Woman Tossed off of Airline Flight for Wearing Revealing Clothing (Video)
September 7th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesThis CNN report details the controversy over Southwest Airlines temporarily tossing 23-year-old Kyla Ebbert off of a flight because of her (allegedly) excessively revealing miniskirt.
(I include the picture here merely so readers can judge for themselves whether the clothing was inappropriate or not--I know that none of my readers could ever have any interest in looking at the picture except to evaluate the propriety of Southwest's actions).
The young woman, who is also a Hooters waitress, wanted the airline to apologize (which I think is appropriate), but the airline didn't, so now she's thinking of suing. Paging Gloria Allred, Paging Gloria Allred...
Ann Friedman of www.Feministing.com also makes an appearance on the CNN clip, saying that people only get worked up when a woman is semi-unclothed, not a man. We're told that the airline was responding to a complaint from a passenger, but we're not told whether the complainant was a man or a woman. I suspect it was a woman.
"));
19 queries. 0.371 seconds.
September 7th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Those pictures do not show how she was presenting herself during the time in question, so it would be hard to make a judgement.
However, if the skirt was very short and she was crossing her legs, it could be extremely revealing. Even to the point of being indecent.
It's funny how that woman from feministing said she could never imagine seeing this happening to a man. I completely disagree. I could definitely see someone complaining if a guy had very short shorts on and was 'revealing himself' too much. In fact, I would argue that an average member of the public would quicker complain about a man who was very sparsely dressed than a woman who was.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I'm with Glenn. I would bet that the complainant was a woman. It would be interesting to find out. I don't think her attire is appropriate (that skirt is ridiculously short), but she doesn't look any different than most young girls these days. I'm not too excited about the young boys running around with their pants down around their knees, either. But if Southwest doesn't state a dress code, then she's perfectly within her rights to wear exactly what she was wearing on the plane. I thought it was interesting in the Today show interview that she actually got complimented on the outfit on her return flight. I'm a tad surprised that feminists are jumping on this one, to be honest. She works at Hooters, and she's wearing a skirt so short it leaves little to the imagination. I expected the feminists to be up in arms over a woman dressing for objectification long before they objected to the airline asking her to put on some clothing.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
"I expected the feminists to be up in arms over a woman dressing for objectification long before they objected to the airline asking her to put on some clothing."
Are you kidding me? Feminism is a Marxist-based hate movement with the destruction of the family and western values as central to their goals. Promoting sexual promiscuity among women is also a goal. It is part of this wider plan to destroy the family and western values. Our culture has been sexualized to a very high degree. It is everywhere within the culture (except the puritan workplace where such an environment is a good marketplace for sexual harrassment lawyers). This is all intentional and part of The Plan.
Comparing the culture of the 50’s to that of 1998 violent criminal offenses have exploded upward by 700%. Premarital sex among 18 year olds has jumped from 30% of the population to 70%. Tax rates for a family of four have skyrocketed 500%, consuming more than a fourth of their income. Divorce rates have quadrupled. Illegitimate births among black Americans has soared - from approximately 23% to more than 68%. Illegitimacy itself has jumped from a nationwide total of 5% to nearly 30% nationwide - a rise of 600%. Cases of sexually transmitted diseases have risen 150%. Teen age pregnancies are up by several thousand percent and teen suicides have risen by 200%. Between 1950 and 1979 - serious crime committed by children under 15 has risen by 11,000%.
The numbers have gotten significantly worse since 1998 (I have not as yet compiled these-but illegitimacy is now up to 39%).
American culture is collapsing-and rather rapidly.
Marxist-Feminism is the cause.
I will expand upon this in more detail at another time.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Denis,
Nice idea, but I think your reading too much idiology into people who aren't quite as intellectual as they seem. Early feminism had some intellectual heft to it, but that was then.
The following is what feminism is today, and it'si why feminists are backing the above woman:
1). Everything a woman does is right, no matter what.
2). Everything a man does is either wrong or suspect, no matter what.
It all ended for me when NOw got behind Andrea Yates. That's when they became like the kind of folks who supported OJ>
September 7th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I must agree with Tony. It is as simple as statement #1 Pro-women - anything. The only sophistication I see is an ability to mask that objective. It fails when faced with the slightest interference of the evil patriarchal thing known as common sense.
September 7th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Yeah Denis you seem to have pulled this one out of your arse.
Essentially, feminism is a victim based idealogy. So when a woman wears little or no clothing in a porn flic or a strip club, she is being degraded. Yet if somebody tells her to cover up (like in Iran) she is being oppressed.
This would definately be different for a man. In fact, in Britain, nudist las do not apply to women, only men. Women can walk around naked yet when men do it it's indecent exposure.
September 7th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I agree with your points Tony. What I describe has laid the groundwork for what we have today:
Men Bad
Women Good
The Marxist Feminists are leveraging two powerful facts:
Men can be manipulated by sex.
