anyone who wants to have a less easy time flying standby and have their employee relative catch some crap for it can certainly complain about the free ice cream.
2 Likes
I was replying to @anon67050589’s comment about the dress code for Space Camp, which is sexist, and which is a place people actually pay to attend, and unlike a privately-owned airline is government-run.
I don’t find the United dress code to be at all sexist, but it is still arbitrary, and anyone being subjected to arbitrary expectations is always something worth questioning.
I’m guessing that capes are ok.
2 Likes
my mistake, I hadn’t realized the conversation had wandered so.
its a 501(c)(3) organization, but yes, it is directed by a commission appointed by the notoriously liberal Governor of Alabama.
2 Likes
And knowing the stupidity of people when it comes to enforcing rules, any girl who tries to cheat the system in a tankini and board shorts (or just prefers that combo) will either be kicked out (for not respecting the rules or forced to adorn AT LEAST an additional T-shirt, if not another pair of shorts.
And seriously, if the kids are too young to care, there’s no reason for it because adults think of kids in those terms should be screened from working with children anyway. And if they are old enough to care then the clothes ain’t gonna matter.
I wonder what the answer would be if a parent said “so, if my daughter doesn’t have a one-piece, you’re essentially going to make her take part in a wet T-shirt contest?” Because that is what’ll end up happening.
3 Likes
There are far more kinds of clothing worn only by women than are worn only by men, so statistically any dress code would mention more of these.
Again though, just because something mostly applies to a particular sex does not make it sexist. Likewise, it is possible to come up with rules that apply equally to both sexes that would be sexist because they unfairly exclude one sex or the other.
1 Like
I hope they had VERY nice pajamas.
You honestly think it’s just random chance? [quote=“Timoth3y, post:147, topic:97729”]
just because something mostly applies to a particular sex does not make it sexist.
[/quote]
If it’s restricting our behavior in a way that it doesn’t restrict men’s than yes… it is.
16 Likes
I know where you are coming from. A respectful, egalitarian place. And that is a constructive place to have this conversation.
My assertion is leggings are no more disruptive or distracting than my tailored, body hugging suits. I’ll take a couple jokes thrown at me for dressing a certain way, but I’d never get kicked from a flight cause my clothes were too well tailored.
This is in stark contrast to women’s fashion, which routinely gets policed. I’ve talked about this a lot, and have enormous stylistic parallels. The elephant in the room always seems to be gender.
16 Likes
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.
I think you are reading way too much into this. United’s policy is not based on men’s supposed lack of control. Most of the items they prohibit apply to both sexes, only a few mention clothing mostly worn by women.
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.
Don’t you think your sense of entitlement is a bit out of control?
Yes, all of our taxes (and those of business as well) create the environment that allows commerce to function. However, private businesses have the right to have dress codes and standards for behavior on their property.
If those dress codes unduly infringe on other rights, like religious rights, then I agree they need to be changed, but I don’t see how prohibiting leggings in exchange for a free ticket is an unfair burdon for the traveler.
3 Likes
My assertion is leggings are no more disruptive or distracting than my tailored, body hugging suits.
I agree. I also think they are no more distracting than, say, beach sandals, which will also get you kicked off the flight.
I can certainly understand the position that United’s dress code is too formal or too prudish. It’s really a matter of opinion. In the end, unless they are imposing an undue burden, United has the final say about what’s appropriate. I guess I just don’t see having to put on a pair of shoes or pants as an undue burden.
Also, it’s worth noting that United does not ban leggings. The policy only applies to those traveling on free tickets.
1 Like
I have flown an inordinate amount lately (caring for ill, then dying relative in CA.) and I have always, clearly, known who the people flying standby were. Having a dress code for tickets you get for free doesn’t bother me at all. I have worn leggings myself on at least half of those recent flights and no one said boo, and at least one of those trips was with United. I, on the other hand, paid for my tickets. I just don’t see this as an issue. Social norms are normal! They change over time! C’est la Vie! Though I wear leggings about 80% of the time outside of work, I don’t wear them to work, because, work.
1 Like
Well, over the last decade or so, leggings have become standard issue in women’s fashion. I doubt the agent was acting sexist, but the policy certainly is.
So a bland corporate apology and an update to the current policy is all that’s needed, really.
Don’t get me started on jeggings, those need to die in a fire 
4 Likes
This is the best point so far, I think. At the National Air & Space Museum in DC, I recall seeing manikins on display wearing some of those outfits. Some of the dresses were really short, and then there were the hot pants.
Banning leggings when it seems to be the most popular casual dress for young women nowadays seems pretty stupid to me. But I’ve never understood why a nice suit automatically meant the person contained therein wasn’t a scumbag.
8 Likes
Um… Uh… How to put this politely…
Yes please?
1 Like
So these were buddy passes, which means the user had to adhere to the same standards as if they worked there? Well I see the point of work dress codes, and even them extending to certain other areas if it is directly involving the company. Even our rather laid back policy has limits. I guess even if these people don’t work there, if they want the perk I don’t see why they shouldn’t jump through the same hoops.
That said, I don’t really see how leggings of all things are some how controversial. Aren’t they pretty basic casual attire?
3 Likes
That’s from their Mach I page, which sounds a little militaristic for my tastes, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
2 Likes
So that puts my utilikilt somewhere between flirty and proper… Okay.
14 Likes
Oh, we know it’s flirty. We know.
14 Likes
Depends what you’re wearing under it…
9 Likes
