SO SO Modesty: TSA agent shames 15yo

[Danielle1746]

Fair question, and I would answer no, the reaction would not be any different if the TSA agent was a woman. This isn't about men controlling women, but the control of women, by men, by women, individually and collectively, independently and as part of public policy. Oppression of a group is not justifiable ethically, morally, economically, politically, or in any number of rational, defensible ideologies and practices. In many cases, the one oppressing the woman is another woman, or even herself. It's still not justifiable morally, even if it is defended personally and sincerely.

 

I agree with your statement about oppression, but why is this a case of oppression? Simply because of his position? If he had been another passenger would it be oppression? Or just a rude person?

 

ETA: It looks like from your next paragraph that he would have just been a rude person.

 

It would be rude for a random stranger to say something about another person's dress, but being a TSA agent puts him in a position of particular authority. Airport security isn't taken lightly, and we can all recognize the probable outcome of resisting an agent's commands, regardless of how odd or inappropriate they may seem to us. I think most of us have heard about and seen photos about some unsettling accounts in relation to the recent [virtual or physical] body searches for airport security. It can be a frightening experience for anyone who feels particularly vulnerable (a state of emotion not wholly unexpected of a 15 year old teen when travelling without her family). The TSA agent, just by virtue of his position and potential power he has, made this event exceed social rudeness.

 

And I can definitely understand her being considerably upset by the situation.

 

If the person reprimanding the jumper wearer had the authority to detain the jumper wearer for hours, interrogate her in an intimidating environment, require her to disrobe and be subjected to a body search, then your analogy would be fitting, I think.

 

But other than the fact that this guy was a TSA agent, I don't think he actually did anything that would threaten any of these things. He started out mumbling his opinion to himself. And when she asked him to repeat it, he apparently got pretty sharp with her, but that was it. He didn't draw out a conversation, he didn't interrogate her, he didn't pull her to the side. He just made a sharp, insensitive remark.

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

So, if a TSA agent grumbles at a girl in a baggy tee shirt and she says "Excuse me?" she is asking for clarification, but if he grumbles at a girl in a skimpy top and she says "Excuse me?" then she's being "confrontational" and "demanding." Oh, and probably flirting. Assuming she isn't just out and out lying.

 

 

(We need an eye rolling smiley with bigger eyes. That fall out. And roll off the page.)

 

Jackie

 

No, we just need a discussion where what is said is what folks respond to.

 

Kathryn's points have been clear and careful and about wha we know or don't know about what happened rather then judgements about the girl involved.

 

Sometimes I think people start simply lumping those involved in the conversation into "sides" and read things into posts according to what side they've assigned to the author rather then truly considering the post on it's own merits.

 

[SKL]

I don't see where people get the idea that needing to cover one's boobs in public (with something you can't see through) is oppression. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Of course I would say the same about a few other things the "feminists" come up with.

[Hoot]

I don't see where people get the idea that needing to cover one's boobs in public (with something you can't see through) is oppression. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

 

This!

:lol: Why can't I "like" this post more than once?

There has been no oppression here, except what certain Hive members have assigned based on their own particular bias and interpretation of how this went down. Nothing more than an old guy who chose not to keep his opinion to himself and is now paying the price.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I don't see where people get the idea that needing to cover one's boobs in public (with something you can't see through) is oppression. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Of course I would say the same about a few other things the "feminists" come up with.

 

 

But the point we are making is, her boobs ARE covered. More than mine are right now, in fact. Based on the picture provided, you CANNOT see through her shirt! I see no nipples in that picture. I see no areolae. Why are you assuming her shirt was see-through? Why are you assigning some sort of "you indecent trollop" characterization based on a picture that shows nothing? Because some man seemed to think so somewhere, so it must be true?

[elegantlion]

Nothing more than an old guy who chose not to keep his opinion to himself and is now paying the price.

 

 

Quoting this part, but I disagree. This was not some random old guy who commented, this was a TSA agent. A large company with an already struggling reputation, a thankless job is some ways. This "old guy" should have been nameless and faceless to this young girl (save if he's wearing a nametag). It is not part of his job to mumble, shout, or voice any opinion on a passenger unless it is pursuant to his job description. I would think in this day he's been through countless hours of diversity and sensitivity training.

 

If you've ever worked for a company with an established reputation, you often don't get a right to an opinion. You leave those at the door, and if you disagree you're invited to walk right back out the door. I worked for a large insurance company for 5 years, in the underwriting department - which I'm quite certain was a certain level of Dante's Hell. The people were great, we spent most of the day on the phone with the agents reiterating company policy. My opinion about the job and underwriting policies, agents, and clients were irrelevant. We weren't supposed to receive customer calls, but every once in a while a ticked off agent would send his angry customer our way. We had two people designed to deal with customer complaints. They were the face of the company to these customers, we weren't.

 

In addition, this man's position has a certain authority, he violated that by expressing his preference on the way a customer should dress. None of his d*** business. This takes him out of the role of a TSA agent and allows his bias to shine through, something I'll bet the TSA is pretty strict about in general.

 

How about this analogy. When you go to a regular restaurant, sit down, order your food, do you expect the wait staff to comment on your choices? Maybe in fine dining you'd get suggestions, maybe at Cracker Barrel they'd ask if you want biscuits. What if they started to mumble while taking your order and finally stated. "I can't believe you're ordering fried food. Look at you, you're overweight, heck you might even be obese. I can see your muffin top, what about his beer belly. Perhaps you'd like a salad instead." No, no, no. We'd see all kinds of people disagree with that. The wait staff is like the TSA agent, they are there to get your through a process, a meal, a flight. They are not there to express their opinions, even muttered under their breath, about the attire of anyone.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

This!

