People are generally very conscientious of their environment and their actions (or reaction) are reflected on how they perceive it.
I love it when people start a statement with the words “all things being equal” and then follow it up what they WOULD have done but didn't, to justify their actions to the contrary.
It is not a Talatism epiphany that “all things are never (if ever) equal”; what is though is that perceptions of things are always equal to the person's pre-conceived perpetuity index (or PPPI), which is again directly related to the 'association vanity index' or AVI (click for relevant post on AVI).
These two indices prompt us react the way we do... blame it on conditioning (and contradiction, insecurity and hypocrisy).
For example last week a New Mexico football player was offloaded from a US Airway flight from San Francisco International Airport and arrested, for refusing to follow crew member's requests to hike up his saggy pants.
Let me say immediately that I do not think saggy pants are in any way a fashion statement, rather a ploy by underwear marketing people to sell their over-priced wares and get free advertising to boot. Think about it.
Saggy pants are an abomination to good taste and decency – the 'gansta' look has equally ominous roots and is derived from prison inmates caught with trousers too big and no belt.
But I digress.
US Airways spokespeople justified their action to remove the football player from the flight because “while the airline does not have a dress code... we do ask that our passengers dress in an appropriate manner to ensure the safety and comfort of all our passengers.”
The collegian's expulsion (from the plane) and subsequent arrest would not have been much to write about had it not been for another similar story, about a passenger's "dress code," from the same airline (albeit different airport) resulting in a different turn of events.
In addition, this incident took place without fuss from anyone... six days BEFORE the saggy pants issue. US Airways allowed a man to board a flight in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, wearing an outfit that consisted in basically women's underwear and a short (and see-through) cover-up shirt.
In this case he was allowed to board and complete his flight. Seemingly there was clearly no concern for potential passenger “safety or (dis)comfort” here.
A US Airlines spokesperson defended the one against the other that “In the case of the gentleman flying of out San Francisco, it was ultimately not a matter of baggy pants. It was a matter of him not complying with crew instructions.”
Which simply means that real difference was that the crew had just failed ask the Florida man to cover up. Of course, how he would have reacted if he had been asked is up to speculation.
[WARNING: The image you see in this post is a doctored version (this a decent blog after all). Should you wish to see the actual image please click here.]
In my view a man with his (brand name?) underwear showing above his pants in public is still a lot more acceptable than a man in women's underwear (in public AND otherwise).
Bottom line the PPPI was too negative in the first case – after all, it seems, 'gangsta' out weighs 'pervert' when it comes to flying. (Perhaps the reasoning was that 'gangsta' is trouble for everyone; in comparison 'pervert' is only trouble for whom he or she targets).
As with the ridiculous I am reminded of a joke I read that defines in my mind the fact that things really ARE never equal:
An attractive girl goes into the doctor's rooms, chaperoned by an old crone.
“We've come for an examination,” says the attractive girl.
“Right,” says the doctor, “just go behind that screen and take off your clothes and I'll come and examine you.”
“No, it's not me. It's for my old aunt here,” replies the girl.
“Ah, I see,” says the doctor. “Ma'am, kindly stick out your tongue.”
I love it when people start a statement with the words “all things being equal” and then follow it up what they WOULD have done but didn't, to justify their actions to the contrary.
It is not a Talatism epiphany that “all things are never (if ever) equal”; what is though is that perceptions of things are always equal to the person's pre-conceived perpetuity index (or PPPI), which is again directly related to the 'association vanity index' or AVI (click for relevant post on AVI).
These two indices prompt us react the way we do... blame it on conditioning (and contradiction, insecurity and hypocrisy).
For example last week a New Mexico football player was offloaded from a US Airway flight from San Francisco International Airport and arrested, for refusing to follow crew member's requests to hike up his saggy pants.
Let me say immediately that I do not think saggy pants are in any way a fashion statement, rather a ploy by underwear marketing people to sell their over-priced wares and get free advertising to boot. Think about it.
Saggy pants are an abomination to good taste and decency – the 'gansta' look has equally ominous roots and is derived from prison inmates caught with trousers too big and no belt.
But I digress.
 |
| The offending football player |
The collegian's expulsion (from the plane) and subsequent arrest would not have been much to write about had it not been for another similar story, about a passenger's "dress code," from the same airline (albeit different airport) resulting in a different turn of events.
In addition, this incident took place without fuss from anyone... six days BEFORE the saggy pants issue. US Airways allowed a man to board a flight in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, wearing an outfit that consisted in basically women's underwear and a short (and see-through) cover-up shirt.
 |
| The more acceptable man |
A US Airlines spokesperson defended the one against the other that “In the case of the gentleman flying of out San Francisco, it was ultimately not a matter of baggy pants. It was a matter of him not complying with crew instructions.”
Which simply means that real difference was that the crew had just failed ask the Florida man to cover up. Of course, how he would have reacted if he had been asked is up to speculation.
[WARNING: The image you see in this post is a doctored version (this a decent blog after all). Should you wish to see the actual image please click here.]
In my view a man with his (brand name?) underwear showing above his pants in public is still a lot more acceptable than a man in women's underwear (in public AND otherwise).
Bottom line the PPPI was too negative in the first case – after all, it seems, 'gangsta' out weighs 'pervert' when it comes to flying. (Perhaps the reasoning was that 'gangsta' is trouble for everyone; in comparison 'pervert' is only trouble for whom he or she targets).
*
As with the ridiculous I am reminded of a joke I read that defines in my mind the fact that things really ARE never equal:
An attractive girl goes into the doctor's rooms, chaperoned by an old crone.
“We've come for an examination,” says the attractive girl.
“Right,” says the doctor, “just go behind that screen and take off your clothes and I'll come and examine you.”
“No, it's not me. It's for my old aunt here,” replies the girl.
“Ah, I see,” says the doctor. “Ma'am, kindly stick out your tongue.”
No comments:
Post a Comment