Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

116 | 117 | 118

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Cockzombie

Cockzombie

San Diego, CA
July 2006

JUN 01, 2007 08:57 PM

gutterman said:
When a plane goes down, and I have to get through the aisle, I hope I'm not trapped behind a morbidly obese flight attendant. But chances are, I'll be stuck behind a thin flight attendant with high heels and broken ankes, who is too weak to push on the morbidly obese passenger who is wedged in the aisle.

And then we all die.

OH! But what if we crash-land in the mountains and all we have to live off of is the skinny-as-hell flight attendants? They would surely freeze to death in their miniskirts and no insulating layer of blubber.



you baffle me. this was insulting on so many levels

Pilkington

Pilkington

USA
October 2005

JUN 01, 2007 09:11 PM

geo35 said:
Oh, yeah. We SG members don't support this sort of thing with our four bucks a month. Ugh-uh. Not us. Sean & Missy are making sure that lots of overweight gals with ratty-ass teeth and acne are in all these photo sets day after day.



^^^^ Keepin it real.

Chad_Sexington

Chad_Sexington

Surrey, BC
January 2005

JUN 01, 2007 09:59 PM

It would be interesting to hear what the airllines healthy wieght range is before judgement is passed on this.

MaitreSinge

MaitreSinge

Silver Spring, MD
June 2004

JUN 01, 2007 10:03 PM

I don't care how fat the attendents are, but I swear to God if I have to sit next to another lard-assed passenger taking up part of my seat too, I will go on some kind of fatty genocide. A 12-hour trans-oceanic flight with three quarters of a seat is the very definition of hell.

PS: It sucks, but people will pay more for service from attractive people. (Hell, I ain't paying SG to look at ugly girls) And I think it's fair to discriminate based on how well one can fulfill one's job role. Now, if they'll hire fat ugly men, then you can be pissed.

Alkaholic23

Alkaholic23

Boston, MA
January 2004

JUN 01, 2007 10:17 PM

Heathen_Dave said:
Why didn't they just be honest and say "We believe the attractiveness of our flight attendants influences our profits" instead of playing it off as some sort of bullshit safety issue. Hey it sucks and it's shallow and sexist, but hooters didn't get so popular just because of their hot wings.



just because someone is thin doesn't make them attractive and/or weak. someone who's fat doesn't make them ugly and/or strong. the safety issue partially deals with obese flight attendants obstructing emergency exits and the inability to maneuver emergency/safety equipment through the cabin during inflight and ground emergencies.

by the way, hooters did have flights operated by pace airlines. flights ended sometime in 2006.

Chad_Sexington

Chad_Sexington

Surrey, BC
January 2005

JUN 01, 2007 10:18 PM

First, thin women are often weaker than their bigger sisters, especially if theie thinness is the result of excessive dieting.

--
not really. sure an obese woman may be capable of short bursts of strenght, but they lack the endurance that comes with being healther.

Second, muscle weighs more than fat -- so correlating fitness with weight is doubly stupid.

---
well I dont think they are intending to hire 200 pound body builders either, they probably want enout muscle so that the stewardesses can carry their own weight for a long flight.


Third, even if you use BMI, which at least takes into account height, there are still a ton of variables, including ethnicity and body fat itself that it doesn't predict well.

--

I agree, I am interested in hearing how they judge what is too fat.

Fourth, it's possible that dieting is worse for your health than maintaining a steady, if high, weight.

---No doubt, but they are looking for women who are thinner, nt nessisarily women who are dieting.



Sixth, it seems to be untrue that people can simply choose to lose weight
---
I was a 260 pound fatty untill I was 18, and decided over the wekend that I wanted to lose weight, I began to count calories and exercise, and I am now 102 pounds lighter, because I chose to.

Seventh, asking a living creature -- what with "living" including "growth" -- to control its growth is, in fact, an attack on its status as living. What with women, surprisingly, being living creatures, telling them to stay small is, therefore, an attack on their humanity -- of which "womanhood" is, and I know this is a leap -- a part.

---not all growth is good, and this particular growth can lower life span and quality. if these women feel atacked anyway, I think they should seek out other employment imidiatley.


Eighth -- and I love this -- there's the fact that Air India also demands that its flight attendants have perfect teeth and no acne. Doubtless this is because crooked teeth and zits are widely known to prevent people from being able to compromise flight safety.

---
Thats fucked, why would they want to work there?

Alkaholic23

Alkaholic23

Boston, MA
January 2004

JUN 01, 2007 10:32 PM

CherryCoke said:
You also have to remember that a plane can only hold so much weight. So if you have a lot of bigger people on the flight that means you have less people on the plane which means the airline loses money.



a few extra hundred pounds on a large commercial airliner won't bump people off the plane. now if you were flying on a regional jet, turbo prop or general aviation plane, passenger and luggage weight will have an effect on how many people take flight.

almostfamous

almostfamous

NEWSWIRE

United Kingdom

JUN 02, 2007 12:38 AM

I'm surprised you didn't feel the need to include the fact that the judge that ruled on this case was a woman, and I found this part of the article interesting...

