Should we really be surprised about the sexist age discrimination in Virgin's hiring practices? After all, this is the same company that thought a urinal shaped like a woman's mouth was a real hoot.
Virgin Blue in Australia is being accused of discriminating against flight attendants by using "selection criteria based only on looks and age," while ignoring experience:
Keely Bil, 43, said she received no reply [for weeks] from the airline after stating her real date of birth on an application form...
"But one of the other girls told me she'd entered a birth date 10 years younger and she got an interview.
"I tried it, and got a response within an hour."
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Shocker: Virgin Airlines discriminates.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/1999
It seems I'm not alone with thinking that the age discrimination case against Virgin Blue is a little bit deserving of a Ma Sheela style "tough titties" retort. Read More










Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
A urinal shaped like a woman's mouth? Is that for real? At any rate, I'm not laughing... Nor am I amused, it's just not appropriate, and it's not funny at all, very tacky and low-class.
People aren't on airplanes to leer at stewardesses, at least I'm not, I'm concerned about getting to my destination in one piece.
Who cares how old the people working there are, it ought not be an issue.
I don’t care so much about the age of my cabin crew as their physical fitness. I’ve been on a number of cross Atlantic flights where air stewards haven’t been able to close overhead compartments due to arthritis/ shoulder injuries and have had to ask passengers for assistance. As these are the people who’ll be in charge in case of an emergency they really should be physically able, to set up life rafts etc, so I guess I can understand having an upper age limit. However, this limit of 35 of Virgin’s seems suspiciously low, I believe BA’s is 54.
Plenty of young people have arthritis, and plenty of older people don't. I'm fine saying that you have to be physically capable of doing the job, but it's stupid to use age as a way to ensure that.
Saying that this is "low class" isn't really appropriate, as it's a bunch of rich fucks making these decisions.
Money doesn't make class. They can have all the money in the world but be clueless idiots when it comes to class.
Class is something that no amount of money can buy.
I meant low-class in the sense that it's not a very noble thing (character wise) to be doing.
Typically such actions are done by "New Money" as they call it, who want to be flashy and get attention. I never much cared for them myself.
It looks more like Tim Curry's mouth from Rocky Horror than any woman's mouth I've seen. Either way, I'd rather hold in till I got home than use this thing.
I'm interested in the theory that the older money gets, the more noble it gets. I used a tatty old fiver in a ticket machine yesterday and I was quite glad to get rid of it. I might change my attitude in future.
Quinn: What kind of car is he driving?
Daria: Um...Nouveau Riche Sedan of the Month.
Quinn: (Gasp) Cooooool.
Money does in fact make class. The word "classy" came from and still refers to social class and the belief that the rich were better.
Read "The Bell Curve" it shows a direct correlation between IQ and income. You can't expect a person with an IQ in the retarded level to make 6 figures. Likewise you can't expect them to buildup enough wealth to pass to their succeeding generations.
Some folks that are relatives of mine nearby are the richest people in the county that they live in (the county direct next to mine), it’s because they were able to use their natural and innate intelligence to seize opportunities when they recognized them and realized the time was ripe.
Intelligence and Class are intrinsically linked and this link has been proven not only through time, but through real science, not modern “pseudo-science”. Granted a lot of people became rich by just exploiting situations, they are typically New Money. Old Money are typically the ones who are better, genetically speaking.
"Intelligence and Class are intrinsically linked and this link has been proven not only through time, but through real science, not modern “pseudo-science”. Granted a lot of people became rich by just exploiting situations, they are typically New Money. Old Money are typically the ones who are better, genetically speaking."
Whoa. I now have this strange urge to go read a bunch of Wharton.
Anyway, let's agree that Old Money is dying off and being replaced by New Money, or being polluted by the inescapable influence thereof. This assumes, of course, that Old Money is somehow genetically superior to anybody else, New Money, middle class, poor, whatever---which I haven't heard anybody say with a straight face since, I don't know, 1865 or so. Somehow, while arguing what I think is obvious---money does not equal class---you managed to argue against yourself. That was the goddamndest thing I've ever seen. And you did it in three posts. Even more goddamnder.
Please quote something besides the Bell Curve. Really, you made Baby Jeebus cry with that one.
I don't think MC contradicts himself. His argument is this: -
Unintelligent people sometimes make a lot of money, but they lose their money quickly, because they are fools. Intelligent people make money and, because they are clever, they hang on to it and pass it down through the generations. Intelligence is an essential attribute of people with class and nobility. Money is only indirectly linked to class and nobility in so far as intelligent people are more likely to be rich. Class is something no amount of money can buy, because if you haven't got the necessary intelligence money will not be an adequate substitute.
It's a coherent and consistent view.
The problem is that every single sentence that expresses such a view happens to be false.
In many cases, unintelligent people hang on to their money for generations. Just as frequently, intelligent people lose their money quickly. There are many examples of unintelligent people, rich or poor, who are noble and classy. And there are many examples of highly intelligent people, rich or poor, who are base, ignoble and wholly lacking in class. Also, it frequently happens that intelligent parents have unintelligent children and vice versa.
There is indeed a correlation between income and IQ. But more is needed to establish a causal relation. A list of generalisations, every single one of which is false, doesn't do the trick.
I don't care about the relation ship between money and IQ, but I do think that if Virgin wants to hire hot young chicks to be stewardesses and represent their company, that is their right. They are selling the same product that Hooters is selling and its not chicken wings! If you are gooing to call them discrimitory I think you should have a successful lawsuit to back up your words. Otherwise, its just envy and sour grapes.
Huh, at first glance I could have swore that it's Mick Jagger's mouth.
I think the urinal is kind of funny. I think maybe people need more of a sense of humor. It would do a lot of good for the feminist cause. I think Susie Bright would approve.
Ben
I think the urinal is kind of funny. I think maybe people need more of a sense of humor. It would do a lot of good for the feminist cause. I think Susie Bright would approve.
Ben
I think the urinal is kind of funny. I think maybe people need more of a sense of humor. It would do a lot of good for the feminist cause. I think Susie Bright would approve.
Ben