Sometimes a drink is just a drink.
April 5 // March 26, 2017
It's not about the leggings. Or oppressing women.
Maybe it’s just us but is everyone getting crankier and less tolerant by the minute?
We hope we’re not contributing to it here at Two Weeks Ago News. We acknowledge that there's plenty that makes us feel outrage – outrage! But for God’s sake of America, do we have to seek out things to be outraged about?
The universe has presented two recent stories that call for a word or two (or a few hundred) from us. The United Airlines sexist attitude and the Mike Pence sexist attitude. (TWAN insider tip: They’re actually variations on the same outrage, basically all of us saying to United and to the Vice President, “You’re not the boss of me.”)
Let’s start with United Airlines and the wardrobe malfunction in Denver. A counter agent for United
turned away two teenage young women who wanted to board their flight. Why? Because they were
wearing leggings. And this happened after a man wearing shorts was able to board! Could that be true? Well, yes. Sort of. But there’s more.
Because not one of us minds our own business these days, and because not one of us can resist sharing every blessed thought we have with the rest of the world, a women who witnessed the girls being turned away tweeted her outrage. Surprise! The relentless and formidable backlash from the universe began.
Sexist. Arbitrary. Archaic. Horrendous. Outrageous. Ridiculous. Nonsense. Dismissive. And on and on and on and on but it was none of those things. Predictably, various celebrities weighed in with their outrage and threats of our new favorite thing ever: boycotts. Whatever.
The facts of the controversy were secondary to the outrage. Turns out, the young women were traveling for free – or at a significant discount - by utilizing United’s “pass riders” policy, which offers air travel benefits to friends and family of United employees. One of the rules about using that benefit is an agreement by pass riders to abide by United’s dress code. And leggings – regardless of what many women in America believe about them – are not approved as appropriate wardrobe in the dress code United enforces for pass riders.
So there it is. Leaving aside all the love we feel for leggings (or yoga pants or anything that fits us every day, year in year out, no matter how much guacamole we eat), doesn’t the story make more sense now? If the girls didn’t know the dress code, shame on the employee who didn’t care enough about the United rules to pass them along to the travelers. If they did know and decided to risk it by wearing leggings to travel, tough break for them,
Let’s just say it appears that many of us stood by them and their leggings in solidarity. A google search on the topic listed 1.3 MILLION hits on the topic. Dear God.
Moving on…
Vice President Mike Pence provoked his own bit of social media mayhem (last count: 14.5 million hits) last week, if by “last week,” you mean “fifteen years ago.” The Washington Post profile of Karen Pence, the vice-president’s wife, included information from a 2002 interview, when Mike Pence revealed the following: He doesn’t eat alone with any woman other than his wife; he doesn’t attend events that serve alcohol without her.
That’s it. That’s the end of the revelation. Outraged?
Plenty of people were. This is precisely the kind of sexist attitude that keeps women oppressed. It keeps alive images of vulnerable women who need to be constantly vigilant and wary of predatory men. This exclusionary behavior offers men opportunities to advance their careers in ways that some women will never get, particularly if they work for men who share the Vice President’s attitude.
Help us understand this at Two Weeks Ago News. Vice President Pence did not insist that every man in America adopt his behavior. He stated his personal beliefs about how he chooses to behave around women in his professional life. So his behavior evoked outrage and cries of sexism because he does NOT relax over a few drinks and then hit on a woman co-worker or staff member? Do we have that correct? Does that make sense?
Not really, but it’s not that simple.
Maybe the feedback – the outrage? – came about because many women were more than a little dismayed and disappointed by his perspective. On one hand, women don’t want to be chased around the desk while working alone with a man in the office. But at the same time, no woman wants to imagine she will not be consulted, promoted, conferred with or awarded senior responsibilities because that might mean “alone time” – even alone time that takes place over a lunch meeting – with the boss. It’s dispiriting to imagine there was a woman Mike Pence may not have chosen not to work with and/or promote over the years because he anticipated having to spend significant one-on-one time with her to accomplish the tasks at hand. A woman who could have been a partner in moving issues forward, or heading up a department or key committee, and helping him accomplish his goals as governor, or in Congress, etc.
On the other hand, if you’re an ambitious, intelligent woman, working for a man who routinely and repeatedly overlooks the women on his staff because he favors working more closely with men on senior level projects or initiatives, how long would it before you were on Linked In or Velvet Jobs with your resume?
On the other hand, (it’s our website and yes, we know we're up to three hands) we have the words of Mary Vought, a woman who worked for Vice President Pence when he was a member of Congress. From her article in The New York Post:
It's not about the leggings. Or oppressing women.
Maybe it’s just us but is everyone getting crankier and less tolerant by the minute?
We hope we’re not contributing to it here at Two Weeks Ago News. We acknowledge that there's plenty that makes us feel outrage – outrage! But for God’s sake of America, do we have to seek out things to be outraged about?
The universe has presented two recent stories that call for a word or two (or a few hundred) from us. The United Airlines sexist attitude and the Mike Pence sexist attitude. (TWAN insider tip: They’re actually variations on the same outrage, basically all of us saying to United and to the Vice President, “You’re not the boss of me.”)
