There is a new trend among some of the major airlines: to phase out gendered uniforms altogether.
What gives? As you’re probably aware, some of us now regard the acknowledgment of gender-based differences to be oppressive. This mindset has taken particular root in academia, journalism, and the corporate boardroom in recent years. While not all Democrats feel this way, pretty much everyone who does feel this way is politically left-of-center.
This is actually an old idea, going back to the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), at least. Chinese Red Guards wore “gender-neutral” uniforms, as did the hierarchy of the Chinese Communist Party. (These are commonly referred to as “Mao suits” in the West, often with an air of derision.)
Even the madness of the Cultural Revolution had its limits. China’s Red Guards had no pretensions of being sexually fluid. But we can recognize a trend here: far-left movements have always shown a predilection for the androgynous. Similarly, political lefties have long been hostile toward conventional notions of sex appeal. Proof that one does not need to be a Bible-thumper in order to be a puritanical killjoy. There are secular puritans and killjoys, too.
As the above paragraphs might imply, I am less than enthusiastic about the current obsession with gender fluidity. That said, where the airline industry is concerned, I do see a possible silver lining here—which may outlast the cultural neurosis of the moment.
The wife of one of my longtime friends is a flight attendant with one of the major airlines. I won’t say which one, to avoid any possibility of getting her in trouble, but you would immediately recognize the name.
My friend’s wife has to comply with a long list of appearance-related rules that apply only to female flight attendants. For example: she has to apply makeup for every flight. She has to wear shoes with heels. She has to wear earrings. Et cetera.
Male flight attendants are not subject to these rules, obviously.
And yes, there is a genuine unfairness present here. In no other industry are such gender-specific rules commonplace.
But then, a certain degree of sexism has always existed in the airline industry, as the vintage ads and recruiting materials posted above and below demonstrate. Female flight attendants used to be pressured into retirement at the ripe old age of 32. That’s younger than NFL quarterbacks.
As is so often the case, our society veers from one whacky extreme to another. While I have my issues with the gender fluidity excesses of the present, I also take issue with the Eastern Airlines recruiting process of yore, which the company described as follows:
“We pass up around 19 girls, before we get one that qualifies. If looks were everything, it wouldn’t be so tough. Sure, we want her to be pretty…don’t you? That’s why we look at her face, her make-up, her complexion, her figure, her weight, her legs, her grooming, her nails and her hair.”
Most men don’t look at a woman that closely before asking one on a date. All I need from a flight attendant is basic friendliness, and perhaps a willingness to get me a second cup of coffee if I ask politely. That other stuff is part of another, bygone agenda. Leave in the LBJ era.
And what about that newer sexual agenda—of citing one’s pronouns, just to be politically correct? Or denying that scientifically objective distinctions of male and female even exist at all? Or pretending that millions of years of human evolution can be erased by a decade of progressive ideology—provided the demands are shouted loudly enough, and there are sufficiently harsh consequences for the ideologically noncompliant?
That agenda, too, belongs on the scrapheap of history. Even in China, gender-neutral Mao suits have become something of a joke.
-ER