:lol: Why can't I "like" this post more than once?

There has been no oppression here, except what certain Hive members have assigned based on their own particular bias and interpretation of how this went down. Nothing more than an old guy who chose not to keep his opinion to himself and is now paying the price.

 

 

Can you truly not see how you (and others) are assigning plenty yourselves, based on a photo and a man's own biased assessment of how this girl was dressed? Using your own particular bias? I can't even use a laughing smiley, because it's seriously not funny.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

And I have not seen anyone answer the question: Which private parts are showing? Several people referred to this girl showing private parts. Which ones? I don't even see actual cleavage there, and I don't see anything through the shirt. I see a scant inch of belly. I'd really like to have someone answer.

[Hoot]

 

Can you truly not see how you (and others) are assigning plenty yourselves, based on a photo and a man's own biased assessment of how this girl was dressed? Using your own particular bias? I can't even use a laughing smiley, because it's seriously not funny.

 

 

Definition of OPPRESSION

 

 

1

a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power

b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

 

Based on the given definition of oppression, I see where none has actually transpired from the given scenario. The man said what was on his mind, nothing more. He didn't call her names. He didn't unjustly detain her in the airport. Saying that a man (a TSA worker even) who states his own opinion against the dress of a young woman is oppression is a slap in the face to those people who have truly been oppressed.

[flyingiguana]

1st- This guy is at LAX. LAX. Show of hands, who thinks this outfit is skimpy by LA standards?

 

 

 

 

I dunno, given my experience with the LAX TSA people, I'll bet he thought he had a perfect right to say this. They have not been a friendly bunch the last few times I went through there.

[Kathryn]

She had no choice but to physically approach him as he was to examine her ID and ticket. :confused:

 

Have you been in an airport lately? Have you been through the ID checking procedure? :confused1:

He was obviously checking her ID — how else would he have known she was 15? She would have been standing right next to him at the kiosk where they check ID & boarding passes before letting you get in the security screening line. The agents often ask questions — where are you going, how long are you staying, is it vacation or business, etc.

If the TSA agent who was looking at my ID and boarding pass was glaring at me and mumbling, I would be worried that he felt there was a problem with my documents and I would certainly say "Excuse me?" or something similar. If he then made a nasty comment about my clothes, I would be just as stunned as she was.

If what you are picturing in your head is that she was standing somewhere else and heard him mumbling and then "approached" his kiosk and "demanded" to know what he was saying, then I think you are imagining something very different from what happened.

Jackie

 

 

Approach has more than one definition. I did not say "physically approached." I was using the second definition here:

 

Definition of APPROACH

 

transitive verb

1

a : to draw closer to : near <approach a destination>

b : to come very near to : be almost the same as <its mathematics approaches mysticism — Theodore Sturgeon> <as the quantity x approaches zero>

2

a : to make advances to especially in order to create a desired result <was approached by several Broadway producers>

b : to take preliminary steps toward accomplishment or full knowledge or experience of <approach the subject with an open mind>

[WishboneDawn]

And I have not seen anyone answer the question: Which private parts are showing? Several people referred to this girl showing private parts. Which ones? I don't even see actual cleavage there, and I don't see anything through the shirt. I see a scant inch of belly. I'd really like to have someone answer.

 

 

Who originally made the private parts comment? That comment belongs only to them, not a more general someone.

[Hoot]

I'm not saying that the guy was right in saying what he did out loud. Sure, he has a right to his opinion, but sometimes it's in your own best interest to keep it to yourself. Case in point, my (idiot) brother called his boss a c*nt a few weeks ago. Obviously, they fired him. Did he have a right to his opinion? Yes. Did he have a right to voice that out loud? YES. It is a free country. However, he also had to live with the fall-out from it. Just like this TSA agent, if they want to fire him for what he said they are perfectly within their rights to do so and he should accept that. I just think calling it anything more than it really is is making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Quoting this part, but I disagree. This was not some random old guy who commented, this was a TSA agent. A large company with an already struggling reputation, a thankless job is some ways. This "old guy" should have been nameless and faceless to this young girl (save if he's wearing a nametag). It is not part of his job to mumble, shout, or voice any opinion on a passenger unless it is pursuant to his job description. I would think in this day he's been through countless hours of diversity and sensitivity training.

 

If you've ever worked for a company with an established reputation, you often don't get a right to an opinion. You leave those at the door, and if you disagree you're invited to walk right back out the door. I worked for a large insurance company for 5 years, in the underwriting department - which I'm quite certain was a certain level of Dante's Hell. The people were great, we spent most of the day on the phone with the agents reiterating company policy. My opinion about the job and underwriting policies, agents, and clients were irrelevant. We weren't supposed to receive customer calls, but every once in a while a ticked off agent would send his angry customer our way. We had two people designed to deal with customer complaints. They were the face of the company to these customers, we weren't.

 

In addition, this man's position has a certain authority, he violated that by expressing his preference on the way a customer should dress. None of his d*** business. This takes him out of the role of a TSA agent and allows his bias to shine through, something I'll bet the TSA is pretty strict about in general.

