Now that we have heard from everyone else let’s hear it from the ass’s, oops, the horse’s mouth, the horse’s mouth. This article was written by “the woman who called out United” on “leggings”. “Leggings” in quote because I have no idea what that is. What I do know, not that I am a customer service expert but an expert about complaining customers, I mentioned this same scenario in the book. The scenario being that customers have NO IDEA what the culture or the ins and outs of the business they complain about. NONE! Yet, they complain. In this story, the complainer whipping out the victim card, which in my experience, those who complain do so as a desperate attempt to justify their discontent as they have NO other reason to complain.
In the article the author admits, “The airline says the dress code it enforced on Sunday applies only to ‘pass riders’—airline employees and their dependents who are offered free or discounted travel—and leaves it up to the gate agents to decide how the policy is applied.”
Full discloser, I am NOT a fan of airline gate agents, NOT flight crews but gate agents, as gate agents have a tendency of enforcing whatever rules accommodate them when they want and without any consistency. The most notable example of such, overhead bin space. Their claim, yours is too big. Despite I have placed it in an overhead bin hundreds of times and it ALWAYS fits. It ALWAYS fit because it’s malleable, on purpose, and I DON’T carry anything that might break in it, on purpose as well. Because of that it fits just about anywhere, if you push hard enough. But, once they target you there is no arguing with them. Their most common LACK of reason to keep you from using the overhead bin—it delays their push back time for which airlines get fined by the FAA. The second most common LACK of reason—because they can. But I digress.
This incident was nothing more than, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! AS NONE OF THIS WAS YOUR BUSINESS MA’AM! Why? The policy has NOTHING to do with the public and/or those paying for their OWN tickets but for employees and their companions getting on for free or at a discounted price, EXCLAMATION POINT! Was that you? NO! THEN MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!
Ma’am, please, allow me to enlighten your closeminded self-centered ego.
While on active duty any Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Airman or Coast Guardsman (the latter two irrespective of gender--only mentioned to avoid being called a sexist) traveling via Military Airlift Command (MAC) must be in uniforms or they will NOT be boarding the aircraft, regardless of gender or rank. On the other hand, others qualified to travel via MAC, i.e. U.S. Department of Defense employees or retired military, may dress as they desire, to include “leggings” I guess. Although I doubt any would wear just anything. The point, employers want their employees to represent them in their best. Actually, some civilian employers DEMAND their employees to travel in business attire, as well, when their employer are paying the bill, regardless how uncomfortable traveling in business attire must be.
Employees, whether for airlines or other industries, who want to wear “leggings” or whatever else they want to wear must then pay for their own tickets. It really is that simple.
Oh yes, what I fail to see, according to critics, is the sexism. Got it. And I agree, we should stand up whenever and wherever against any -ism, exploitation or hate directed towards anyone for whatever LACK of reason. But NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH GENDER OR WITH ANYTHING THAT ANYONE PUTS IN THEIR MOUTH EITHER! Regardless, the girls' father got on the aircraft while wearing shorts. I am sure had he been wearing "legging" he too would have been asked to change. And, visa-a-versa as well, had the girls been wearing shorts none of this would have taken place.
That aside, of course, some will find the way to inject a victim card from their readily available victim-ism deck of cards--sexism, ageism, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, and the plethora of other –isms, wherever and whenever they disagree.
Okay, let me see how many I can list for the other gender, who are ALSO “tired of being policed for [their] clothing”.
-Men are NOT allowed in clubs unless they are wearing a COLLARED shirt. Sometimes they are required to wear slacks and no jeans. Women can wear almost to nothing into a club. But then critics will say that is exploiting women. However, many of them should be covered up but that is another story. Instead, the reason for men dress codes at clubs, so they claim, is because men are less likely to be involved in fights when they are dressed well. Kind of bias, as NOT all men at clubs are looking for a fight. But also, sexist. Does appropriate clothing keep women from fighting at clubs? The answer, NO!
-At fine restaurants men have dress codes too, collar shirt, slacks not jeans or shorts, closed shoes not sandals/slippers. Yet, women, for the most part, as desired. Cleavage, backs and/or shoulders exposed, slits down one leg, maybe two, shirts above the knees, open shoes more common than not…and the list goes on and on.
-Some casinos have dress codes for men too, collared shirts, some go as far as having us wear a sports jacket at a minimum, slacks no shorts and closed shoes are common expectations too. My favorite, I took my parents to one of those casinos once. However, I was not allowed to enter the casino because I had, what I call, my Jesus Christ sandals. But then, it was a casino and I was wearing Jesus Christ sandals. I should have known better as those two don't go together. Anyhow, not to ruin my parents visit I told them to go ahead and I would just wait outside. To make a long story short, hours later, like any human being, man or woman, I had to use the bathroom, which was inside the casino. However, the casino guard/bouncer would not let me use the bathroom in the casino because of my shoes, or lack thereof I guess. Lucky for me my dad came outside to check on me, he is so caring, although it had been hours since I had seen him or my mom so I think it was more that he was out of money than he was being caring, but I digress. With my dad outside the casino I asked to borrow his shoes so that I could use the bathroom in the casino and he wore mine while I went inside. Interestingly, my dad tried to enter the casino, while wearing my Jesus Christ sandals, and the guard/bouncer turned him around too. He had just come out of the casino but now had on the wrong shoes. Makes no sense but I doubt the guard/bouncer knew my dad had spent all his money already and why he was not letting my dad back in. Yet, my mom, who WAS wearing sandals, similar to the ones I had, no one ever said anything to her. Sexist policy? I guess.
