h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I get a tad (ha) sick and tired of articles like this one. Actually it's not the article so much as the BTL comments. I know, I know. Whatever you do, don't go BTL.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/30/british-airways-cabin-crew-trousers-union

What is it with people? Sure, the people on the new contracts are worse off in various ways than the ones on the old contracts. They now have won union recognition and one idea floated by the union is that the women cabin crew should be allowed to wear trousers, as the ones on the old contracts are.

Seems sensible.

But that's not enough for the - probably not quite - MRAs is it? First there is a comment along the lines of "they knew that when they started the contract, so why are they bleating about not being able to wear trousers after the fact".
Apart from the fact that they are not "bleating" but it's one idea floated by the new union...

And "well if they're allowed to wear trousers the men should be able to wear skirts" with the unspoken part being "and until there is THAT equality, they can jolly well stuff off"
I'm sure if even one man suggested that to the union it could, as in the case of the Swedish train (or was it bus?) drivers who wore skirts in protest at not being allowed to wear shorts in hot weather. They won that. (and I'm not sure but it could be that the dress code was altered so men can wear skirts too?)

And then, of course there is the "phwoar! it's the only reason I fly - if they're not wearing tight pencil skirts why bother going by plane" variety that doesn't really deserve a reply. (but gets one anyway in the shape of the slapping hand and a big fat raspberry from me)

Because of course there are 2 things that spring immediately to mind.

1) why not just have a selection of uniforms from which the staff select that which they thing is best for them at a particular time (eg in winter the women wear trousers and in the summer the men and women can wear shorts or skirts or whatever). There is really no need for gendered clothing and the sooner we all recognise that the better. (I'm thinking that if it became more acceptable for men to wear skirts then people who are transitioning or about to transition to a different gender* will also benefit from that. It's not only Grayson Perry who likes wearing dresses)

2. Unions (and others) can actually - gasp! - do more than one thing at once. So it could be that the union is looking at lots of different ways to improve workplace conditions and communication and whatever between the employer and the employees. It's not all one-sided and it's not all "me want me want!". Because if we start to accept that from organisations like unions, maybe when feminists also mention something that seems like a very trivial middle-class first-world "problem" they won't be harrangued by the "as long as there is FGM in the world you shouldn't be worrying about wearing trousers" comments.

possibly.

*I'm not really sure how to write that without sounding like a patronising uninformed idiot. It's not intended to be insulting

People are idiots.

One thing the interwebz is really good for is making me feel that an extinction event asteroid might not be the worst thing that could ever happen.

A task also achieved whenever I see a "Just for Men" TV advert.

FB

Yes, on average people are idiots

and half of them are even dumber

Interesting - I'm reading a gender studies textbook at the moment, and this post chimes in with quite a bit that I've read so far.

I guess it is mostly me romanticising the past, as I wasn't there, but it does seem like there is more gendering at the moment than there was in eg the 1970s when unisex clothing was about and long hair for cisgender men and women was fashionable (although there was more overt discrimination against women at work then than there is now...)

I flew to France in the late 1980s and I particularly remember the flight because us children were able to buy airline staff dolls on the plane - like the actual staff, the dolls had a variety of uniforms to wear, and they changed at different times of the journey, so it was formal jackets and cravats on take off and landing, and shirts and waistcoats during the flight, with trousers or skirts depending on preference. Fascinating

I'm fascinated by the whole subject - as anyone who knows me already knows - to the point that I'm extremely boring about it.

For me a lot of the gender stereotyping and guff (yes, FB - men's beauty products. We had a good chortle about the face cream for men with trendy 3-day-stubble this week) is so pointless that I can have a little chuckle about it after I've done with the eye-rolling.

Then again there are two categories: the things like his 'n' hers razors, face cream, pens, tea and surprise eggs is just about selling as much stuff as possible. And while you can't blame a company for trying I can and do blame them and wider society for buying into and perpetrating a binary gender stereotyping idiocy that can develop into something much worse.

