Humanities desk
< February 23	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 24

Shafia murder trial other two kids

What happened to the other two kids? Where were they when the honour killing happened? Afghanistan? Did they testify during the trials? What happened to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.42.110 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shafia family left Afghanistan long ago and did not return at any time. I think the boy did testify. As far as what happened to them, the Shafias live in Canada and the children are under the age of majority, so the answer will be pretty much "none of your damn business". :) Franamax (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shafia family murders article says the other kids are in the care of "social services," presumably the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services. What would happen to children in such a unique case, I have no idea. I don't know if they have other relatives in the country who can take care of them or if they'll wind up in foster care. I'm guessing that because of the media attention the case received, they've probably gotten several offers from would-be adoptive parents already. Incidentally, the article claims there were three other kids. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they'd be put up for adoption. They do have parents, although wretched ones. They are likely in foster care, but the decisions of Quebec family services are not public. --Xuxl (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duke/Duchess of Luxembourg at Nobel Prize ceremony

Does anyone know why the Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg attended the Nobel Prize ceremony in Sweden last December? I heard that one of the laureates is from Luxembourg, so does that mean that the Nobel Foundation invites the heads of state of all of the laureates' home nations to attend the ceremony? Ragettho (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that any of the three recipients of the Peace Prize last year had any connection to Luxembourg. I should note that the current Grand Duke of Luxembourg and the current King of Norway are second cousins, their grandmothers (Astrid of Sweden and Princess Märtha of Sweden) were sisters. Perhaps it was merely a social invitation from a family member more than any official connection. Just a guess. --Jayron32 04:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Scratch that. You asked about all of the prizes. I'll do a bit more searching; though the familial relations also apply to the monarchy of Sweden also; the current monarchy of Norway is related to Sweden via Märtha as well. --Jayron32 04:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Jules A. Hoffmann, laureate in Physiology or Medicine, was Luxembourgish by birth, though it appears he's now a French national. Still, with a country as small as Luxembourg, it isn't likely there are a lot of Nobel Laureates from there, so it seems likely that the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess would attend the ceremony. --Jayron32 04:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems odd though... how would the event organizers decide which heads of state to invite to the ceremony? How "small" does the country have to be? Or perhaps the Grand Duke and Duchess asked if they could come? Ragettho (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5 of the prizes are awarded in Stockholm each year, this past year, there were 7 countries represented among those 5 prizes: Isreal, the U.S., Sweden, Australia, Luxembourg, France, and Canada. Since the Head of State of Sweden actually hands out the diplomas, we can take him out of the equation. That leaves 6 heads of states, and their spouses, to invite. Doesn't seem like all that many people. It's not that small of a function room. Indeed, the Nobel Prize article notes that the banquet has 1300 guests. I'm not sure that it was hard to find a place for the Grand Duke and Duchess. I suspect that all of the heads of state of the above countries got invited, several likely declined the invite. --Jayron32 05:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found two links that might interest you. This one says that the Grand Duke and Duchess were invited by the King of Sweden. This one lists the guests who were seated at the table of honor during the banquet. They include the Ambassadors of Israel, United States, Australia, and France. The Israeli Minister of Science and Technology and the Canadian Chargé d'affaires also attended. So it seems likely that Luxembourg wanted to go a step further than the rest and send their head of state.

Looks like I just answered my own question... but I do appreciate your help! :) Ragettho (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims of Thailand

So far I know that Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat are Muslim majority provinces. which province is the fourth one? I read it in Yala article that it is one of the four provinces that is a Muslim majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.108 (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satun Rojomoke (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim majority of Russia

So far I know that Chechnya and Dagestan are Muslim majority regions of Russia. which other places are also Muslim majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.108 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Islam in Russia --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it easier for the Labour Party to win the elections in the UK?

Hello, please excuse my uneasy English, I'm a froggy. We frequently hear in the news that's is easier for the Labour Party to win the elections for the MPs in the United Kingdom. I asked to several people in the UK the reasons that could explain this unfairness but, honestly, I didn't understand.

Please, consider how this fact surprises me because in France that's the other way round.