The Indian airline industry has grown rapidly over the past decade and new private airlines have introduced an element of glamour, hiring young slim air hostesses, often dressed in short skirts and high heels.

In contrast, Indian Airlines flight crew are dressed in the traditional sari and are allowed to fly until they are 58 years old.



That, combined with the fact the airline that wants perfect teeth and no acne is Air India whereas the airline involved in this case is Indian Airlines rather implies that their weight limit is just that, a weight limit. As the article doesn't state what the limit is, you can't really say if it is justified for reasons of health or safety.
Also, Indian Airlines seems to judge its men more harshly than its women, this guy was grounded for refusing to save his handlebar moustache. Oh, but he won in court, and was allowed to fly again, so I guess the court system must be inherently sexist.

almostfamous

almostfamous

NEWSWIRE

United Kingdom

JUN 02, 2007 01:02 AM

You might also find this page interesting. It details the discriminatory practices of Air India...

Air-India's hostesses are junior to all male crew members on board irrespective of the fact that some of them have more than 30 years of experience. Even women in executive positions are subordinate to male workmen in flight. Women are not eligible for supervisory positions on board.

All crew undergo a weight check before boarding a flight. But women are grounded or penalised if they are overweight. Male crew are permitted to fly even if they are 40 kg in excess.

Once a year, women crew members above 35 years have to undergo an internal gynaecological examination. Male crew members are not subjected to any form of medical examination.

Women are allowed to have only two children while men do not have to adhere to the rule.

And until recently, air hostesses were not allowed to wear spectacles, as they would affect their looks.



And the lengths the Indian courts have been going to to stop those discriminatory practices.

In 1988, a review conducted by the Parliament Petitions Committee recommended that the discrimination between male and female cabin crew members be removed completely. Indian Airlines complied with the recommendations but Air-India held out.


(In March 2000 a Parliamentary Committee recommended that Air-India remove its discriminatory policies). The Bombay High Court also ruled that Air-India increase the flying age to 58 years. But Air-India did not honour the court's decision. In 2002, following a series of legal battles, the AIHA and the management came to an consensual understanding in which Air-India insisted that the interchangeability of functions be a pre-condition for extending the age of retirement to 58 years.


FYI 58 is the official retirement age for all women in India. Indian Airlines - the state owned company in question in this article - have always complied with any court decision, which other than in this case has always been very clearly a decision to remove discriminatory practices against women (so maybe it deserves the benefit of the doubt and a little research to find out if this one wasn't). Air India on the other hand have gone to court again and again to try and maintain a young, attractive female cabin crew, and often acted in violation of the court rulings against them.

Maybe if you did a bit of research you could find an issue that's actually worth getting on your high horse about. Or do you just like the fact that you're so often wrong other people have to go to lengths to find some truth in your stories and point you in the right direction?

Flashman

Flashman

Australia
April 2006

JUN 02, 2007 04:00 AM

Heathen_Dave said:
Why didn't they just be honest and say "We believe the attractiveness of our flight attendants influences our profits" instead of playing it off as some sort of bullshit safety issue. Hey it sucks and it's shallow and sexist, but hooters didn't get so popular just because of their hot wings.



Precisely. That they have this policy doesn't bother me in particular. That they are too pissweak to simply state that bums in tight minis =bums on seats= profit! does bother me.

mattacme

mattacme

Calistoga, CA
February 2006

JUN 02, 2007 08:29 AM

IDGAS said:

Bitch_PhD said:
Second, muscle weighs more than fat...



I guess your doctorate was not in a subject where quantitative skills are required. tongue A pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle or a pound of feathers or a pound of gold the volume of each are different.

The airlines need to worry less about the appearance of flight crew and more about on time performance. Get our flights on time, edible food, clean planes, stop overbooking, and about 500 other things than need to be fixed than and only then the airlines can worry if some flight attendant is 5 pounds "over weight".



Exactly. I truly could not care less how "attractive" the in flight crew is, but I really do care alot if the plane is on time or not. Oh, and if it has been properly maintained and the crew is fairly compensated and skilled.

When I want to look at sexy females there are an abundance of appropriate places to do so, like SG.

Go Obama!

Jennifer_

Jennifer_

Venezuela
November 2006

JUN 02, 2007 08:45 AM

IDGAS said:

Bitch_PhD said:
Second, muscle weighs more than fat...



I guess your doctorate was not in a subject where quantitative skills are required. tongue A pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle or a pound of feathers or a pound of gold the volume of each are different.


Her point was that a woman who weighs 200 pounds could have less fat and more muscle than a woman who weighs 120 pounds. Thus, the heavier woman might be stronger, fitter and more able to do their job (contrary to what the court asserted).

cklarock

cklarock

Lawrence, KS
August 2004

JUN 02, 2007 10:18 AM

Heathen_Dave said:
Why didn't they just be honest and say "We believe the attractiveness of our flight attendants influences our profits"



+1.