 

How about this analogy. When you go to a regular restaurant, sit down, order your food, do you expect the wait staff to comment on your choices? Maybe in fine dining you'd get suggestions, maybe at Cracker Barrel they'd ask if you want biscuits. What if they started to mumble while taking your order and finally stated. "I can't believe you're ordering fried food. Look at you, you're overweight, heck you might even be obese. I can see your muffin top, what about his beer belly. Perhaps you'd like a salad instead." No, no, no. We'd see all kinds of people disagree with that. The wait staff is like the TSA agent, they are there to get your through a process, a meal, a flight. They are not there to express their opinions, even muttered under their breath, about the attire of anyone.

 

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

Quoting this part, but I disagree. This was not some random old guy who commented, this was a TSA agent. A large company with an already struggling reputation, a thankless job is some ways. This "old guy" should have been nameless and faceless to this young girl (save if he's wearing a nametag). It is not part of his job to mumble, shout, or voice any opinion on a passenger unless it is pursuant to his job description. I would think in this day he's been through countless hours of diversity and sensitivity training.

 

If you've ever worked for a company with an established reputation, you often don't get a right to an opinion. You leave those at the door, and if you disagree you're invited to walk right back out the door. I worked for a large insurance company for 5 years, in the underwriting department - which I'm quite certain was a certain level of Dante's Hell. The people were great, we spent most of the day on the phone with the agents reiterating company policy. My opinion about the job and underwriting policies, agents, and clients were irrelevant. We weren't supposed to receive customer calls, but every once in a while a ticked off agent would send his angry customer our way. We had two people designed to deal with customer complaints. They were the face of the company to these customers, we weren't.

 

In addition, this man's position has a certain authority, he violated that by expressing his preference on the way a customer should dress. None of his d*** business. This takes him out of the role of a TSA agent and allows his bias to shine through, something I'll bet the TSA is pretty strict about in general.

 

How about this analogy. When you go to a regular restaurant, sit down, order your food, do you expect the wait staff to comment on your choices? Maybe in fine dining you'd get suggestions, maybe at Cracker Barrel they'd ask if you want biscuits. What if they started to mumble while taking your order and finally stated. "I can't believe you're ordering fried food. Look at you, you're overweight, heck you might even be obese. I can see your muffin top, what about his beer belly. Perhaps you'd like a salad instead." No, no, no. We'd see all kinds of people disagree with that. The wait staff is like the TSA agent, they are there to get your through a process, a meal, a flight. They are not there to express their opinions, even muttered under their breath, about the attire of anyone.

 

 

I'm not sure anyone has said he had a right to make the comment he did. Some of us are simply saying some of the reasons given for why he made the comment are over the top. Pervert? Power tripping? He could have easily been a tired guy having a bad day who made a stupid mistake.

 

Two humans has a crummy interaction because one exercised bad judgement. That much we know and not a lot more. Those who point that out are not saying what he did was justified.

[Hoot]

But the point we are making is, her boobs ARE covered. More than mine are right now, in fact. Based on the picture provided, you CANNOT see through her shirt! I see no nipples in that picture. I see no areolae. Why are you assuming her shirt was see-through? Why are you assigning some sort of "you indecent trollop" characterization based on a picture that shows nothing? Because some man seemed to think so somewhere, so it must be true?

 

 

And I have not seen anyone answer the question: Which private parts are showing? Several people referred to this girl showing private parts. Which ones? I don't even see actual cleavage there, and I don't see anything through the shirt. I see a scant inch of belly. I'd really like to have someone answer.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying that just because this man said it that it must be true. But likewise, I think it's important that we not just assume that because the girl said it and appeared a certain way that what SHE is portraying must be 100% true either. The street goes both ways. First, it is a tiny picture and it is impossible to know how she looked in person. Perhaps you could see right through her shirt up close. Perhaps the leggings were a bit more sheer than they appear in the picture. Perhaps the cami was pulled up to reveal more of her stomach. Perhaps she leaned over in front of him exposing her breasts. Based on the picture, my opinion is, "I wouldn't let a daughter of mine out of the house looking like that, but meh, it's not terrible by most current standards." The point is, we don't know if there was some reason why he specifically said something to THIS girl who APPEARS to look like any other teen. None of this changes the fact that keeping his opinion to himself would have been the better option.

[nmoira]

Definition of OPPRESSION

 

1

a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power

b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

 

Based on the given definition of oppression, I see where none has actually transpired from the given scenario. The man said what was on his mind, nothing more. He didn't call her names. He didn't unjustly detain her in the airport. Saying that a man (a TSA worker even) who states his own opinion against the dress of a young woman is oppression is a slap in the face to those people who have truly been oppressed.

 

 

We're talking about a lingering, larger cultural oppression of girls and women, of which his actions are a part. I believe it was a post of yours earlier that illustrated this by suggesting that is was not inappropriate for him to act in seeking to protect her, from what I'm not sure. What danger was present? I don't agree that he had any right to seek to exert control or influence, especially through shaming and I think this type of behavior needs to be called out. Please note that the man in question has been allowed to remain anonymous (except in the complaint taken to his superiors). He has not been publicly shamed.

 

Cultures and subcultures that exert control over women's appearance generally don't stop there. That our larger cultural focus on appearance is directed almost exclusively and without respite at women and girls is telling (compare the coverage of (Hilary) Clinton's and Palin's clothing choices to that of Obama and McCain).

