Southwest Airlines

[Purple Aki]

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

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

... 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>

Hurrah!!! RuPaul is back on the politics board.

[24KT]

hardly ever ..

Are you stating that you are a US Federal air marshall?

And if so, ...was that the badge that you flashed to the Canadian OPP who pulled you over,
...thinking it might have any pull in this country, ...and on the ground?

Please stop, ...my sides are aching! hahahhahhahahhahahhaha

[24KT]

Hurrah!!! RuPaul is back on the politics board.

RuPaul! I wish! That man can work it better than me. 

[kh300]

Are you stating that you are a US Federal air marshall?

And if so, ...was that the badge that you flashed to the Canadian OPP who pulled you over,
...thinking it might have any pull in this country, ...and on the ground?

Please stop, ...my sides are aching! hahahhahhahahhahahhaha

a federal air marshall is one of the top LE positions in this country. thousands of the top people in this field try out for this position, which is only given to a few people. and to be able to wear this badge is an incredible accomplishment that not many people get to do.. being an air marshall means you have a ton of experience, your one of the top marksman in the field, and you are incredible qualified. its not an entry level position. its a position given to the best..if you see an air marshall, you can bet they have more experience then anyone with a gun and a badge. and air marshalls are under direct orders from the secret service.they decide what to do, they are our bosses.. and who has more 'pull' then the SS and the CIA? sure as hell not a the canadian highway patrol.

[kh300]

ahhh, ...but that's not what you said is it?

and how does an air marshall kick someone off a plane midflight?

If what you say is true that DHS can kill someone on any flight without having a reason,
then your society is even more far gone than I had thought.

then what did i say?

you obviously cant kick someone off a flight 30,000 feet in the air you bonehead.. you put them into custody.

an air marshal canot kill someone for no reason.. only if they attempt to take over the aircraft.

[Cap]

What I said was "reclaim her sexuality"  NOT 'regain her womanhood' 
There's a big difference between the two. I'm not surprised tho that you use them interchangeably.

From what I have seen, women tie their identity to their sexuality.

[Dos Equis]

She didn't lose her sexuality, womanhood or whatever by being kicked off the plane.  The only thing the woman tried to reclaim (or claim) by taking her clothes off was money. 

[Cap]

She didn't lose her sexuality, womanhood or whatever by being kicked off the plane.  The only thing the woman tried to reclaim (or claim) by taking her clothes off was money. 

Haha.  That's true.  An AZ radio station was talking about her this morning because of the show she is putting on.  They even called her a skank.  I love it.  What a "classy" way to be a woman.  Like I said, whether it's Playboy or not it is still porn and she is till popping her titties out for money.  Nothing more than a glorified stripper.  At least at Hooters she was clothed getting her tips.

[Dos Equis]

Haha.  That's true.  An AZ radio station was talking about her this morning because of the show she is putting on.  They even called her a skank.  I love it.  What a "classy" way to be a woman.  Like I said, whether it's Playboy or not it is still porn and she is till popping her titties out for money.  Nothing more than a glorified stripper.  At least at Hooters she was clothed getting her tips.

Completely agree. 

[24KT]

From what I have seen, women tie their identity to their sexuality.

Gotta agree with you there, ...and sadly, ...alot of men tie a women's identity to her sexuality as well

[24KT]

a federal air marshall is one of the top LE positions in this country. thousands of the top people in this field try out for this position, which is only given to a few people. and to be able to wear this badge is an incredible accomplishment that not many people get to do.. being an air marshall means you have a ton of experience, your one of the top marksman in the field, and you are incredible qualified. its not an entry level position. its a position given to the best..if you see an air marshall, you can bet they have more experience then anyone with a gun and a badge. and air marshalls are under direct orders from the secret service.they decide what to do, they are our bosses.. and who has more 'pull' then the SS and the CIA? sure as hell not a the canadian highway patrol.

You still haven't answered my question. I know it was a 2 parter, ...but I kept it simple for you.

• Are you stating the YOU are a US Federal Air Marshall?
• And despite whatever prestige the position may have in the US,
  did you really think that badge would have any pull in a foreign country on the ground?