But this is conflating two different orders of problem: whether the transportation is public or private, and whether the practices of the (prospective) passenger are hygienic or not. That’s a different argument than the responsibility of sartorial choice.
Smoking or feet on the dash are both dangerous. Smoking or fondue in a car are both unsanitary. And somebody being a slob and smelling bad are issues of personal hygiene. These are all different problems. The airline might have the right ultimately to insist upon whatever standards of dress, but it doesn’t follow from there that form-fitting clothes are indicative of anything unsafe, unsanitary, or unhygienic. And if those arguments were used, I would not be surprised that someone might take offence. Or at the very least refute them and ask what the real reasons are.
Overall leggings are a rather lazy type of clothing though, so i guess UA just wants their main people to look proper, in which case, who would care
This is just odd, and is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things
In the past I have flown on some similar ‘employee perk’ free passes with Air Canada (via my MIL). There was a dress and behaviour code there as well.
I was informed quite clearly that I could not wear jeans or shorts, and must have a collar shirt. I must also not complain about anything, particularly the airline.
Truth be told I toed the line, because I was flying round trip to Europe for free. Free tickets in exchange for a dress code and the requirement to be polite seemed like a good deal to me. (Since then some people broke the second rule and cost all us 1 step removed relatives access to those free tickets).
I can see it as a gendered issue though, and a cisgendered white guy I can also see that what has been applied to me more or less fairly can (and has) been applied to others through a deeply biased and awful lens. Unfortunately I suspect the Airline’s response to scandal will be to stop providing free flights to employees and their relatives.
In cases like that, I’d sign an employment or contract agreement, and pay taxes on the generally agreed value of the ticket.
If that isn’t an option, sell me the ticket for a dollar.
If neither of those are compatible, then a) I am committing at the very least fraud, and b) I am accepting gifts that could compromise my integrity. Carp, I usually can’t even accept a free lunch without a wavier from an ethics officer.
Please help me out here, because I am honestly trying to understand how this issue has caused such indignation and even outrage.
Why is banning leggings sexist? Or at least any more sexist than their policy of prohibiting exposed mid riffs, which no one here seems to object to.
Does the simple fact that only females wear leggings make banning then sexist?
Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems this article could have been titled “Family Traveling for Free Mildly Inconvenienced by United’s Dress Code”
Traditionally it was understood that the holders of these perk tickets would wear 'business attire." The problem is, what’s business attire these days? And do they make business attire for children? Because these were children. Their leggings were too “form fitting”? That means something very different for adults and children. (It really doesn’t help that they have ads about someone doing yoga waiting for one of their planes… while wearing yoga pants.)
Because it’s generally women who wear them? Not that men don’t wear that ever, just that mostly women do wear them.
Well. Yes. Actually it does. School dress codes also tend to be sexist, because they are predicated on the idea that women’s bodies are a distraction to men and that it’s up to us to dress in a way that men can control their urges. There is a lot of nasty stuff in there about men’s supposed lack of control and about women’s “proper” role in reining that in by not dressing in the wrong way.
Again, we are not school children, and frankly it’s none of their damn business how we dress, because we are buying for a service and our tax dollars help to create the infrastructure that allows the airlines to function.
That actually doesn’t surprise me at all: there will be a lot of physical activity and no social situations where a DRESS dress would be needed. Some cultures don’t allow girls to wear pants, so this is a way for a girl to wear a skirt/dress to fulfill her cultural requirement (or personal preference), but still be able to be upside down or whatever the activity requires without showing off her underwear.