[Hoot]

We're talking about a lingering, larger cultural oppression of girls and women, of which his actions are a part. I believe it was a post of yours earlier that illustrated this by suggesting that is was not inappropriate for him to act in seeking to protect her, from what I'm not sure. What danger was present? I don't agree that he had any right to seek to exert control or influence, especially through shaming and I think this type of behavior needs to be called out. Please note that the man in question has been allowed to remain anonymous (except in the complaint taken to his superiors). He has not been publicly shamed.

 

Cultures and subcultures that exert control over women's appearance generally don't stop there. That our larger cultural focus on appearance is directed almost exclusively and without respite at women and girls is telling (compare the coverage of (Hilary) Clinton's and Palin's clothing choices to that of Obama and McCain).

 

 

Hmm I don't think it is my post to which you are referring. I don't recall making that comment.

 

As for the man remaining anonymous while the girl has been outed publicly... umm... that was her father's doing, not the man. The man initially spoke quietly enough that not even the girl herself could hear him.

[SKL]

And I have not seen anyone answer the question: Which private parts are showing? Several people referred to this girl showing private parts. Which ones? I don't even see actual cleavage there, and I don't see anything through the shirt. I see a scant inch of belly. I'd really like to have someone answer.

 

Maybe my computer screen is the awesomest around, but I can see her boob through her shirt. And that is not a great photo. Pretty sure the G-man who had to look her up and down in person, without the jacket, saw more.

[SKL]

Cultures and subcultures that exert control over women's appearance generally don't stop there. That our larger cultural focus on appearance is directed almost exclusively and without respite at women and girls is telling (compare the coverage of (Hilary) Clinton's and Palin's clothing choices to that of Obama and McCain).

 

First of all, our culture exerts control over everyone's appearance, not just women's. The rules are different but there are rules and I'm surprised someone would argue otherwise. Secondly, to the extent women's appearance is picked apart (such as the example you gave), it's women doing the picking, and usually "small" women picking on more powerful ones. So I'm not sure how that qualifies as oppression. Is it oppression when the poor make nasty comments about rich people's digs?

[Corraleno]

Maybe my computer screen is the awesomest around, but I can see her boob through her shirt. And that is not a great photo. Pretty sure the G-man who had to look her up and down in person, without the jacket, saw more.

 

 

I can see nothing other than the fact that she has boobs. And I agree with a PP that it looks to me like she probably is wearing some kind of bra, even if it's just a shelf bra as part of the cami. Are you saying that on your computer screen you can actually see her nipples and areola through her shirt??? :confused1:

 

And what makes you think she wasn't wearing the flannel shirt when she had her ID checked? The ID check is separate from the scanners — those two areas can be pretty far apart, actually.

 

Jackie

[catz]

Maybe my computer screen is the awesomest around, but I can see her boob through her shirt. And that is not a great photo. Pretty sure the G-man who had to look her up and down in person, without the jacket, saw more.

 

 

Here is a blown up picture. I'm not seeing it. I have a large, high resolution monitor. To me it looks like she has a bra on (minimally a shelf bra).

 

http://scallywagandv...g-too-skimpily/

 

I haven't posted on this thread, but regardless of boobage or not, a TSA worker in an international airport has absolutely no business telling a teenager how she should dress assuming what she has on is legal. We can talk to the hills about how her boobs are or are not showing or what the TSA officers intentions were (pervert vs. father figure). But he absolutely crossed a line. Elegantlion is spot on. In an international airport, you are going to see everything from a full on Burqa to those right off the beaches from many cultures. The first thing the TSA agent should know about is tolerance.

 

If this was the girl's teacher, principal, trusted family friend, uncle, minister, etc. this would not be news. The guy absolutely crossed a line. I would not want my daughter given value judgments by a TSA agent or any other perfect stranger. The fact that he's a public employee is even worse.

[FaithManor]

I'm not saying that the guy was right in saying what he did out loud. Sure, he has a right to his opinion, but sometimes it's in your own best interest to keep it to yourself. Case in point, my (idiot) brother called his boss a c*nt a few weeks ago. Obviously, they fired him. Did he have a right to his opinion? Yes. Did he have a right to voice that out loud? YES. It is a free country. However, he also had to live with the fall-out from it.

 

 

I think that you are spot on in this regard. Many people confuse their "freedom of speech" with "escape from consequences". Freedom of speech, as a guaranteed constitutional right, is the ability to speak out against the government without fear of government reprisal. It doesn't mean, in the private sector, that your opinion doesn't have consequences. But, a significant number of individuals in our culture seem to equate the ability to say whatever they think to a "right" to escape all backlash for voicing that outloud and specifically, in situations where it is inappropriate to do so.

 

I have a nephew who was also fired from his job because he called the boss an "f-ing a-hole". Was the boss acting like one? In that particular circumstance, the boss was being a jerk. However, the boss is paying the wages, and it's his business. Being a jerk is not against the labor laws of the land so nephew had no ground to stand on. Go home and say what you want about the boss...vent, get it out of your system. But, if you want to continue to work for the guy, then you'll have to keep your opinions to yourself. I said something like this to nephew. His opinion was "This is America. I can say what I want to anyone I want and they shouldn't be able to do anything about it." Nope, sorry nephew, that is just not how the real world works even one with a constitution that guarantees certain freedoms. Freedom to malign the boss at will and in front of other employees is NOT one of those Bill of Rights guarantees. Tough lesson, I hope he learned it.

 

Whatever happens, Mr. TSA will learn that keeping his opinion to himself is wise while on the job.

 

I do still stand by my assertion that because he is TSA, wears the uniform, has authority over the passengers, he should be held to a higher standard of conduct and especially when working with minors. He needs some "customer service" re-education.

