GUWonder

Most everyone is a self-appointed officious busybody when their intense interests are hit. This thread and the attacks upon (or defenses of) Watts are a sign of that too.

I can guarantee you that her opinion on Twitter gets more attention than many others, myself included. Not all opinions are equal. I won't gamble on reading her mind, so who knows what she thinks. I know what she wrote, and I'm fine with the idea that UA shouldn't be immune from being criticized for policing young kids' clothing when the clothing would even be considered classroom appropriate.

halls120

The real question, of course, it why Ms. Watts felt that UA's company policy was an "intense interest" requiring her to butt in on a matter that doesn't affect her.

Gee, maybe she's just looking for another 15 minutes of fame, eh?

zombietooth

Most of the attacks that I read on here were that she was a liar, and falsely characterized the situation for personal gain-Seems fair to me.

Since I have happily never been on Twitter or Fakebook etc., her attention-seeking doesn't affect me in the slightest. I am just upset about the proliferation of Fake News by the major media reporting on this subject. I am happy to see at least one major media outlet changed their story to reflect the blogger's questionable motives, perhaps more will investigate her.

GUWonder

That question and it's answer doesn't change anything about the fact that most everyone is a self-appointed officious busybody when their intense interests are hit. This thread and the attacks upon (or defenses of) Watts are a sign of that too, whether or not there's a "looking for another 15 minutes of fame" desire.

I see nothing wrong with being critical of a supplier's policies over its attire rules for employees, for employee's acquaintances using employment-related benefits, and/or for other passengers.

MY-OTHER-BROTHER-"TED"

I also see nothing wrong with being critical of ANYTHING (1st Amendment, etc.)! What I do see wrong is someone, not knowing any of the facts, running to tweeter and posting something that is none of their business, especially when the person alleged to have been wronged is not following policy, and has NO beef. The ONLY reason that Mrs. Watts did this is because she is ALWAYS looking for trouble (A google search will clue ya'll in), even if she has to manufacture a problem for someone else. Since her wonderful campaign for justice, Mrs. Watts in now online bragging about her exploits, and fame.

A dress code has been around for over 60 or 70 years for non-rev's and there is NO REQUIREMENT that anyone is required to abide by those rules, UNLESS THEY WANT TO FLY ON A COMPANY ISSUED FREE PASS!

chavala

Wow. Just wow. I didn't pay much attention to the "Toxic masculinity" comment until i saw this.

spin88

You can agree, or not agree with Ms. Watt. But it is unfair, and I might add untrue to call her a lair. She reported what she saw and heard. Nothing she reported was untrue. See evidently did not know pass travel was involved, but then neither did United - which tweeted out that United could bar anyone it liked under the CoC for wearing leggins.

When Watt evidently learned (and United changed its defense) that pass travel was involved, she noted this in her post, which is linked to above.

That pass travel was involved is sort of Sui generis to her broader point about "controlling young girl's bodies" and sexist dress codes, as they apply to LEGGINS

You can disagree with her, say she is looking for attention, but it is OTT and inaccurate to say she is a lair or peddling "FAKE NEWS"

zitsky

Can I suggest the gay male test for women's clothing?

First, I completely support women/girls right to wear whatever they choose. To me leggings look not much different than spandex/lycra. I could wear spandex on a plane, but you really don't want me too.

I occasionally see women (or men) in tight clothing. Usually it's at the gym, or around town, but sometimes at the airport. I just have to ask, if you're wearing clothing so tight it shows off your entire anatomy, are you surprised that even a gay male is staring at you? (Not to even say how many straight men are looking at you?)

I think the rule should be, if you are getting stares from straight *and* gay males, maybe what you have on is too revealing, and you might want to change?

Of course, again, women have every right to ignore my advice.

jspira

Maybe you and I could start a tv show. We could call it "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" - oh wait, that was already done.

Nonetheless, and all kidding aside, I fully agree with your observations.

MSPeconomist

What if women stare? Shouldn't that be part of your criteria?

zombietooth

"As the brilliant Adam Carolla says, she's either stupid or a liar."

I'll go with Mr. Carolla's track record for BS-detection over yours or mine.

jspira

I suspect the criteria should encompass if an outfit causes stares from more than one person period, regardless of gender.

zitsky

We'll add that to the rules. Same thing.

spin88

I live in San Francisco, and about 1/4 of people wear something that probably deserves a stare. Leggins don't illicit stares IMHE...

halls120

Whether a particular item of clothing "deserves a stare" is immaterial. UA has a policy that applies to their employees traveling on the company dime, and it is their policy. I understand employees who have a problem with the policy - I don't understand why busybodies like Ms. Watts believe it is their mission in life to right every wrong they come across, especially when the policy doesn't affect them personally.