Women can be manipulated by their need for security.
September 7th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
callum-
I've written extensively on this over the years. It's based on research and not what may be in my colon. I know the history of feminism in this country going back to the 1800's.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
The flight attendant who asked her to leave was a guy named Keith.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Feminism isn't an economic movement, and trying to give it delusions of Marxism is silly. Modern feminism is nothing but the lowest form of thought known to man, namely "group-think." It's really very simple, the ideology states the individual is special for merely being a part of a group. In the case of feminism it's just being a woman, in the case of racist groups it's being part of a certain ethnic group(s). The second aspect of group-think movements is to create solidarity among the group by attempting to cast it as being oppressed by another group(s). This is where the "man bad" and "woman good" line comes from. Much like we would always take a family members side in a dispute with strangers the point of group think is to encourage individuals to dismiss concepts like fairness or justice and replace them with a single driving notion that nothing a member of the group has done could really be bad. Hence feminists will buy into a silly abuse defense when a woman murders her husband by shooting him in the back with a shotgun in cold blood. Much the same way modern racists will attempt apologitics for Adolf Hitler based on silly "victim of circumstance" arguments.
Bottom line in this case, Southwest is a private company and are fully free to decide if someone is wearing unacceptable clothing. Just as they are free to decide that someone has consumed too much alcohol to fly. The reason you aren't going to see this happen with men is simple, fashion trends for men don't encourage the showing of excessive skin.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
They did segment this morning on the Today's show....she was of course wearing the "offending" outfit. I also live in a college town and I would say that she wasn't wearing anything more revealing then anything you see on campus constantly. So except for the upskirt the audience received when she sat down, it was fine. The funny thing, according to her, she flew back the same day on another Southwest flight and the flight attendant complimented her on the very same outfit....it sounds like someone is letting their personal judgement dictate the actions of others.
That being said, Southwest is a private entity. As far as I know, a private entity can refuse service to anyone, anytime, for any reason.
Now the feminist twist? The crap-o-meter went off the minute that Ann stepped onto the screen. If a man wore something half as revealing he would probably get his ass kicked. Ann is a crackpot and if I didn't know it before, I certainly know it now.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Denis,
Again, I think you're right. It's just that today's "feminist" spokeswomen are not so much feminists as people who think females can do no wrong.
For example, you'll notice how Ann Friedman pulled the "if it were a man" line out. BUT men get charged (and sentenced) for "indecent exposure" for urinating in front of no one in a dark alley at night. Then they get labeled as a "sex offender" and can't get jobs. The slightest hint of male genetalia will get you carted off and taken away. This woman was allowed to fly.
Heck TALKING about sex will get you fired! The mere mention of sex in the offce gets a man canned!! Think about this.
In other words, Ann is telling lies, and bending the truth. This is not what the original group of feminists did. They didn't defend any woman. The group that DID do this was a splinter group called SCUM (the society to cut up men) led by Valerie Solaranis who shot Andy Warhol. This is where the modern feminists take their cue.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
...i knew someone whose son, as a juvenile, mooned somebody. He was put on a Registered Sex Offender list...
September 7th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Yeah, if a man were to walk onto an airplane wearing a speedo, no one would make a fuss.
September 7th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
"Ann Friedman of www.Feministing.com also makes an appearance on the CNN clip, saying that people only get worked up when a woman is semi-unclothed, not a man. "
If a man was wearing a very short kilt as low where you could lock and see his 'manhood' underneath, somehow I think people would look at it differently. Here we are months later after i understand Britney, Lindsay, and Paris went out in public and were photographed 'commando' (pantyless) in public. Somehow I think if three male celebrities wearing very short kilts had gone 'commando' interms of underpants arrests would have been made immediately or soon after based on the very public photographic evidence. At a minimum, the media, feminist (?), and general public condemnation would have been more universally negative.
Its sort of like the hype about the suicide rate of an age category of female girls is up 76%. A big deal on NHPR and elsehwere. While on that station you never hear about men having ten times the suicide rate after divorce; the 63% portion of youth suicides associated with father absence in the home; or in NH, the in 1998 10 years to the month less of prospective life spans for newborn boys compared to newborn girls in my State NH. I could find no U.S. State even close, and only about seven foreign countires like Belorussia, that seemed to have compatively crappy lifespans for males as compared to females. And my State is supposedly according to a survey 'the most livable State in America for the fourth year in a row ... maybe if you have a two XX chromosomes!
Mike in NH
September 7th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Here's my question. I think less than a year ago a Muslim wearing a T-shirt sporting aribic writing with English underneath "We will not be silenced" had another customer complain about his attire and he was asked to leave the plane (same situation as what happened to this girl). Unlike this poor princess, our male friend wasn't allowed to fly at all.