 

In the greater context that somehow this discussion became all about her choice of clothing, I'm still a little flummoxed. (SP?) We seriously have a problem in this country with the bossing around of women and girls that does not exist for men and a general idea that men don't have to respect women or girls if they dress in a way that they personally find offensive. I'm kind of flabbergasted that so many people demonized the girl and stood up for the agent. To be honest, it makes me want to tell dd to be sure to leave the country and go somewhere more equitable toward women before choosing to have babies with hubby because in 2013 it's still "women are responsible for men's sin", and it's the patriarichial system that as over s*xualized women and specifically the parts of their bodies that are literally meant to be nature's baby bottles and NOT s8x parts. Very disturbing when you think about it!

 

 

As for dangerous, crime statistics do not bear out the idea that dressing conservatively is protection. That's bunk. S*x crimes occur not because the perp is looking for a s*xy gal, but because he is looking to dominate, terrorize, and injure if not kill someone because he gets off on the adrenalin rush from having that kind of power over another human being. Perps pick their victims for psychological reasons - ease of target, and many times, a vibe that they think means the victim won't fight back, will freeze up, or will be easily overcome if he/she does fight back. They many times go after those that do not give off a confident demeanor, do not appear assertive, keep their heads down, eyes low, seem unaware of the people around them, are alone, etc. Easy target. That's the deal. Women have been raped wearing burkas, nun's habits, choir robes, you name it. Clothing choice has absolutely not.one.blessed.thing. to do with it. You can be dominated and terrorized wearing ANYTHING. However, the excuse "she was asking for it because she dressed like X" is so oft employed that we as a nation should be completely ashamed when that gets trotted out. I'm absolutely shocked at how many women actually believe this and are willing to say it about a victim - not saying anyone on the board would even think that, but it is telling that the bulk of this thread has been a back and forth about what she was wearing and how to categorize it and whether or not "fatherly" men should boss her around about it. It makes me think that deep down, too many women still buy into the concept that when a s*x crime occurs, except for when it is very small children, the woman is to blame because she didn't wear whatever version of "modest" that the hearer thinks she should have worn.

 

You can't make the case that any teen girl is "safer" because she "covers up". If you want her to be safe, talk about not going places alone, about giving off a confident "I'd twist your nuts into a pretzel" vibe, being ultra aware of her surroundings, about knowing what to do if her instincts tell her something isn't right, etc. Forget what she's wearing...that's got nothing to do with it. Ask my cousin who was wearing walking shorts, short sleeve shirt, tennis shoes, and covered in a full length, long sleeve choir robe when she was raped. She didn't need "modest clothing"; she needed a weapon or some serious self-defense training!

 

Faith

[Cricket]

 

 

We're talking about a lingering, larger cultural oppression of girls and women, of which his actions are a part. I believe it was a post of yours earlier that illustrated this by suggesting that is was not inappropriate for him to act in seeking to protect her, from what I'm not sure. What danger was present? I don't agree that he had any right to seek to exert control or influence, especially through shaming and I think this type of behavior needs to be called out. Please note that the man in question has been allowed to remain anonymous (except in the complaint taken to his superiors). He has not been publicly shamed.

 

Cultures and subcultures that exert control over women's appearance generally don't stop there. That our larger cultural focus on appearance is directed almost exclusively and without respite at women and girls is telling (compare the coverage of (Hilary) Clinton's and Palin's clothing choices to that of Obama and McCain).

 

I agree the agent shouldn't have said anything. He probably agrees himself given the fact that he was muttering under his breath and didn't say it aloud at first. For all we know he may have kicked himself afterwards. I simply don't buy the argument that his actions are part of some larger cultural oppression of women. He had an opinion and expressed it. End of story. Just because someone has an opinion (and even dares to voice it!) about the appropriateness of something does not automatically equal oppression and control. True oppression would be if he had the legal right to demand that she change her clothing or to subject her to some sort of penalty. That kind of thinking doesn't come from someone having an opinion on clothing. That comes from people who believe it is their right to legally force others to conform to their opinion through power. Clothing is just a side issue, not the catalyst for dictatorship as that article seems to imply. No one here has any idea what the motivation was behind the comment. To publicly shame the TSA agent would achieve what? He has hardly committed a crime. He was rude. This girl wasn't publicly shamed. He wasn't announcing it over the loud speaker. He muttered and then said it loud enough for her to hear. And then it was over.

 

If this had been my daughter, I would have blown it off as a guy having a bad day and told my daughter that it was a good example of not being able to please everyone so who cares what they think.

 

As far as comparing clothing of female politicians, I've never once heard any guy apart from a TV talking head discussing that. It's always been other women.

 

And until we allow everyone to walk around stark naked whenever they want, society will always exert some control over women's (and men's) appearance.

[Corraleno]

Here is a blown up picture. I'm not seeing it. I have a large, high resolution monitor. To me it looks like she has a bra on (minimally a shelf bra).

 

http://scallywagandv...g-too-skimpily/

 

 

Anyone who thinks they can see "through" that shirt has a very vivid imagination!

 

Jackie

[Kathryn]

My choice of words keeps getting scrutinized. Let's take a sample of the father's word choices from his blog post about the incident.

