It's not Just for Breastfeeding Mothers Any More!!

But this article about Southwest Airlines rather explains the loophole that allows airlines to get away with telling breastfeeding mothers to do. . . well. . . whatever it is that the flight attendants tell them to do on a given flight--cover up, stop feeding, whatever. It seems that, while Southwest claims not to have a dress code, they also reserve the right to censor passengers' outfits for various reasons, with the result that two women have brought complaints against Southwest for addressing their wardrobe choices:

Setara Qassim said a flight attendant confronted her during the trip from Tucson, Arizona, to Burbank, California, and asked whether she had a sweater to go over her green halter-style dress.

Qassim, 21, told KNBC-TV in Los Angeles she was forced to wrap a blanket around herself for the rest of the flight. She complained that if Southwest wants passengers to dress a certain way, it should publish a dress code.

Last week, 23-year-old Kayla Ebbert said a Southwest employee pulled her aside as she was preparing to board a plane departing San Diego for Tucson in July and told her she was dressed too provocatively to fly.

Ebbert, who took her case to NBC's "Today Show," said she was allowed on the plane after adjusting her sweater and short skirt. She said she was humiliated and felt the stares of other passengers who had overheard the verbal dressing-down.

Now, do you think these women were wearing anything that you haven't seen in Church? Okay, unfair question! ;)

What strikes me first is the rationale behind the censure. One was "dressed too provocatively." There clearly isn't an objective standard for this. I would like to know if the airline employees imposing these guidelines were male or female, fundamentalist, or personally turned on by the passengers' attire. (This reminds me of discussions I've seen on other blogs about whether a sexily dressed woman is responsible for others' "occasions of sin"!) But this is the passage that seemed relevant to breastfeeding in the air:

American Airlines claims the right to refuse to carry passengers for a variety of reasons, including being drunk, barefoot, having an offensive odor or being "clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers."

That's pretty broad. The example given is offensive graphics on a t-shirt, but it's not tough to see how breastfeeding falls under this jurisdiction--even if the mother is discreetly covered. (But then, some passengers (and flight attendants) find the presence of children offensive enough anyway. . .) Of course, breastfeeding is an act, not a manner of dress, but certainly if the breast were all or partially exposed, one could anticipate this regulation being invoked. I have breastfed without incident on an airplane, but it was years ago (a bit over 10 years ago, to be precise). It was probably Southwest. But then, I don't like sitting by other people anyway, so there was likely no one there but my husband, and he wouldn't have complained!

Long Time, No Post, and the Giving and Keeping of Clothing

Over the past week or so--since my last post--I have had random and occasional blogworthy thoughts along with the best of intentions to post them. I considered giving updates on my class & the teaching of Herland, but it was all I could do to actually follow through with the teaching, so I didn't really feel like writing about it. Last week was the kind of week--with the kind of weather--that just saps one's energy completely (even if one does not happen to be pregnant!). Towards the end of the week, the weather improved with a couple of days of torrential downpour in the afternoon (yay!), but the week passed, as a whole, in a blur. Some of the other posts I considered were my "patriarchy is a myth" post, my "to father" (in colloquial usage) is different from "to mother" post, my "how my childhood influenced my concept of fatherhood and why I could never conceptualize 'God the Father' as approachable " post and my "thinking about Catholic sex but I don't want to say too much here because I've said too much elsewhere" post. But alas! these posts were left unwritten. The recent eBay purchases post may yet be forthcoming!

My weekend was not a weekend to promote rest and get (academic) things accomplished. On a whim, we went to an outlet mall about an hour away, in the midst of a large power outage and through lovely driving weather--rain, hail... We bought my daughter some knit dresses and a pair of sporty sandals that she loves, although I intended them for occasional casual wear. After avoiding dresses for a good while, I have wanted to dress her in them almost exclusively--they're so easy!!! Nice and soft, too. And since she's showing potty training inclinations, they work well for those purposes also. I also bought 2 newborn all-in-one sleep-and-play suits that were very cute and only $5. A few says before, I found Timberland sock-booties in a 2-pack of pink & brown at TJMaxx. They will likely be our only newborn clothing purchases, unless we buy matching sister outfits!

On Sunday, I followed through with a resolution to purge my closets of the boy-specific clothing that I have been keeping for 10 years or so (some not so long). It was one of the justifications for learning whether we were having a boy or a girl. I now know that it will be many years before I could even possibly have a boy to fit size 4s.