The intent was clearly to push out attendants they didn't feel were attractive, so why even bother arguing about their rationaliizations?

That's a bit like pruning the tip of the weed.

The real question is "is it ok for this airline to make an attractiveness standard a job requirement?"

Aeryka

Aeryka

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

JUN 02, 2007 11:26 AM



Fifth, the Ark is a myth.



i liked that part....

pmonkeyEsquire

pmonkeyEsquire

I'm lost
May 2004

JUN 02, 2007 05:10 PM

Fat stewardeses are fine with me as long as I get to stuff my large Hobbit belly with goat tikka masala and gulab jamon!!

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

JUN 03, 2007 01:16 AM

almostfamous said:
I'm surprised you didn't feel the need to include the fact that the judge that ruled on this case was a woman, and I found this part of the article interesting...



I thought about saying something about that, since half the folks that comment on my articles assume that a feminist p.o.v. means hating men. But I didn't, because I take it for granted that women, not being idiots, are just as capable of learning and internalizing sexist ideas as men are. Given that very few of us are raised under rocks, most of us carry around plenty of sexist bullshit in our heads: women are just as capable as men of thinking that fat women are slobs, that being femmey means "taking care of oneself," that men are more natural leaders, and all the rest of it.

Anyway, thanks for giving me the chance to actually articulate that. (Not that I imagine it'll make a lot of difference.... whatever )

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

JUN 03, 2007 01:19 AM

cklarock said:

Heathen_Dave said:
Why didn't they just be honest and say "We believe the attractiveness of our flight attendants influences our profits"



+1.

The intent was clearly to push out attendants they didn't feel were attractive, so why even bother arguing about their rationaliizations?

That's a bit like pruning the tip of the weed.

The real question is "is it ok for this airline to make an attractiveness standard a job requirement?"



The problem with the rationalizations is that *they* are what's behind the legal finding. If the airline simply said, "we insist that our employees look hawt, and for women that means X, Y, and Z" then I suspect the court would find their standards discriminatory, yes, inasmuch as hawtness doesn't have anything to do with job performance.

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

JUN 03, 2007 01:19 AM

Aeryka said:


Fifth, the Ark is a myth.



i liked that part....



Thank you. smile

Jennifer_

Jennifer_

Venezuela
November 2006

JUN 03, 2007 02:25 AM

Bitch_PhD said:
The problem with the rationalizations is that *they* are what's behind the legal finding. If the airline simply said, "we insist that our employees look hawt, and for women that means X, Y, and Z" then I suspect the court would find their standards discriminatory, yes, inasmuch as hawtness doesn't have anything to do with job performance.


You're right, that was probably why the airline decided to insult fat people's ability to do their jobs and rationalise the policy the way they did.

But I think that was a mistake on their part, as I don't think they needed to do this - I'm not 100% sure about India's legal system, but in England its perfectly alright to hire people based on their attractiveness if you state that looking good is a crucial part of the job role. For example, everywhere from Abercrombie and Fitch to Hooters are allowed to only hire shop assistants and waiters with a certain 'look' as they state its a crucial part of doing the job and projecting the brand image. If Indian Airlines had said 'we want our staff to maintain a particular appearance to project our brand image', not only would they have been completely free and clear legally, but they would be allowed to start discriminating based on other things such as cup size and hair style.

Although, on a side note, this legal excuse is only really allowed for positions where the employee is liasing with customers. And there are limits - for example, Abercrombie and Fitch were almost exclusively hiring white people because they said their corporation wanted to project an 'all-American image'. However, they failed to prove in a court of law that 'all-American' meant 'all-white', and they've been given very large fines and many of their executives have been forced to attend racial tolerance classes.

So there are limits, as that story shows, but if Indian Airlines had just been honest about wanting to use sex appeal to attract customers, they probably would have been legally fine. Although, the law be different in a conservative country such as India, and their customers may then have turned against them for being the 'superficial' airline that sells itself with sex appeal.

almostfamous

almostfamous

NEWSWIRE

United Kingdom

JUN 03, 2007 04:01 AM

Bitch_PhD said:

almostfamous said:
I'm surprised you didn't feel the need to include the fact that the judge that ruled on this case was a woman, and I found this part of the article interesting...



I thought about saying something about that, since half the folks that comment on my articles assume that a feminist p.o.v. means hating men. But I didn't, because I take it for granted that women, not being idiots, are just as capable of learning and internalizing sexist ideas as men are. Given that very few of us are raised under rocks, most of us carry around plenty of sexist bullshit in our heads: women are just as capable as men of thinking that fat women are slobs, that being femmey means "taking care of oneself," that men are more natural leaders, and all the rest of it.

Anyway, thanks for giving me the chance to actually articulate that. (Not that I imagine it'll make a lot of difference.... whatever )



That's the only part of what I said you feel the need to comment on?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next