 

humiliated

shamed

verbally abused

hostile

abusive

shamed

creepy

humiliate

sick

 

And from his copying of his Babes in Toyland friend (whose blog he conveniently linked so you can buy her products to help you stand up to oppression):

 

inappropriate

harassing

aggressive

creepy

unprofessional

Taliban-y

dangerous

oppression

rape culture

 

From the girls' own description of what happened, the only words on those lists that fit the situation are inappropriate, unprofessional, and hostile. If we're going to engage in some sort of "loaded words" contest, I think these two are the clear winners.

[Firefly]

The sentiment from some in this thread that she deserved what happened based on what she was wearing (not to mention the frequency of wifely submission threads on this board) indicates that women are buying into this and are indeed part of the problem.

[nmoira]

Hmm I don't think it is my post to which you are referring. I don't recall making that comment.

 

I'm sorry. It was this post I was thinking of:

 

OK, but since we live in a society that sexualizes women that way, how is he making it worse by thinking she should be covered up so that she is not looked at the same way men look at the VS poster? He wasn't ogling her. He was trying to keep her from being ogled. That's not to take the blame away from men who can't control themselves but to protect her from men who won't. Just like you lock the doors on your car/your house to protect your stuff. It sucks that there are people out there who make it necessary, and it's completely their fault if they decide to steal your stuff, but you still do what you can to protect yourself. And different people need different levels of protection to be comfortable (locking the doorknob, locking the deadbolt, using an alarm system, etc.).

 

contessa20:

As for the man remaining anonymous while the girl has been outed publicly... umm... that was her father's doing, not the man. The man initially spoke quietly enough that not even the girl herself could hear him.

 

While glaring at her.

[SKL]

Here is a blown up picture. I'm not seeing it. I have a large, high resolution monitor. To me it looks like she has a bra on (minimally a shelf bra).

 

http://scallywagandv...g-too-skimpily/

 

 

The photo you linked is different and has lower clarity than the one in the OP of this thread. Yes, I can see through that shirt and so could anyone who was standing near her. ... I never said the G-man should have voiced his opinion to the girl. I said she should have been covering her goods better, regardless of what anyone said or didn't say. I'm saying that the fact that people think she should cover up her boobs is not some kind of anti-girl conspiracy. The idea that "cover your boobs" today is going to lead to "cover your face and keep your mouth shut and stay in the compound behind high walls" tomorrow is ridiculous. The idea that an older guy telling a 15yo she should be covering means he wants to rape her, or would approve of anyone else raping her, is beyond ridiculous. The fact that I think the girl's shirt was too revealing means I think rape is justifiable is extremely offensive.

[nmoira]

Maybe my computer screen is the awesomest around, but I can see her boob through her shirt. And that is not a great photo. Pretty sure the G-man who had to look her up and down in person, without the jacket, saw more.

 

I don't see any nipple, but so what if he did? [Though I'm not sure it's the job of an ID checker to "look her up and down."]

[FaithManor]

I do think there would be value in a conversation about "first impressions that count".

 

While I am no fan of modesty police dictating wardrobe choices, we do have to teach our kids how to function within the confines of the quirks of the society in which they live. There are some cultural expectations whether we like them or not.

 

Case - a 20 something individual came for an interview at my dad's place of business a few years back. He looked like he'd just rolled out of bed. Hair oily and gobbed up, t-shirt stained badly, jeans with rips in the knees and rear end, and he may not have even brushed his teeth, slouched in the chair, grunted often, one word answers, his whole demeanor was pretty sad. He did not get the job though he was the more qualified candidate out of all that applied. Dad mentioned that he had a dress code for customer service positions, and the guy went balistic. He had a basic "F-you" kind of attitude about a code that said jeans without rips, tears, stains, or fraying cuffs with a belt, and shirt with a collar or khakis with said shirt - polos work well. Same for women. It's a functional uniform for the business since one might have to get up and down off a ladder fetching chimney pieces from a high shelf and what not. But, it still looks good.

 

Meeting the professor in his office to discuss grades, going before a judge or a magistrate, whether we like it or not, due to the failings of human nature, we do get judged to a certain degree by our appearance. We shouldn't abide by people being bossed around on their private time, but by the same token many young people need a lesson in "playing the game" and "the employer paying the wages has a vested interest in the fact that you represent his business" because more and more youth do not seem to understand this.

 

Totally off topic, so another thread might make for a good discussion.

 

Even more totally off topic, flying is just becoming a circus of difficulties and mini-insanities. We can't do anything about the need internationally, but maybe we should be building more trains. I've never had the slightest angst of any kind while traveling on Amtrak from Durand MI, to Chicago, or NYC to D.C and think the conductors are great! Bullet trains, we need a bunch of them!!!!

 

Faith

[nmoira]

The idea that an older guy telling a 15yo she should be covering means he wants to rap her, or would approve of anyone else raping her, is beyond ridiculous. The fact that I think the girl's shirt was too revealing means I think rape is justifiable is extremely offensive.

 

No one has made this ridiculous assertion. "Rape culture" does not mean that huge swaths of the population out and out support rape.

[SKL]

 

I don't see any nipple, but so what if he did? [Though I'm not sure it's the job of an ID checker to "look her up and down."]

Are you kidding? Of course they are supposed to look everyone up and down.

[Corraleno]

While glaring at her.

 

Yeah — mumbling and glaring at her while inspecting documents that needed his approval in order for her to board her plane.

 

That's not intimidating?

 

Jackie

[nmoira]

Are you kidding? Of course they are supposed to look everyone up and down.

 

No. I'm not. When was the last time you were asked to remove outerwear when having your ID checked at the airport? That comes after.

[SKL]

 

No. I'm not. When was the last time you were asked to remove outerwear when having your ID checked at the airport? That comes after.

