She is now an explicit (in comparison to her skirt and low cut shirt pics) sexual object to thousands of men. Another college girl who can't wait to get naked for a camera because she is desperate for attention. She may not feel humiliated by this but she is a joke now whereas before she was just a victim in the minds of some people.
She was
ALWAYS a sexual object. Had she not been objectified as such to begin with, such complaints would neither have risen, nor would the airline employees felt the need to act on it.
That was the humiliation done to her. By even validating those passenger complaints by punishing an innocent person, she was reduced to a sexual object, and victimized by SouthWest employees
If someone complained then the company has an obligation to act. I've been on another airline with a screaming girl who wanted to sit next to her mom and the father said no until the final 5 minutes of the flight. I rang the attendant bell a number of times and all but screamed at the lady to do something and she kissed the dad's ass and he told her that everything was fine. I wish more airlines did what Southwest did/does.
Your situation does not compare to the SW incident. One cannot choose to block their ability to hear, however, one can choose not to look at another person, ...especially when it requires an exerted, extraordinary effort to do so. Action against the passenger on SW was unwarranted, and undeserved.
In the incident you experienced, it appears the Dad was the decision maker who acted improperly but for some reason you blame "the lady". Which lady were you referring to? The mother of the child, or the airline employee? It is unclear to me, since you have chosen to reduce the individual of which you speak to nothing more than her gender.
Consider for a moment the ramifications of dealing with a child, or taking physical charge of a child, especially in the presence of, and over the explicit expressed objections of a physical custodial parent, when no apparent or imminent risk is present to anyone's safety.
I do sympathize with you though, 'cause I have been there on a very long flight to LA, only in my case the screaming child was not a 5 yr old but a newborn babe. I had been up all night packing and was looking forward to a long peaceful rest on that flight, but a freak snowstorm that morning covered most runways with snow, resulting in a 2 hr delay taking off while our plane was de-iced. The newborn was seated right next to the engines which needed to be revved during and subsequent to de-icing, and stay revved prior to departure. We sat on the tarmac for 2 hrs... the engines roaring the entire time. Then after taking off, the change in altitude and pressurization of the cabin, did nothing to relieve her ordeal. That baby screamed throughout the entire flight. But when I looked at it from the child's perspective, my annoyance turned to heartfelt sympathy for the child, because I knew that poor little thing had absolutely no idea what was happening to her, where that huge roar was coming from, or why her tiny little eardrums were exploding. I no longer saw her screaming as the thing that was preventing
me from getting some much needed rest, but rather the indications that that sweet innocent child was not getting the peaceful rest that she sorely needed. With
that perspective, my discomfort became far more bareable, and rather insignificant by comparison.
I do think both of you are completely missing the point tho. Arguing whether Playboy magazine has artistic merit or not, is pornography or not, ...is above the standards of Hustler, Bang Bros, Wicked Entertainment, or Necrophilia Today is irrelevant. To view her subsequent decision to pose nude, 'tastefully or otherwise', as some sort of validation for the stupid decision made by SW employees that day is a specious argument that not only stinks of arrogant, self-righteous, chauvanism, but reveals an ignorance regarding women, and their need to own their own sexuality. Those who understand women, may properly interpret her decision to pose for Playboy as cathartic, allowing her to reclaim ownership of her sexuality on
her terms, ...as opposed to opportunism, or being a "slut".
I don't give a poop is she later chose to do a FULL ON no holds barred explicitly graphic XXX layout for Necrophilia Today, the bottom line is she
WAS mistreated by airline employees who mishandled the situation. They DO have an obligation to address passenger complaints, but that obligation neither carries with it, nor implies the imperative to cater to a complainant's outrageous desires or skewed perspective, by punishing the object of that complaint. She committed no violations and did not deserve to be mistreated, or threatened with removal from the plane for not catering to the improper demands of prudish passenger prejudice, or the complicitous madness of megalomaniacal airline employees, when neither her conduct, nor her attire as an airline passenger was in any way improper.
I will at least give KUDOs to the airline for not further compounding their hypocritical mistake, by adding some stupid arbitrary 'after-the-fact' "passenger apparel code", to seemingly justify their improper and hypocritical actions to begin with.
And as for kh300's comment saying that
when you buy a plane ticket you are agreeing on a document that says you can be kicked off the flight at any point. they dont need a reason, simple as that
... try having a flight attendant kicking someone off in mid-flight at cruising altitude, and see how far they get invoking that clause.
That BS mob rule mentally didn't go so well for the airlines right after 911, when they catered to outrageous passenger complaints by kicking a US federal marshall off the plane because he was "dark skinned & Middle eastern looking", why should anyone think it should work now in the case of a woman already strapped into her seat minding her own business? Have any of you even flown on an airplane? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to even see all of your fellow passengers without having to strain your neck in a deliberate attempt to do so?
If she is an opportunist, as Beach Bum believes her to be, ...it simply underscores the poor judgement exercised by those employees by providing her with a perfect platform to show the world what a stupid myopic decision they made.
The fact that they even felt they had the right to cater to such ridiculousness, or make such megalomaniacal demands, as well as the fact that this is even being debated at all, is indicative of a growing prudish & fascist police-state mentality taking root in your society right under your noses... You are all like frogs ...slowly being cooked, ...and some even welcome it. Makes me wonder how soon it'll be before some in the pot start citing the need for a little butter & garlic at the ready... to make them more palateable before they're devoured. <spit>
