, and they don't know how else to deal with that.

Yeah, as everybody else has said, spot on, Linnaeus! But what I want these people to answer is WHY they feel uncomfortable, and I want to know whether they've examined on a purely rational, quantifiable level what it is specifically that makes them uncomfortable about breasts. I want them to strip away all the bullshit of society that says women are slutty or caused the downfall of man or whatever causes these bizarre gut reactions, and put themselves in a world where the only thing that's "bad" is actually harming other people, and by harming I mean physically hurting another person, or saying cruel things to them (for instance, by using a racial epithet as Sarah described above) or threatening them or firing them because of their race or something similar.

When you look at the world this way, asking what is the real harm caused by dressing a certain way or having a certain type of anatomy, I would hope it would become really clear to those of a Gregory mindset that clothing and female anatomy don't commit acts that harm people or the earth -- violence harms, hate harms, prejudice harms. But breasts, or a shirt that contains them? WTF? I just keep coming back to the Austin Powers boobie-missiles when I try to put myself in these people's shoes and figure out what about my anatomy is so offensive to them. Really, I want a step-by-step explanation from one of these Puritans that lays out, in clear terms, why breasts are evil and the real, quantifiable harm they've caused in the world, with specific examples and citations. Then, and only then will I even think about considering their views, because "OMFG, that's so bad and immoral!" without any further clarification just doesn't cut it. If that's the standard, anything could become bad and immoral. Wearing the color purple could become immoral if all that's required is a "gut feeling." Wearing scarves in winter could be considered wrong if the only standard is some crazy Gregory type saying so. Any type of freedom becomes fair game if people don't just sit back and ask themselves exactly what it is that freaks them out so much about women dressing in a way that emphasizes the fact that they're women.

P&R, that deserves a standing fucking ovation.

Aye, P&R, that's precisely the rub...why?

At risk of stating the obvious, it looks like we're dealing with sexual anxieties bound up with gender issues. Now saying just that doesn't get us very far, but I'm not quite sure how to express it further, so I'm going to leave it at that.

And thanks, y'all.

I'll one up and say that P&R winds this thread. Fantastic comment.

"I just keep coming back to the Austin Powers boobie-missiles when I try to put myself in these people's shoes and figure out what about my anatomy is so offensive to them. "

hehehehehehehe! :)

Check out Southwest's "if we use enough puns to make the story seem quirky and inconsequential, we won't have to address how discriminatory we've been" apology:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=92562&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=1051794&highlight=

In response to noname's response to SarahMC's illustration of her point that no one is entitled to not be offended:

SarahMC's first example of the racial slur is, in fact, considered hate speech, which falls under hate crimes, which are illegal. Her second example about what a person can choose to wear is not illegal, at least until we get into public nudity/indecency laws, and is, in fact, a matter of personal (read=subjective) taste. There is no legislation that I'm aware of (if there is, noname, by all means educate me) against halter-tops/dresses.

And yes, amen to P&R's post.

that big boob comment is so true....how many times have we seen anorexic, breatsless celebs wearing disgustingly plunging necklines (and we're forced to stare at their ribs running down their chests...*barf*) and she's "glamorous" and "daring", and then an actress who actually has some boobs (and looks FEMALE)wears something not even close to that low cut and she's dressed "over the top" or "skanky"....so obnoxious. and then they go on to wonder if every actress with breasts has had a boob job...makes me wanna kill critics and celeb reporters.

I'm sure this is well covered ground here, but I've only been reading "feministing" for a few months so please forgive me.

My first reaction to this story was irritation at the miserable, neo-Puritan airline pukes for being so close-minded. Then I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt -- it is after all possible for someone to dress indecently -- so I decided to take a look at the pictures. My next reaction was, "why, she's lovely," followed by a return to my first reaction.

I then read the interchange above between "doug s" and "ms pitt", which can be summarized as:
doug s: "I like looking at pretty girls."
ms pitt: "That dehumanizes women!"

I then read the interchange between GREGORY and, well, everybody, which can be summarized as:
GREGORY: "It's her fault I'm staring at her!"
everybody: "Don't blame the victim!"

I have no sympathy or empathy for Gregory (unless he's sixteen and just hasn't yet figured out how to handle his hormones). On the other hand, I do like looking at pretty women; my wife, who I think is very pretty, doesn't mind when I look at her. I believe there is an unspoken tension running in these conversations about the line between respectful awareness of physical attractiveness and disrespectful objectification (ogling). Gregory's comments were clearly over the line, but (at least to me) Doug's were not as clear cut.

I don't believe that it is wrong of me to find women pretty, as long as that doesn't distract me from thinking of them as people. But ms pitt's reaction gives me pause; clearly even expressing an awareness of physical attractiveness can be offensive.

So my question is this: is there a book or article out there people can point me to that explores this dynamic? I'm not looking for off the cuff opinions; I want a really thoughtful, carefully written piece which accepts the following as given:
- some people are men, some people are women;
- respect is paramount;
- people find other people physically attractive;
- this can be either good or bad;
...and then explores when it's good, because it's really easy to find examples that it's bad.

Thanks for any pointers.