Other things are part of a much more deep seated sexism (cuts both ways) that should be a thing of the past. Surprised that your pilot is a female? get over it. Surprised that your nurse is a man? get over it. Surprised that men take parental leave? GET RIGHT OVER IT.

But regular readers have seen this all n-times before here

Being so old, I remember the women in trousers to work rows from the 1960s. I temped for a bank in the City that bought me stockings to cover my bare legs. I wasn't even "front of house" but skirts and stockings it was. As a teacher in various old-fashioned places I never wore trousers to work until the 1990s.
Some stupid secondary schools STILL don't allow trousers as part of a school uniform. Grr!

Headteacher at my comprehensive school in the 80s didn't approve of female teachers wearing trousers. Our English teacher told us that was how we could tell if she was having a 'rebellious' day

But this was in an era when boys learned woodwork while girls learned cookery. So I feel we have moved on somewhat.

I can't actually see the point of *anybody* having to wear a skirt. Or a tie for that matter.

Mol

when I first started working in an office, in 1982 when I'd just left school at 18, it was for the Military and the boss was a crusty old-school retired Major.

We were in Germany where the women, at least back then, were much much more likely to wear trousers than a skirt. The senior secretary was a very elegant German lady who - as I thought - unusually usually wore very smart skirt suits to work. One day in winter she wore an especially smart trouser suit to work and - and I can scarcely believe she actually went along with it - was sent home for "dressing like a mechanic. (mind you she didn't come back that day meaning I ended up using the electric typewriter which is a whole other story)

Meanwhile the widowed old-school retired major wore grey flannels every day with a smart-ish navy blue blazer with shiny buttons. But his tie always always had egg stains or something else on it. But she looked like a mechanic.

Some of the gender specific 'stuff' one can buy, cosmetics/soap/stuff in particular is just silly IMO... And I'm sure Women get a worse deal from it than men, for some 'products', female razors for example (both electric ladyshave type ones, and ordinary wet-shave ones), are so* rubbish, IMO, or, at tleast the ones I've used, My ordinary male specific razor does a better job, of whever I chose to shave with it... and the electric err philips I think it is, ladyshave thing... next to useless NO idea really why that might be the case though just seems odd to me

I always use men's razors, they are cheaper and that's it. I was recently having a conversation elsewhere about earplugs (for blocking sound). There are manly ones in yellow and girly ones (sigh) that come in pink. But. The pink ones are smaller which is ok if they fit, but what if you'Re a man with small ears, or a woman with large ear holes?

It's better then if they come in S/M/L in a variety of colours and everyone is happy. Or not.

Same with the surprise eggs - they have pink ones and blue ones (the wrapping) and neutral ones. Apparently (anecdotal evidence, I haven't researched or checked) the toys aren't sorted along gender specific lines. That means if you have a particularly girly-girl who gets the pink wrapped egg expecting something princessy (yes I know - just go with it) she might end up with a truck. And (gasp! worse!) a boy might pick up a blue egg and get a disney princess. So why not save the "problems" and have "gender neutral" colours, or really gender-separate the toys?

it drives me crazy so I'm stopping now

The 'male specific' razor I've grown to like, and found the best (yes for my beard/moustache and for shaving legs etc), is the Wilkingson sword, titanium quatro), I think the better of the female ones I tried was called 'venous' or soemthing, can't remember what brand/make it was though... true, it was 'wide' so had a wider cutting surface (better I guess for doing large areas, like legs), but, it was so* scratchy, even when brand new blade and I got several cuts from it, every time I've tried, which I rarely do from the Wilkingson sword ones Mind, talking of gender stereotypes, people such as myself, can't do much to help reduce them, as I guess if anything I tend to have a very stereotypesd 'view' of femaninity', at least as regards myself if that makes sense
Mind, I still prefer the gendered female shower gels and stuff, as they just smell nicer and they're nearly always on offer in Boots anyhow and I cna't see myself ever buying 'male jeans' again, after having finally discovered that I just get something which actually fits me if its a 'female gendered' pair

Yeah, it's difficult not to think of stereotypes when choosing something to wear to suit one's gender identity, and being conscious of items being "neutral", "feminine" or "masculine"...

