I SO wish I had long distance right now, I'd say some choice words to these fucktards (excuse my language, at least to the readers here).

This is so blatant 'haha, we are a big company and you are a peon'... I am normally not for lawsuits but this discrimination has happened more than once and then they do this? I hope they get reamed in court.

ew. this is gross. and truly upsetting. and now it has become the airline equivalent of "ladies night".

ugh.

I support (or not) businesses whose policies match mine. I will NOT be flying Southwest again - ever.

Well, I guess flying out to see my friend next summer is going to be a little more expensive. I'm with Sybann - no more Southwest Airlines for me or the fam.

DUMBASSES!

Believe it or not, Southwest has corporate partners and other customers who are a part of a bigger corporation.

I do believe in the power of the masses. Imagine what would happen if we were to all boycott Southwest and engage in letter-writing campaigns to these sponsors. A change can take place in this.

Think of this is a milder version of the Imus fiasco. It's all the same. If people got angry enough, Southwest will relent. This is, of course, not because it gives a shit about women's rights, but that it gives a shit about its pocketbook.

Marc

SWA also has a blog, and comments from idiots who "stand behind SWA" are pretty popular on the blog.

I suggest feministing.com readers make their way over there and voice our displeasure in addition to calling.

Then again, what else do you expect from a company in Texas?

Ick, and this is why I'm really, really rethinking my PR major...

I mean, it's really a tool more than a message, and PR can do good things, but Jesus, this is why I worry for the state of my soul.

Well, shit, if I am going to tell you about SWA's blog, I should have posted its link, huh?

I am not sure if it has a moderator, but here it is:

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/2007/09/14/wrapping-up-the-skirt-issue/#comments

Okay, let's not knock Texans just because Southwest is run by morons. Some of us are okay.

Unless I missed something in this story, I don't think you should refer to this woman as having been sexually harassed. I don't recall anyone making sexual advances toward her.

Really? I would say publicly shaming a woman because of the way she's dressed and refusing her service because of her perceived sexuality is absolutely harassment.

KarenElhyam, I started feeling slimy during sophomore year or so (I was a PR major too).

Don't have a job in PR, so I guess things worked out OK.

PR majors shouldn't feel so bad. I think the PR people from Southwest got their degrees some Clown University, because I can tell you that no PR personin their right mind would ever send out such a press release. I really thought, at first, that the press release was a joke, until I saw it on SWA's website.

I used to work PR when I was in the Army, and I can tell you - we would never even jokingly think of doing something THAT stupid.

Personally, I'd feel unsafe flying SWA knowing how stupid its employers are.

Ugh, this is revolting. I just called southwest and let them know that I would not be flying with them because I found their actions and the subsequent apology so very insulting to the woman they harassed. I got a quick 'well I'll pass that info along kthxbye!*click*' for my trouble, but you know what? Eff them.

Jessica, I suppose we disagree. I would say that publicly shaming a woman because of the way she's dressed--in the way it was does in this case--is not *sexual*. Nobody said, "Hey, baby, come on over here and give me a lap dance." They asked her to change her clothing because they felt she was dressed inappropriately. That does not constitute "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" (wording from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html). Calling this "sexual harassment" weakens the term, in my opinion.

Ugh. Don't read the comments on the Consumerist story.

I just posted a letter on the SWA blog. Really mixed opinions over there, not surprisingly.

I don't know arbyarby, she was harassed, and it was because she was considered to be dressed in an obscene way (too sexual), so I think it could be considered a type of sexual harassment. After all, sexual harassment isn't just limited to "hey baby give me a lapdance." There are all types of ways to harass a woman, this male employee chose to do it in this way.

*sigh* Some companies will never get a clue.

I just went back to the original story in the San Diego Union-Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/braun/20070905-9999-1m5braun.html). This is what happened to Kyla Ebbert:

1) She was asked to step off the plane by a male customer service supervisor, Keith.
2) Keith "told her her clothing was inappropriate and asked her to change."
3) When asked what part of her outfit was offensive, Keith replied, "The whole thing."
4) Keith asked her to go home, change, and take a later flight.
5) After Kyla refused, Keith "had her pull up her tank top a bit, pull down her skirt a bit, and return to her seat."
6) Several flight attendants apparently overheard this conversation.

I do not think this constitutes sexual harassment. The fact that she's wearing a teeny-tiny outfit does not in and of itself make it so. The fact that she was embarrassed does not make it so.

arbyarby, the eeoc definition is about workplace harassment. obvs this woman didn't work for southwest.

and the way they harassed these two women was overtly sexual--they objectified them and put their own warped views about sexuality onto them. not to mention the subsequent releases filled with sexual innuendo meant to mock her! seriously, give me a break.

Reading over the debate between Jessica and arby, I admit I feel confused about whether this is sexual harassment or not.