The point, spare me the victim card as there are equally as many restrictions on men but we are NOT jumping up and down about such societal injustices. Not to mention, in this story with United that was NOT the case either as the dress code ONLY pertained to employees and dependents, policies which United's employees are ALL TO WELL AWARE of, but in this story, I guess they thought they could ignore. Nonetheless, policies that DO NOT pertain to the public. Actually, the policy ONLY pertains to employees and dependents who were NOT paying their way because those paying their way would be afforded the same privileges as the public, like yourself Ma'am.
By the way, did anyone notice the author included her credentials as a Social Justice Warrior whose agendas include gun-control and she mentioned she is a board member (WHOOPEE!) of “an organization that trains progressive women to run for office”. But not men, I guess. Ma’am, I know you DO NOT believe me or what I am about to tell you. But United is NOT at war with women or anyone else for that matter for any reason. United simply wants its employees and those accompanying them to dress like ambassador of their company, PERIOD! It really is that simple. Why is that so terrible?
Below are two citations from The Customer is NEVER Right, which might share some light as to how the above relates to customer satisfaction or what I have labeled, yes, labeled. I know progressives DO NOT like labels. Unless, of course, it is they who cite the labels. Nonetheless, what I have labeled EXAGGERATED UNREALISTIC EMOTIONAL EXPECTATIONS!
“Customers lack the vision and could not care less for the bigger picture of what is going on behind the scene as it relates to the product they are soliciting, regardless of the industry. Based on that fact, how is it possible the customer is always right when the customer has no idea or regard for the bigger picture and is interested only in themselves? More than likely, regardless of industry, the person providing the product is doing so with good intentions. Keep in mind that this is a person and that is their job, a paid position for employment. That person is not the customer’s servant, devotee, follower, or supporter. That is a person with a job. A job that pays the mortgage. So be careful with threats that ‘Someone is going to lose their job over this’ or that ‘Heads will roll’ only because the customer’s exaggerated and unrealistic emotional expectations were not met. It is likely the customer does not have a servant at home. So then, why would a customer expect more than pleasantries beyond ‘Thank you’ and ‘You are welcome’ simply because the customer is paying for a product? And when it is the customer, not the employee, who misinterprets the intentions because the customer is unfamiliar with procedures or routines, feels powerless, has a hidden agenda, and may even have existing personality traits with poor coping mechanisms? All the mentioned points are reasons customers complain. Third, Elliot’s column brought to mind another concept described in Nield-Anderson’s cited article and to be discussed later in the narrative, called splitting—a coping mechanism that allows a person to separate something that is desirable from undesired, permitting the person to find fault elsewhere and deflecting responsibility from him- or herself. As mentioned, Elliot recognized that customer rudeness, entitlement, and abusive behaviors were becoming increasingly more common yet he avoided blaming them and instead blamed the economy, terrorists, inept management, and the Internet for the airline’s poor customer service.” –The Knitted Brow
“In her article, Baca defined transference as ‘the technical or psychoanalytic term used to describe the redirection of feelings and desires toward a new object.’ Baca stated transferences are multidimensional and able of distorting ‘perception and communication.’ For the sake of the writings and to put Baca’s findings in simple terms, some people do not like it their when their unrealistic expectations are not met and much less do they do like being told, No!” –The Knitted Brow
After all that, this complainer, who has NO grounds or reason to complain, at a minimum should apologize to United. Not to mention, if she and her spouse were flying United they should be grateful that United got them to where ever they were going safely so that she could then turn around and berate United as she did. By no means am I saying she cannot berate United but on this one she has NO reason to, as she was ONLY sticking her nose and IDIOT-ology in what was NOT her business. But she won’t apologize. And more than likely she will carry her victimhood deck of cards everywhere she goes as to have them readily available for the next Social Justice Warrior opportunity, even where there isn’t any.
That said, "complaining is one thing but slander is a lack of civility [as] disagreement of ideologies is not a hate crime. My experience has been that persons who are fast to pull the race card are comfortable making those accusations without concern for its meaning and much less the consequences of such actions." -The Knitted Brow
By the way, this person mentioned she and her husband were waiting to board a flight to Mexico. REALLY!?! Mexico! Dear Social Justice Warrior, you want to talk about “how deeply ingrained sexism is in our culture” yet YOU are visiting Mexico. PLEASE!
Try these links to see how much nicer Mexico is to women just in the past year, where the behavior you and I and just about everyone else is so offended by has been going on, NOT for generations, but for centuries:
-A Mexican man was cleared of raping a 17-year-old girl because he acted without ‘carnal intent’ (29 Mar 2017)
So, Ma’am, if you’re SO(!) responsible for the spending decisions, as cited in Bloomberg, and if you’re really SO(!) “sick of sexism” then DON’T support countries where it runs rampant. And more significant where it goes unchallenged. And why, unless your intentions to visit Mexico were to “stand up and speak out whenever and wherever” you encounter sexism, misogyny and discrimination towards women, then you’re just cherry picking to satisfy your Social Justice Warrior pseudo-ego. And if the latter, then you owe United an apology. Especially when the issue at hand was NO business of yours.
I get your so-called passion but you should focus that energy towards Mexico and like countries around the planet where not only sexism, misogyny and discrimination is just a normal day but so is the violence against women. Be genuine with your convictions NOT just when it’s convenient. Otherwise you look like an ass. Just my two sense [sic]!