Most people try to be as ready as possible before beginning the security process, so they can get through it as fast as possible. Also, some airports tell folks to be ready before they reach the ID check, so as not to slow the line down. And sometimes they check ID again at some point in the security line.

[Kathryn]

I'm kind of flabbergasted that so many people demonized the girl and stood up for the agent.

 

I don't see either one of those things happening. I've seen (and made) speculation that she may have not been wearing the flannel, because the story makes more sense like that. NOT that it makes it okay for him to have said anything no matter what she was wearing. And I haven't really seen anyone standing up for him regarding him saying something about her clothes in the first place. I think everyone agrees that as a TSA agent, he should not have done so. My argument, and apparently others', is that it is inflammatory and unfounded to use the kind of language being used to describe the agent and his actions.

[SKL]

 

Yeah — mumbling and glaring at her while inspecting documents that needed his approval in order for her to board her plane.

 

That's not intimidating?

 

Jackie

Yeah, that meant she couldn't say "F YOU" to him and had to settle for filing a complaint. I doubt she thought he'd keep her off the plane over this, given that she had a shirt to put on over the underwear.

[Cricket]

Here's how the conversation should have gone:

 

TSA guy: (muttering)

 

Girl: Excuse me?

 

TSA guy: You're only 15, cover yourself!

 

Girl: I am only resolved to act in that manner, which will, in my own opinion, constitute my happiness, without reference to you, or to any person so wholly unconnected with me.

 

And then it would have been over. :-)

 

[nmoira]

Most people try to be as ready as possible before beginning the security process, so they can get through it as fast as possible. Also, some airports tell folks to be ready before they reach the ID check, so as not to slow the line down. And sometimes they check ID again at some point in the security line.

 

Juggling any combination of removed coats/jackets, shoes, belts off, etc., in addition to purse/bag/carryon, ID and boarding pass at the initial ID check is just not something I see people do (unless it's warm enough to have the jacket off anyway). I'll allow that it could be different at the airports you frequent, but I have never seen this. And I've never had an ID checker ask me to remove a coat or jacket.

[SKL]

For clarity, this is the quote I was taking issue with: "Absolutely inappropriate, harassing, aggressive, creepy, unprofessional, and Taliban-y thing that he did. "Cover up" is a dangerous cultural attitude that fuels more than rude comments. It's the foundation of the oppression of women, rape culture ("she was asking for it"), and the drive for reproductive control of women's bodies."

[SKL]

Juggling any combination of removed coats/jackets, shoes, belts off, etc., in addition to purse/bag/carryon, ID and boarding pass at the initial ID check is just not something I see people do (unless it's warm enough to have the jacket off anyway). I'll allow that it could be different at the airports you frequent, but I have never seen this. And I've never had an ID checker ask me to remove a coat or jacket.

It did not say the ID checker told her to remove anything. It seems to me the opposite occurred. It seems reasonable to assume that if her clothes were on and he told her to take them off, he would not then yell at her to put them back on. Unless he was a senile kook, which is quite possible, given his foolishness in opening his trap. (Then again, we only have her side, what if he was actually saying "you're only 15, you by yourself?") ... That said, yes, I've been asked to be ready with my laptop out etc etc before the ID station, even though yes, this can be very awkward. Airport travel sucks for a reason.

[albeto]

This quote is in response to Danielle 1746's post.

 

 

I agree with your statement about oppression, but why is this a case of oppression?

 

In my opinion, the oppression in this event is minimal; it's implied but not forcefully so. What makes it worthy of continued discussion (and let's keep it real here, that's all this is, the TSA agent isn't being strung up to a tree, he's not being castrated, he's not being burned in effigy, we're just talking in general terms about the implications of these kinds of behaviors) is that it illustrates a greater trend of oppression against women. This greater trend includes things like blaming the victim of rape. We can see elements of this blame in this very thread with regard to explaining how she would have born responsibility should anything have happened to her. It's the kind of ideology that rationalizes bullying people that is important to expose. The hypocrisy is important to expose. The dangers inherent in patriarchal ideology is important to expose. This event, in and of itself, is rather unremarkable. If the father hadn't publicized the event, we wouldn't be discussing yet another example of domination of women in public. If the father hadn't published the photo to explain the event, there likely wouldn't be such outrage.

 

But other than the fact that this guy was a TSA agent, I don't think he actually did anything that would threaten any of these things. He started out mumbling his opinion to himself. And when she asked him to repeat it, he apparently got pretty sharp with her, but that was it. He didn't draw out a conversation, he didn't interrogate her, he didn't pull her to the side. He just made a sharp, insensitive remark.

 

How this conversation went down we'll likely never know. It does appear that his mumbling was meant to be quiet and reflect a personal, rather than professional opinion. That he mumbled is poor professionalism, but that he was wearing the badge of the TSA means that he actually did, by virtue of his power, threaten any and all of these things. You can't really take it out of context because it's the variable that sets this event apart from the countless other examples of misogyny.

[Corraleno]

Are you kidding? Of course they are supposed to look everyone up and down.

 

The ID checks are done by a TSA agent standing behind a little desk (like a lectern). They look at your ID and at your face to make sure they match. They often ask a few questions about where you're going. I have never ever had a TSA agent who checked my ID "look me up and down." That's not his job. His job is to make sure that the name on the boarding pass matches the name on the ID and the photo on the ID matches the face in front of him. That's all.