It'd be curious to see if there was any feminist reactions to that case.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:48 am
This is a very silly story, and I hope the airline has the sense to say sorry.
As to the conspiracy theories about what feminism is in the comments, feminism is nothing more than the institutionalisation of what women have done to get their way since time immemorial - contrive to make us feel guilty no matter what we do.
September 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
If this story was about a man being kicked off a flight for wearing revealing clothing, perhaps it would be different, but how is this story relevant to men's rights issues?
September 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I think it is outrageous that this airline was interfering with this woman's right, as underwritten and encouraged by every family court in America, to do everything in her power to attract and ultimately trap in reproduction and/or marriage, some economically above-average or even upscale male on that flight.
Everyone knows that average incomes of males who fly are higher than those who take the bus, and certainly her chances were pretty good of being seated next to a male or two, and if not, one imagines that no such prospective male targets would have objected to her changing her seat in their direction if she so chose.
Here this poor, hardworking Hooters waitress was utilizing her well-developed and practiced professional skills to do what she could to attract male attention, and that nasty airline stole from her the opportunity to maximally exploit the circumstance of being a semi-clad young female on a passenger jet.
I say that she sues the airline for depriving her from the 20 year child support annuity which she surely could have trapped from some male on that flight if the airline had simply allowed her to procede without their malicious and tortious interference.
In settlement, Southwest Airlines should allow her to travel completely naked or wearing whatever scant attire she chooses on as many flights as it takes for her to trap a high-earning male, while requiring their own flight attendants wear burkas, so as to not draw any male attention away from this poor, self-esteem damaged young "lady".
September 8th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Perhaps Southwest Airlines should take a look at it's own archives. Here's a nice example.
http://dethroner.com/2007/04/09/morning-tonic-1973-southwest-airlines-stewardess/
Or one might want to check out the founder's statements upon creating Southwest:
"Southwest Airlines founder Herb Kelleher studied Pacific Southwest Airlines extensively and used many of the airline's ideas to form the corporate culture at Southwest, and even on early flights used the same "Long Legs And Short Nights" theme for stewardesses on board typical Southwest Airlines flights."--Wikipedia entry on Southwest Airlines.
There were stewardesses in miniskirts that were eye level with the passengers! I guess if the airline does it, it's ok. But if some "sensitive" person is "offended", heaven forbid, right comrade?
September 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
She's a pretty woman. I'll bet the complainer was a jealous, overweight woman
September 8th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
# Annie Says:
September 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
If this story was about a man being kicked off a flight for wearing revealing clothing, perhaps it would be different, but how is this story relevant to men's rights issues?
no matter what, when flying one should wear clothes that is appropriate, period, However, when was the last time a men walk on to a flight half naked are wear clothes so tight you can see out line of underwear or a g-string.
have you ever thought that the person who reported her was with a child, since so much fuss over protecting the children these day.
September 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
"I say that she sues the airline for depriving her from the 20 year child support annuity which she surely could have trapped from some male on that flight if the airline had simply allowed her to procede without their malicious and tortious interference."
Iam sure she will sue but not for that reason, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,
September 8th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
You hardly have to be an overweight ugly woman to want individuals to wear clothing that leaves a little something, at least, to the imagination. I'm sure this woman believes in her heart of hearts that every guy wants to look up her skirt. The reality is we don't.
September 8th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
If you young'uns could remember, and watched the clip closely, when SWA started out, they had hotties in hot pants as stews (er, ah, stewardesses, as we used to call them)
So did the (old) BRANIFF.
Ah, those were the days..............
The Geez, who just had a birfday, and is not yet 60 years old.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Gentlemen, this "lady" has been using her physical assets to earn a living the hard way -- as a waitress at Hooters.
She is not at all confused over the fact that her weekly wages and tips are the result of her successful monetization of those "assets".
What is wrong with her trying to achieve the moral equivalent of an IPO by landing a cash flush man?
And maybe she can't afford to fly that frequently, thus she needed to amplify her male-recruiting signal by giving all a better chance to inspect her assets?
Having flown a great deal over the years, like many on this blog, I have observed the process of women successfully "recruiting" seat-captive male travelers many, many times.
Can you think of any other situation in contemporary American life where a young woman can be reasonably assured access to multiple, temporarily captive, unsuspecting upscale males, upon whom she can work her abundant charms for a relatively long period of time-- an environment where it is easy to strike up a conversation, and hard for anyone to get out of one?
If you can think of a better place for her to hunt for Mi$ter Right, just write your ideas here, and we'll send them along to this charming young lady and her mother -- and their lawyer, of course.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
It is not true that women are the only people that have to answer to dress codes. Long before this incident happened, there was always the no biker leather rule in many bars and restaurants this pertained mostly to men. Also in many pars in the Buffalo area there is a no sleeveless t shirt dress code this again only applies to men because when I tried to enter a club I was denied but at the same time a woman in a sleeveless blouse was aloud to enter. I ask the bouncer why and he said are you complaining about the way she looks? I said no, she looks great but if it keeps me out of your club, it should also keep her out.