I put my tie on the other day, and did it up with a Windsor knot (last time I really wore a tie was at school, and that was just the standard "four in hand" knot) - I feel good in just an open-necked shirt, but with the tie and its impressive knot, I felt amazingly smart so I can see the allure of a tie... Presumably there is a similar allure to wearing a skirt or dress for those who are that way inclined.

Choice is important, though, and people should be able to choose what they like

I'm surprised by the Kinder Surprise thing - I thought the whole point of the coloured ones was to confirm stereotypes (fascinating if they are actually subverting stereotypes Sticking with gender neutral in the first place sounded most sensible to me, though ).

Germany is, I'm afraid, a hotbed of this kind of gender stereotyping. There is (I jest you not) a brand of packet soup which has soups for girls and boys: the pink ones have pasta princesses the blue ones has pasta firefighters and police...

I always use a Windsor knot when I tie my tie. Firstly because it's the only knot I know and secondly because that is the Military Approved Knot and the last time I regularly wore a tie was when i was in uniform.

And yes, my daughters once nearly came to fisticuffs in kindergarten with a boy who insisted that girls can't be soldiers...

Is there any other knot for a tie, other than a windsor? *thinks*
I'm always a bit supprised when I have to wear a tie, that I can still remember how to tie the knot at all, my suit and smart dressing occasions are generally years apart
Gender-ised food? genderised, is that even a word?

What I don't like at all is the American import of 'guys' to address both men and women. Have women been desexed into males now?

Interesting, Lapis - I looked it up in wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guy

And, speaking from a North American standpoint, it is not desexing females; it is just casualizing that a bunch of people can be pals - not so much in the friend sense as in the buddy sense - yes it is more like "pal." It, I think, got its start in 1940's film - perhaps the tomboyishness of the ladies during WWII or something. And it does seem to be degendered mainly in the plural - and only in special occasions - as wiktionary so aptly puts it.

It is maybe a little bit like some fellow acknowledging the inclusion and presence of the ladies in the 'club' so to speak? During WWII that IS what happened.

That is the feeling i get, anyway.

What do you guys think ?

I think with things like that, it is so utterly dependsant on how its used, when, and perhaps more importantly 'why' Like a few gay friends who'd always come into a room/pub, meeting us, and gret us with a 'hello girls', or some such... which I guess could be seen as ... err derogratry perhaps, to women... as we were all just guys// Actually... I'm trying to remember, I think it may have been 'ladies' he'd refer to us by (no, and I wouldn't necessarily be crossdressed)

Mind, in some languages, just the standard usage is so* sexist, or derograty... I think* its in Polish, where if there is a mixed group (males and females), they all get refered to by err 'male specific' 'group' terms, even when its only one male and many females... Like saying, in some respects I guess, its the 'male' present in teh group that is important, or more important... Hopefully though, that's just a linguistic throwback to more patriacial societys and stuff, not necessarly more than a historical lefover in the language these days (hmm.... think that was in Polish anyhow; William's learning it and keeps trying to teach me bits of it... I can't even do numbers yet!)

It's the same in Spanish. So you have 'amigos', chicos and so on, which are either a mix of both sexes or male. It doesn't bother me whatsoever.

What did used to bother me, were people who insisted on knowing whether it was Mrs or Miss. First name + surname wasn't enough apparently.

As for the trousers, it is so depressing to find out that this particular issue is still not a dim and distant folk memory. What is the problem with some parts of society? What one wears on one's legs surely does not affect the working of one's brain. I'd much prefer to be hauled out of an aircraft that's ditched into the ocean by a cabin crew wearing trousers than one in a restricting skirt. Surely flight safety is their real purpose, well, at least secondary to the inflight purchase opportunities.

"inflight purchase opportunities"

Would they be selling kilts, now?