Now, my husband & I are rather fond of clothing--a fact that has not been healthy for the preservation of storage space. This shrinking space problem has been exacerbated by, among other things, the need to retain things lent to us--things that will never be recalled, but must be kept. We are also tormented by our tendencies to gain (and sometimes lose, but mostly gain) weight, and yet to hope that "some day" we will fit into that one piece of clothing--or 5--or 10--that we loved so much (and that is likely so out of style that we wouldn't wear it anyway. . . I have tried to get better about this, but yesterday was not a day for sorting adult clothes. I do that regularly anyway.

Recently, it has been difficult locating possible hand-me-downs that would fit my daughter because of the way things were organized--or not--and how things were given to us in jumbles. So in the process of purging, I consolidated. I realized that I have two large Rubbermaids (not the largest, but 10 gallon or so) of "keepsakes"--mine and others'. I have an entire 10 gallon container full of girl-appropriate (though not necessarily girl-specific) clothes in 0-3 and 3-6 months. How wonderful is that!!?! I did not realize we had accumulated so much with our daughter. *blush* We have another container almost full of 6-9 and 6-12 month girl clothes. I also managed to uncover several t-shirts that she can fit now, and 3 pair of shortalls (and some possible non-knit dresses, mostly hand made so I can't tell sizes).

Now with a new baby, it is always tempting to buy new clothes "just because." The appeal of the "new" can be very powerful, and we can justify to ourselves by saying that the baby, who is a separate individual (but doesn't know the difference if she is wearing her sisters' clothes!!) deserves things of "her own," but I hope not to get sucked into that materialistic line of thought. Perhaps I will finish some of the outfits I started to sew for my daugther . . or at least make some of the things for which I bought fabric and patterns, but which my daughter outgrew before I could make them. (It's never fun to finish something old & half-stared!) In spite of the urge to have "new things" for the "new baby," I find myself so excited by the prospect that some of my favorite of my little girl's outfits, still in excellent condition, will be worn by a new little girl, that I do not know if I will have the urge to buy more. And how wonderful that the baby will be close to--if not exactly--the same clothing size during the same season, since their due dates will only have been 3 days apart or so! (Though my daughter was born 3 weeks early.)

And a similarly pleasing thought is the thought that my friends' little boys will be able to wear some of the very nice boy clothes that I kept after my son outgrew them. I have purged the boy clothes before, so only the very best things are left, and barring a few sentimental items, I have separated them into three piles--for a friend with an infant, one with a 5-year-old, and one to give to the St. Vincent de Paul society. It made me feel very fortunate, in spite of the memory of our financial struggles, to have so much beautiful clothes that were worn by my children. Of course, most of it was bought on sale or from outlets or discount stores, but there's no shame in that, only prudence!!

In the past, we likely would have brought the clothes that could not fit friends' children (or, well, all of the clothes, because we had no friends with children) to resale stores, hoping for a return (however small) on our investment. The thought did cross my mind once or twice--that the resale shops would indeed buy some of the items. But I banished that as a selfish thought. After all, these were things for which I didn't ever expect to get money back. They served their purpose and I have no further purpose for them now--or for years to come. So why should I expect to make what at this point would amount to a profit, since the items were paid long ago? We do not have much that we can give to charitable organizations. I admit that our contributions to the parish we attend are relatively low, though they do fluctuate. However, we have been making an effort to give to St. Vincent de Paul, and we contributed quite a bit to the recent parish garage sale, which raised $10,000+!! In particular, I like to give the things that could be sold--in keeping with my opinion that those who cannot afford more expensive clothing still deserve good quality things of which they can be proud. And even if wealthier bargain hunters shop at the St. Vincent de Paul stores, the profits will go toward helping families--I know this first hand, as someone close to me recently received a utility payment from St. Vincent's. Also, there is the possibility that a family who receives clothing vouchers would be able to select some of the nicer things that we will be donating. I would like to think that someone will have nicer back-to-school clothes in the fall than otherwise. I hope it is not an act of pride to write this--how does one separate happiness at giving in a small way from pride, exactly? It doesn't feel like a sinful impulse.

Similarly, I do wonder about the tax write off for charitable donations. That it should serve as an incentive seems wrong. I hesitate to make the ladies at the St. Vincent store give a receipt, since it seems like a hassle for them, I hesitate to put monetary value to the things I am giving, as their value is no longer monetary for me, they were paid for before the current tax year, and we don't have enough money to itemize anyway. Perhaps again, it is a matter of pride, but for the giving of "things," the incentive seems unnecessary.