|
September 10, 2007
Someone Tell
Southwest Airlines that Choice is the Essence of Feminism
The feminist
blogosphere was buzzing this weekend with the story of
23-year-old Kyla Ebbert, a Southwest Airlines passenger whom a steward
pulled aside and reprimanded for her choice of clothing that day – which
included an upper-thigh-length skirt and a tank top covered by a light
cardigan.
Ebbert boarded a
flight in San Diego en route to sweltering Tucson for a doctor’s
appointment, and – because she would be there only a few hours – carried
no luggage. When a Southwest employee named Keith brought her to the
front of the plane and told her to change, she informed him that she had
nothing to change into. He then asked her to book a later flight and go
home to put on a different outfit. When she refused because of her
appointment, Keith let Ebbert reboard the plane, but not before she
pulled down her skirt, pulled up her top and listened to a lecture about
appropriate dress. Ebbert says she was mortified because the entire
plane had heard the lecture, and requested a blanket to cover her legs
for the flight.
Truth be told,
Ebbert’s outfit was not obscene. In fact, it was fairly standard summer
attire for young women who are comfortable with showing a little skin.
When she asked Southwest Airlines for an apology, she did not receive
one. Instead, Southwest wrote a letter to Kyla’s mother, downplaying the
situation: “Southwest Airlines was responding to a concern about Ms.
Ebbert’s revealing attire on the flight that day. As a compromise, we
asked her to adjust her clothing to be less revealing, she complied, and
she traveled as scheduled,” it said.
On one feminist
website, Feministing.com, whose bloggers weighed in on the story, some
commentators argued that feminists should be concerned not with the way
Ebbert was treated, but with how she was dressed in the first place.
Feminists struggle to eliminate the woman-as-sex-object standard that
has infiltrated most aspects of popular media, and women like Ebbert
don’t exactly help that cause, they argue. One poster commented: “Are we
really arguing that objectification is okay, so long as the woman does
it to herself?”
News outlets were
sure to make it known that Ebbert is a Hooters waitress, which further
fueled the debate. Because Ebbert makes a living working at an
establishment infamous for its wings, beer and hot women in spandex
triple play, perhaps she had no right to get upset when she was called
out for her attire. Feminism, however, is all about the choice.
When the choice to
show a bit of skin or keep covered up, to work outside the home or
within it, becomes a reason to ridicule a woman, it becomes a feminist
issue. When a woman is called “money-hungry” for pursuing a career, or
“slutty” for wearing a short skirt on a hot day, or a “prude” for
wearing a long skirt on a cold one, those are feminist issues.
In the 1970s,
Southwest ran a series of ads focused on the mini-shorts their
stewardesses were required to wear. “Remember
what it was like before Southwest Airlines? You didn't have hostesses in
hot pants. Remember?” they asked. The hypocrisy of this
“family airline” is dumbfounding.
In 30 years, short
hemlines have gone from a marketing tool for Southwest Airlines to a
reason to prohibit a woman from boarding one of their flights. While
eliminating the hot pants was a step in the right direction, chastising
a woman for her clothing is not progress.
Ebbert’s situation
and Southwest’s hot pants history sends a contradictory message that
women should be sexy but not overtly so, lest they be punished. A woman
must always examine her outfit on a “sluttiness” scale before leaving
the house, lest she be kicked off a plane or bus (as one woman was
earlier this summer because the driver said her cleavage was
distracting), leered at by men or, even worse, raped – all of which
would be her fault, of course, if her outfit “crossed the line.”
Wendy Shallit and
Laura Sessions Stepp are the leaders of a movement that argues for “a
return to modesty” for women, for lassoing female sexuality as a means
of gaining power. They consider their endeavor to be a feminist one.
However, guilt and shame have no place in liberation. The only true
liberation is a liberation that celebrates choice.
© 2007 North Star Writers
Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column # JV021.
Request permission to publish here.
|