The funny part is, the only reason I was in this thread is because I was trying to figure out why you were backing out of it (based on your comments).
if it were my daughter(s), I would have politely picked them up, sat them on the counter and explained to them the reason why, using the most intelligent (and back handed) way possible that would have forced the employee to look the other way and let her on that plane.
And this thread is full of sexism, but I feel the article dictated that.
Saying that the answer to sexist social expectations might be wearing more clothes. While I don’t think it was your intention to imply that, for example, women who don’t want to be raped shouldn’t wear short skirts, this is similar reasoning.
The obligation of women experiencing sexual assault isn’t for them to wear more clothes- it’s for people to stop assaulting them, just like the answer to sexual objectification of women isn’t to force them into some de-gendered, non-revealing apparel. The underlying societal issue is still present, and eventually the non-revealing apparel will become sexualized as a result of sidelining the root cause.
At the end of the day, anyone should be free to express themselves in any way so long as they aren’t infringing on anyone else. Anyone should have the empowerment to feel sexy about themselves (or not, if that’s what they want) without worrying what some uptight crank might think or do. The only way we get there is by working on the root of the issue, not by applying band-aids.
Again, not saying you were implying intentional or otherwise, but I do think this is one of the ways that good intentions can replicate norms, even when offered as a solution to the problem.
Whatever the unwritten/written codes may be, they derive from the same source, and as such also replicate norm-enforcing behavior. Telling a women to dress less sexy for the office may not seem like the same thing facially as social pressure for women to be more sexy out of the office, but in either case they treat women’s bodies as sex objects first by default.
The end result of any dress code is going to be the violation of that dress code. These things evolve over the years- you certainly don’t need to wear what was socially expected for your gender 50 years ago, and 30 years from now who the hell knows what you’ll be expected to wear.
Is that you, Richard Dawkins?
Honestly, because I feel like I wasn’t getting any community support, quite frankly.
Sure… that’s a viable strategy. But I do think at this point airlines folks tend to act with impunity, because they know that we have no means of changing their policies, because the government no longer has our backs on pretty much anything that can be viewed as impacting corporate bottom lines.
I do expect better from the commetariate here.
Wait, you can be actively outspoken about more than one inequity? Doesn’t taking a strong stance on one issue mean you have to just let everything else go? I thought those were the rules.
/s
Sheepishly raises hand
Now now, don’t go being passive aggressive!
You can only be active on one thing at time!
ONE!
There was no mention of "rights being violated here."
The stipulation was that the dress code of the airline was sexist. Which, I’ll helpfully point out, it is. Absolutely.
And in addition to being sexist, it’s creepy as all hell, given that a for-profit corporation has decided to mandate what little kids may or may not wear.
That’s not an employee policy, it’s a facility policy. Same way people not even watching a movie but dropping of patrons can’t smoke in the theater lobby.
I am learning that everyone has a trolley in them, so when we first react, for the most part, it will be negative (if we don’t catch ourselves). Only thing I expect from this community is seeing others point of view no matter how warped. Notice that none of my comments got likes, but hey, I am not here for the likes. Just safe banter…
I am soooooo over people who’ve read the Selfish Gene and think that is the final word on evolution.
I try to be. I might not always succeed. I do try and defer to folks here who get targeted on a particular form of discrimination, because I assume that they might understand it better than me, having experienced it, despite all my reading on these issues. I try to boost people when I think they need it. Again, I might not always get it right and I appreciate being called out when I don’t. In fact, I hope that people WILL do that and keep me on a path which furthers the discussion and getting to the root of these problems.
Unfortunately, all too often, I feel as if I don’t get the same consideration on issues of sexism and misogyny.
Disagreeing with you ≠ driving trollies.
I’m really not sure what you mean by this, but it sure reads like an indictment of non-binary genders. That’s not cool.
If I’ve misread, I apologize.
Maybe a dude saying that will carry more weight! 
To be fair, though the art of trolling is such that it can at times be hard to parse that. And someone who doesn’t know the community here very well might miss our sometimes snark fest as being a trollfest.
Mansplaining Double-down.
There are only two sexes on the planet…
There are more than six.
Can you Google?
Google.