On the one hand, if a company/restaraunt has a dress code for patrons and the employees enforce the dress code (i.e., you must wear a suit, you can't wear a mini-skirt, you must wear a shirt/shoes), this doesn't feel like (sexual) harassment to me.

On the other hand, what Jessica said: "they objectified them and put their own warped views about sexuality onto them. not to mention the subsequent releases filled with sexual innuendo meant to mock her".

So.. yea. I feel confused. It doesn't feel like the sexual harrasment we typically think off (i.e., incessant commenting on a woman's appearance), but it's clear the employee was viewing her as a sexual object and evaluating her based on his (or SWA's) beliefs about sexuality.

I know the definition was about workplace harassment, but I didn't have time to dig up a reputable definition that had nothing to do with the workplace. The fact is, "sexual harassment" involves harassment of a sexual nature. I don't understand what definition of "objectify" applies here, and I don't see how they put any views about sexuality on her. They spoke to her because they felt she was wearing too little clothing on one of their airplanes, perhaps because another passenger was made uncomfortable. I hate to blame the victim, but for God's sake, she had had a breast enlargement four days earlier, and she is a waitress at Hooters. If she's going to take advantage of her sexuality that way, she is offering herself up as an object.

arbyarby--No. Just no. A woman can have tits the size of Las Vegas and she still gets to be treated as a person. Nothing can *ever* take that away, not if she was table-dancing the night before, not if she was table-dancing at the airport; as soon as she boarded that plane, she shouldn't be judged solely on the provocation others feel at looking at her, no matter how offensive they think it is to have boobs.

Sorry, arbyarby--no more comments from you.

Wait a sec. You're really going to shut down someone's comments on a blog for having "the wrong opinion?"????

I really agree with armchairpinko about the way she was judged and the nastiness of SWA.

But arbyarby is not being unreasonable at all to point out that this might not match our current legal standard of sexual harassment, and thus to allege it might weaken either your own stance or the meaning of the term itself.

That's certainly an arguable position, dug into a hole by the breast enlargement assertions, but is it so intolerable to be challenged on the interpretation of sexual harassment? It's an ambiguous term....

Let me make a best guess on what prompted the banning of arbyarby...

It wasn't the argument, it was the sentence that starts, "I hate to blame the victim, but for God's sake..." He kind of played his real hand with the rest of the comment.

Maybe there's an itchy trigger finger here, but that argument was just one more post away from "When women act like whores they deserve what they get." At least that's how it looked from my perspective.

I don't believe arbyarby's comments are being shut down because of a disagreement in opinion, but rather, posting ignorant comments that are meant to get a rise out of people. I am sure we're all for differences in opinions here, but this poster essentially said, "She dressed like an object, so should be treated like an object."

In my opinion, that's what civil discussions end, and the ass-kicking begins. At least in this case, the poster was only censored.

attention: off topic rant

I am getting really REALLY tired of the anti-south and (specifically) anti-Texas comments.

I don't think I have to explain why it's silly and offensive to stereotype in that way.

Oy to the vey...thank you, Jessica for using your editorial discretion and sparing us more of arbyarby's ignorant, victim-blaming, horseshit comments which have NO place on a feminist blog.

Thanks for saying something about the anti-South stuff, Ayla. I had just logged in to say basically the same thing.

Signing up to waitress at Hooters does not mean you've relinquished your rights outside of Hooters.
WTF does her job have to do with... anything?
The idea that if you do X for a living, you must be willing to do X for free outside of work as well.
It reminds me of the "prostitutes can't be raped" horseshit.

You can leave a comment on Southwest's blog here
http://www.blogsouthwest.com/2007/09/14/wrapping-up-the-skirt-issue/

The comments on that blog are just disgusting.

while i can't garuntee it won't make me fly southwest because of my financial situation and the good service i've had from them in the past, i still think this entire thing is ridiciulous. i just don't understand why it happened in the first place.

also, does censorship have it's place on a feminist blog?

"The idea that if you do X for a living, you must be willing to do X for free outside of work as well.
It reminds me of the "prostitutes can't be raped" horseshit."

Very well said, SarahMC.

Also, FWIW, I think "censorship" flies on any blog -- it's a blog, fer Chrissakes, and the content of the posts and/or comments are at the discretion of the blogger.

First off, even if people disagree on SWAs actions as sexual harassment, it can clearly still be viewed as harassment. Of course the fact that the harassment had to do with her sexuality would lead one to believe it is sexual harassment if some people can't make that leap then the least we can agree on is that it was inappropriate and offensive for a flight attendant of any sort to humiliate a person that way.

If SWA can regulate customer clothing, what is the next step? Banning everything viewed as possibly offensive? If I show up on an SWA flight and I'm carrying my HRC backpack and I'm told that homosexuality is offensive and I have to cover it up, then I'm going to tell SWA to go fuck themselves because what right do they have to regulate my own expression? (or sexuality for that matter?)