 

The ID check station is NOT the same as the scanning station. In every airport I've been in lately, these stations are actually pretty far apart, just because of how long the lines are to get through the scanners. No one takes off their belt, shoes, jacket, empties their pockets, etc., while waiting in the ID check line. That would be really inconvenient and pointless, because then you'd be standing there trying to hold all that stuff for a LONG time while you snake through the scanner line.

 

 

The photo you linked is different and has lower clarity than the one in the OP of this thread. Yes, I can see through that shirt and so could anyone who was standing near her.

 

I have an extremely high-spec, high-res monitor used by graphic designers for detailed publications work, and if you think you can see this girl's nipples in that photo, you either need new glasses or you have a VERY active imagination.

 

Jackie

[SKL]

 

This greater trend includes things like blaming the victim of rape. We can see elements of this blame in this very thread with regard to explaining how she would have born responsibility should anything have happened to her.

 

... countless other examples of misogyny.

This is crazy talk. It is not misogyny to not want to see high school girls running around half naked in public places. And nobody here has come anywhere close to rape victim blaming.

[FaithManor]

Airport travel sucks for a reason.

 

And I can TOTALLY agree with that!

 

I'm not looking foward to this whole process when we go to Iceland with P. However, he has wanted to go very badly for quite a long time now and we promised him if he saved $1000.00 we would pay the rest. He worked his tail off last summer doing farm sitting in the area, mucked out a LOT of stalls, and he has $1000.00 + saved. So, passports in September, Iceland in early June 2014 (couldn't go this summer because of dad's health problems and dd's wedding.) I may need rum, chocolate, and some sedatives just to make it through security. I'm so darn tired of the whole circus.

 

Faith

[Corraleno]

This is crazy talk. It is not misogyny to not want to see high school girls running around half naked in public places.

The real "crazy talk" is referring to a girl who is almost completely covered up, except for her upper chest and 1" of belly, as "half naked."

 

Jackie

[SKL]

The ID checks are done by a TSA agent standing behind a little desk (like a lectern). They look at your ID and at your face to make sure they match. They often ask a few questions about where you're going. I have never ever had a TSA agent who checked my ID "look me up and down." That's not his job. His job is to make sure that the name on the boarding pass matches the name on the ID and the photo on the ID matches the face in front of him. That's all.

 

The ID check station is NOT the same as the scanning station. In every airport I've been in lately, these stations are actually pretty far apart, just because of how long the lines are to get through the scanners. No one takes off their belt, shoes, jacket, empties their pockets, etc., while waiting in the ID check line. That would be really inconvenient and pointless, because then you'd be standing there trying to hold all that stuff for a LONG time while you snake through the scanner line.

 

Regardless of what they do at your airport / as far as you have noticed, I guarantee that they receive training to notice stuff and that includes looking at the whole person. Besides, are we now trying to say it was wrong for the TSA dude to let his eyes travel beyond her chin? Let's get real. As for the getting ready, regardless of what you have seen, people do this. In fact, some of the commenters above have suggested this girl dressed this way specifically in preparation for the security line (less bulk => less likely to get a pat-down). In other words, some people start getting ready for the security line when they wake up in the morning. I have traveled a lot, so I'm used to thinking way ahead when it comes to the security line; anything I can do in advance, I do. As do many others. When I'm in a security line and see people just starting to get ready, I think, "these people must not have been on a plane in a long time."

[nmoira]

Here's how the conversation should have gone:

 

TSA guy: (muttering)

 

Girl: Excuse me?

 

TSA guy: You're only 15, cover yourself!

 

Girl: I am only resolved to act in that manner, which will, in my own opinion, constitute my happiness, without reference to you, or to any person so wholly unconnected with me.

 

And then it would have been over. :-)

 

While it would be nice if all young women, even teens, were so self assured, that simply isn't the world we live in. It's *not* a character flaw on the part of the girl that she felt uncomfortable in the situation, and I'm not on board with the idea that she should simply have said nothing and moved on. Women have been saying "nothing" about all manner of things, from gropings to domestic abuse to date rape for ages. If we don't push back, even in relatively minor cases, IMHO we encourage the silence. This is not the way it should be.

[SKL]

Well if you guys think she was dressed so conservatively and nothing was showing through the shirt, WHY would this guy pick on her of all people? Surely in a long day he has seen a lot more skin than that. Or did he say "cover up" to everyone not in a burqa? Something must have been different about this girl, or he didn't actually say that, or he needs a psych eval.

[8circles]

Regardless of what they do at your airport / as far as you have noticed, I guarantee that they receive training to notice stuff and that includes looking at the whole person. Besides, are we now trying to say it was wrong for the TSA dude to let his eyes travel beyond her chin? Let's get real. As for the getting ready, regardless of what you have seen, people do this. In fact, some of the commenters above have suggested this girl dressed this way specifically in preparation for the security line (less bulk => less likely to get a pat-down). In other words, some people start getting ready for the security line when they wake up in the morning. I have traveled a lot, so I'm used to thinking way ahead when it comes to the security line; anything I can do in advance, I do. As do many others. When I'm in a security line and see people just starting to get ready, I think, "these people must not have been on a plane in a long time."

 

Honestly, I just couldn't disagree more. I've travelled frequently my whole life, domestic & international, with children & without, often through LAX. I've even spent many years traveling weekly for work. I have never, ever seen anyone begin to either remove clothing or rearrange items before having passed by the ID checkpoint. Never. Maybe it has happened in your presence. But it's hardly universal or likely.