September 10th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Southwest is the little people airline. Based on the gate attendants judgement (i.e. not an empirical measure of size) they can and do publically humiliate people at the gate for being too big. Victims get to buy an additional ticket for their flight.
Being 6'5" and 260lbs, I'm not risking that a Southwest ticket won't be good if I catch the gate folks in a crabby mood. I haven't flown with them since.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Interesting the feminists are crying foul because it wasn't a man.
I used to watch Southwest when they had the weekly program. There were a few instances of men being denied their flight because they were not dressed appropriately, The kilt was also on a man and they made him change as the other passengers complained.
At least they have it on tape. They can use to fight back that statement.
You can bet what we saw on the TV was not the way she was dressed. She had to make it look better. Too bad Southwest doesn't have her on tape. Yes, she did deserve a lecture on her appearance to travel. Gosh, she was traveling, she was not on a date.
I guess i am too old fashioned. Young girls these days want to flaunt their bodies. I am not sure if it is because it is being done all the time on TV, magazines and the movies. They should want to be seen as a brainy person. But NO, they want to copy the media image of what is important in a girl. Such a shame.
As Flip Wilson used to say when playing Geraldine. What you see is what you get. What you don't see is what you don't get.
Lnda
September 11th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I bet the person who complained was a woman traveling with her teenage son.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:11 am
You know... I've never been to a Hooter's Restaurant. I'm not sure I want to go to one, now... I've heard the burgers are good, but if the check includes a lawsuit from an underdressed waitress, I'll be taking my business elsewhere.
As for SouthWest, I hope they gave her an inflight meal and headphones for the movie. And to the fat lady that complained, too. That would have taken care of my indignation.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
This is for Chris,
If you think you may require two seats all you have to do is call the company's toll free number and ask what the criteria is for purchasing two seats. They will give you the measurments after an extended seat belt is added, if you are too large to fit with the extention you must buy two seats. This will assure you no humiliation upon checking in for your flight. And being the Awsome airline that they are if the flight goes out with empty seats they will refund you the price of the second ticket upon request.
Other airlines also require 2 seats for oversize passengers but unlike Southwest they will NOT give you a refund if there are empty seats.
In my opinion kyla is just a slut looking for a man but I would rather sit next to her on a plane than a person who is so overweight they cannot fasten their seatbelt and the fat is flowing over into my seat leaving me with very little space to squeeze into and unable to put my arm rest down.
now unless you are willing to suck it up and lose a little of that excess weight (think of your own health if nothing else) I think you owe Southwest an apology AND I'm happy to hear you are no longer flying Southwest because I've had the horrifying experience of being squeezed in by overweight passengers on long flights, I'm claustrophobic and can barley breath when trapped in close confinment. After hearing you lamblasting Southwest over your obesity I will have the courage to ask the flight attendent (next time I'm squished) to move the offending passenger to another seat or better yet MAKE THEM BUY TWO SEATS SO THE REST OF US CAN TRAVEL IN COMFORT.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
With that comment about "people only get worked up when a woman is semi-unclothed, not a man", Ann Friedman just proved herself to be a feminazi in every sense of the word! Like we men really have the same clothing rights as, and enjoy the same fashion freedoms as, women. ONLY WOMEN enjoy the freedom to wear either men's or women's clothes, either skirts and dresses or pants. And it's only women who are allowed to show off their bodies. If we men do that, we're accused of being "gay", and that's STILL considered to be a terrible thing, or worse, get accused of being deviant sex perverts. Ann Friedman is probably the FIRST person to up in arms against men wearing miniskirts, as feminist women (hypocritically) often are. WHY CAN'T WE MEN wear miniskirts too? Why can't that be an option for us guys? Women are freely allowed to wear MEN"S clothes anytime they want, but men are and have been EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN to wear anything even remotely resembling a skirt or any women's clothing. This is a double standard that feminists over the decades have created. I once picked up a carton of Silk soy milk and on the side they had a feature about feminist pioneers in history and they featured Amelia Jenks Bloomer, who was an early feminist and is credited with creating the first pants for women, called "bloomers", after her. They started out the piece on her with the line "Can you believe that there once was a time when women couldn't wear pants?" Well, what about us men, similarly, being able to wear skirts? Why should one be accepted but the other not be?
October 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
># Mark Says:
>September 8th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
>
>You hardly have to be an overweight ugly woman to want individuals to wear clothing that
>leaves a little something, at least, to the imagination. I'm sure this woman believes in her
>heart of hearts that every guy wants to look up her skirt. The reality is we don't.
Speak for yourself, twinkle toes! :-P