Also I think Jessica is fully within her rights and realm as the editor of feministing to refuse comments from a person that is posting things that are completely counterintuitive to the purpose of this site. (ex blaming the victim for the crime.)

also, does censorship have it's place on a feminist blog?
When you're being a douchebag, yes. Nothing good can come from the line, "I hate to blame the victim but..." It's like, how many vile ways can you finish that sentence.
"She wouldn't have been raped if she weren't such a slut."
"She'd be liked more if she weren't such a damn ballbuster."
"But those damn black people should stop being so uppity."
...
And before anyone even says "first amendment," Feministing isn't the government. I wish it were, but it's not. The women of Feministing are queens of their blogs and can ban whomever they want. I'm the queen of my blog and when some wanker starts being a jerk, they are gone so fast.
If you don't like it, then start your own blog and see how quickly you get trolled for having the audacity to be a feminist.

“Of course the fact that the harassment had to do with her sexuality would lead one to believe it is sexual harassment if some people can't make that leap then the least we can agree on is that it was inappropriate and offensive for a flight attendant of any sort to humiliate a person that way.�

I mostly agree, but I, too, paused at Jessica's reference to this as “sexual harassment� and my initial impression, not really changed by her response to arbyarby, that this is the sort of exaggeration that one makes when one feels strongly about something. The notion of sexual harassment was invented and codified into law as a response to the ubiquitous nature of inappropriate and stifling, sometimes frightening and oppressive, sexual come-ons and eyebrow wagging comments in the workplace and elsewhere. There's something wrong with what Southwest did, and it does involve female sexuality, but it's not really sexual harassment.

However, the result of it is the same, psychologically. A woman is reduced to her perceived sexuality. I don't know. Like someone else said, it's confusing. There's numerous ambiguities involved.

After thinking about this for awhile, though, I'm left with a sense that the real problem is with a culture that's still sexist, still sees women primarily as sex objects, and still puts limits on women that are not placed on men as a consequence of being seen as primarily sex objects. Those things set the stage for this incident.

What makes me think that this incident is more a lightning rod for a roving amount of unfocused rage at this state of affairs and how women face this all the time (and especially familiar to many women is the oppression which result from the sexualizing of large breasts) than it is a specifically and unusually sexist offense, is the fact that I can imagine a version of this story where the woman involved dressed a certain way and was harassed for the same reasons where people here and elsewhere would not have complained...even though all the underlying sexism issues would be the same, even the inequality between the genders. For example, if the woman had changed shirts in plain view of everyone. A man wouldn't have been targeted for this, but I doubt most people would be upset that SA objected to a woman actually being bare-breasted, though briefly.

My point is that what makes this a lightning rod is that the particular standard that SA tried to enforce was largely anachronistic and because of this the incident got a lot of initial attention. But the underlying issues are what gets people really riled up (rightly so), even though those things are not particular to SA.

One thing that I haven't really seen mentioned in this case is that these days, arguing with a flight attendant can get you dubbed a risk and dragged away in handcuffs. Am I exaggerating? Maybe, but that's the perception many people have. So when confronted by a flight attendant, most people's reaction is going to be "Yes, sir, yes, ma'am", no matter what they say, because you don't want to end up in a pair of plastic handcuffs. I suspect that the power has gone to the heads of a few flight attendants, such as "Keith" of Southwest, who seemed to think that his job included enforcing his version of public morals. Because if he didn't, there would be chaos on his flight and the terrorists would win.

"Also, FWIW, I think 'censorship' flies on any blog -- it's a blog, fer Chrissakes, and the content of the posts and/or comments are at the discretion of the blogger."

Exactly. Don't some blogs out there not even accept any comments at all? Having a web log doesn't mean you have to host anyone else's stuff too...

I enjoy the reasoned debates that often accompany the postings. I learn a lot and I like the exchange of information and ideas. I have also been pleased with the way the comments have been moderated. I was a little surprised, however, to find arbyarby banned from further comments. His/her comments may not have reflected the the beliefs of the moderator or the majority of the posters but it was not nearly as antagonistic and offensive as some of the other postings real trolls have placed on the site. From what I have been able to gather about this site in the several months I have been reading it's not a mutual admiration society as even the feminists on this site sometimes disagree with each other. arbyarby disagreed with the definintion of sexual harassment that some are advocating. It didn't seem as if arbyarby was trolling, he just had a different opinion that didn't rise to to the level of blaming the victim. As sgzax said, it may have been one more post away from that, but it hadn't quite reached that level and I think there was more room for discussion regarding what constitutes harassment and sexual harassment. Just my 2 cents.

I suspect that the verbiage that prompted the banning was 'nt a "difference of opinion" or the "some people" line.

It was likely the phrase:
"If she's going to take advantage of her sexuality that way, she is offering herself up as an object."

In other words: "She was asking for it."