Let’s start with United Airlines and the wardrobe malfunction in Denver. A counter agent for United
turned away two teenage young women who wanted to board their flight. Why? Because they were
wearing leggings. And this happened after a man wearing shorts was able to board! Could that be true? Well, yes. Sort of. But there’s more.
Because not one of us minds our own business these days, and because not one of us can resist sharing every blessed thought we have with the rest of the world, a women who witnessed the girls being turned away tweeted her outrage. Surprise! The relentless and formidable backlash from the universe began.
Sexist. Arbitrary. Archaic. Horrendous. Outrageous. Ridiculous. Nonsense. Dismissive. And on and on and on and on but it was none of those things. Predictably, various celebrities weighed in with their outrage and threats of our new favorite thing ever: boycotts. Whatever.
The facts of the controversy were secondary to the outrage. Turns out, the young women were traveling for free – or at a significant discount - by utilizing United’s “pass riders” policy, which offers air travel benefits to friends and family of United employees. One of the rules about using that benefit is an agreement by pass riders to abide by United’s dress code. And leggings – regardless of what many women in America believe about them – are not approved as appropriate wardrobe in the dress code United enforces for pass riders.
So there it is. Leaving aside all the love we feel for leggings (or yoga pants or anything that fits us every day, year in year out, no matter how much guacamole we eat), doesn’t the story make more sense now? If the girls didn’t know the dress code, shame on the employee who didn’t care enough about the United rules to pass them along to the travelers. If they did know and decided to risk it by wearing leggings to travel, tough break for them,
Let’s just say it appears that many of us stood by them and their leggings in solidarity. A google search on the topic listed 1.3 MILLION hits on the topic. Dear God.
Moving on…
Vice President Mike Pence provoked his own bit of social media mayhem (last count: 14.5 million hits) last week, if by “last week,” you mean “fifteen years ago.” The Washington Post profile of Karen Pence, the vice-president’s wife, included information from a 2002 interview, when Mike Pence revealed the following: He doesn’t eat alone with any woman other than his wife; he doesn’t attend events that serve alcohol without her.
That’s it. That’s the end of the revelation. Outraged?
Plenty of people were. This is precisely the kind of sexist attitude that keeps women oppressed. It keeps alive images of vulnerable women who need to be constantly vigilant and wary of predatory men. This exclusionary behavior offers men opportunities to advance their careers in ways that some women will never get, particularly if they work for men who share the Vice President’s attitude.
Help us understand this at Two Weeks Ago News. Vice President Pence did not insist that every man in America adopt his behavior. He stated his personal beliefs about how he chooses to behave around women in his professional life. So his behavior evoked outrage and cries of sexism because he does NOT relax over a few drinks and then hit on a woman co-worker or staff member? Do we have that correct? Does that make sense?
Not really, but it’s not that simple.
Maybe the feedback – the outrage? – came about because many women were more than a little dismayed and disappointed by his perspective. On one hand, women don’t want to be chased around the desk while working alone with a man in the office. But at the same time, no woman wants to imagine she will not be consulted, promoted, conferred with or awarded senior responsibilities because that might mean “alone time” – even alone time that takes place over a lunch meeting – with the boss. It’s dispiriting to imagine there was a woman Mike Pence may not have chosen not to work with and/or promote over the years because he anticipated having to spend significant one-on-one time with her to accomplish the tasks at hand. A woman who could have been a partner in moving issues forward, or heading up a department or key committee, and helping him accomplish his goals as governor, or in Congress, etc.
On the other hand, if you’re an ambitious, intelligent woman, working for a man who routinely and repeatedly overlooks the women on his staff because he favors working more closely with men on senior level projects or initiatives, how long would it before you were on Linked In or Velvet Jobs with your resume?
On the other hand, (it’s our website and yes, we know we're up to three hands) we have the words of Mary Vought, a woman who worked for Vice President Pence when he was a member of Congress. From her article in The New York Post:
Pence’s personal decision to not dine alone with female staffers was never a hindrance to my ability to do my job well, and never kept me from reaping the rewards of my work. In fact, I excelled at my job because of the work environment created from the top down, and my personal determination to succeed.
I engaged in senior staff meetings and strategy sessions side by side with the congressman and my colleagues, and I never felt sidelined because of my gender. My proposals and suggestions were always valued as equal with those of my male counterparts.
As time went on, I was able to prove that I could handle increased responsibilities, and so more responsibilities were provided to me. My gender never factored into how my work was evaluated, or whether my responsibilities were expanded. In fact, the congressman would sometimes send me to GOP leadership communication meetings to represent his voice — and more often than not, I was the only woman in the room.
My work product determined my success — not private dinners with the congressman. When looking back on my time in the office of the man who is now vice president, I don’t consider it to be a period of missed opportunities."
Let’s regroup a bit – about both of these stories. Social media exploded in outrage at both of them. Why? It wasn’t because they were sexist dismissals of women. It erupted because we don’t have time for nuance and we have very little interest in details. Or in personal preferences or stated rules (for yourself or on behalf of an organization.) If something sounds offensive, it is offensive. If there is a perspective that will be largely embraced by the enlightened among us - bonus points if it can simultaneously mock a more conservative point of view - we’ll hear about it.
Onto the next. One (or two!) new outrages will be here in no time.
Onto the next. One (or two!) new outrages will be here in no time.