Thank you for you explainations. Joel DESHAIES-Rheims-France---92.147.236.254 (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you heard that from but it's not true at all. At the moment Britain is governed by a coalition of the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties. Before that the Labour party were in power. The political landscape of the country changes over time. Bear in mind that the ruling party is determined by whoever can form a majority of seats in the House of Commmons. In theory voters are not voting for the party they want to rule the country, they are voting for their own local MP. Different parts of the country have different political affiliations. This is a sweeping generalization but in general the Labour party are more popular in the north and the Conservative party in the south. --Viennese Waltz 10:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the record of UK general elections over the last 60 years (right), the split of Labour (red) to Conservative (blue) wins is about 50:50. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "easier" you mean that the Labour Party can win elections with a lower proportion of the overall national vote than the Conservative Party can, that is (or, generally, has been) true. The reason is that Labour Party voters are more heavily concentrated in particular constituencies than the Conservative Party (or the Lib Dems) - particularly in the old industrial areas of Scotland, northern England, the Midlands and south Wales. So, if the Labour Party is doing poorly nationally, it is still likely to win a substantial number of seats in those areas. More Conservative seats, in contrast, tend overall to be less "safe" and more vulnerable to national swings of mood. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion of this here (though they base a lot of their analysis on the output of a uniform-swing based model rather than real elections). They conclude that the main two causes are tactical voting (for the last few decades at least, many Lib Dem supporters have been happy to vote Labour, and Labour supporters happy to vote Lib Dem, if they think that will help to prevent the Tories winning their seat) and differential turnout (for whatever reason, safe Labour seats tend to have a lower turnout than safe Tory seats). However, under the first past the post system, the main electoral bias has been towards the dominant parties - the Conservative and Labour parties, and the most popular parties in Northern Ireland (currently the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin) tend to win a far larger share of the seats than their share of the vote. In contrast, parties like UKIP and the Green Party of England and Wales have found it very difficult to win any seats at all, despite a significant share of the vote nationally, and even the Lib Dems are severely under-represented. Conservatives often complain about this bias towards Labour - but they remain the strongest supporters of the status quo, as it is difficult to imagine an electoral system that would be more favourable to them. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively the conservative voters are more evenly spread across the country, and so less likely to form the needed majority in any particular constituency than labour voters, a large fraction of which live in the major cities, where they make up a clear majority in many districts. Much the same as the reason labour always seems to be winning at first, with the rural conservative votes taking longer to be gathered in and counted. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some say that the peculiar British First past the post system favours the Labour Party at present, as there is a continuing trend for people to move away from the inner cities, which are often safe Labour seats, into suburbs and dormitory towns, which are often marginal seats. See Voting system is biased towards Labour because of uneven size of constituencies, warns report] (but this item is in from a strongly Conservative newspaper). The Coalition has initiated constituency boundary changes by an independant body called the Boundary Commission to address this.[1] Not surprisingly, Labour didn't address the issue when they were in power, as they stand to lose a quite number of seats in Parliament. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that a first-past-the-post system strongly favours the two largest parties, so that's one reason why Labour (and the Conservatives) find it easier to win elections. But, as Alansplodge says, the unequal electorates of constituencies is the key to why Labour have an even greater advantage than the Tories. Labour tend to do well in areas where constituencies have smaller electorates: Wales, where legislation determines this, Scotland where the same was true until recently, and inner cities, which have tended to lose population over time, so their electorates are roughly average immediately after each boundary revision, but they fall thereafter. There's lots of research on this, and other possible causes of bias - [2] is a good example. The Conservatives are trying to change this by introducing more frequent boundary revisions, and removing Wales' entitlement to more seats by population.

Having voters concentrated in a few seats is good for a small party, as it gives them more chance of winning one or more of those seats, but bad for a major party, which would prefer to be competitive in a large number of seats. An example: party A's vote is widely distributed; they win 20,000 votes in each of three seats. Party B's vote more concentrated; they win 10,000 votes in two of those seats, and 40,000 in the third. Both parties have taken 60,000 votes, but party A wins two of the three seats. I believe that Labour's vote is now slightly more concentrated than the Conservatives', but this in itself is not advantageous. Warofdreams talk 17:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in Gerrymandering, the process of redistricting so as to influence the results of elections in the favor of the party who does the redistricting. That is, they move voters between districts to try to make it so they will win the next election. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's worth pointing out that this is largely an American practice - in the UK constituency boundaries are determined by independent boundary commissions, which are mandated to produce boundaries that take note of community cohesion, average constituency sizes, and not breaching local authority boundaries. However the current cycle of boundary drawing has been mandated to considerably reduce the overall number of constituencies, and has resulted in some stranger than usual proposals, such as a constituency on both sides of the Mersey estuary with no means of communicating between them without a very substantial detour. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think as long as human are involved, bias is inevitable. Perhaps a computer program, which doesn't even allow party affiliations as an input, might do better. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arwel - gerrymandering hasn't been an issue in the UK for a VERY long time, and the original question is specific to the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to Dame Shirley Porter when she was involved in Westminster Council: she was indeed accused of gerrymandering, in the Homes for Votes scandal. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. IIRC the alleged offence was to move tennants in social housing around the borough for electoral gain in local elections. However, the original question is specific to Parliamentary elections. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

future India vs china war

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

who will win the war and what will be its consequences 117.224.158.146 (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the instructions at the top of the page, "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead."--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A later response purporting to give "the answer" has been removed.

Just to reiterate, "The reference desk DOES NOT ANSWER requests for opinions or predictions about future events". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean a "hot war", the question contains a flawed assumption, that they will fight such a war, as nuclear powers have too much to lose. The US and Soviet Union didn't, but instead fought a cold war, including many proxy wars, and wars with only one side actively participating, with the other acting covertly, such as in Vietnam and Afghanistan. StuRat (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you're going to remove references? Isn't that the point of a reference desk, to provide references? Why don't you go take your clippers to the section up a few days, where the only legitimate reference has been to our article directly about the subject. For the record, here is the removed response, and here are the references that Jack of Oz decided don't belong on the reference desk. The last one is especially relavent to the question, as is the Youtube video, where India's Navy chief actually comments on this exact matter. Buddy431 (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaire CEOs who take $1/yr salaries and minimum wage issues

It seems pretty safe to say those cases where the rich guy "officially" only makes $1 per year are just for show (I've not yet seen an example where the $1 per year taker isn't massively compensated by other means, including the owning of millions of shares of valuable stocks). But if one actually were not compensated in any other way except for the $1 for the year on their Form W-2, which employers give each employee to whom they pay a salary, wage, or other compensation as part of the employment relationship, and if it were a verifiable fact that they worked more hours in the year than minimum wage would yield $1 for because the company required them to put in more than a fraction of an hour in the year or else they'd be fired, wouldn't that be a violation of minimum wage laws? If it's really just a loophole to call someone "salaried" instead of "hourly" to escape minimum wage laws, I wonder what keeps miserly employers from doing this with their maids, dishwashers, car washers, etc. who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and not in a position to find something better with the conditions of their continued employment not that they work a specified number of hours per week, but only that they get the job done, which itself obviously takes time to do, with a salary that, when you factor in the time the job takes to do, ends up being an amount per hour that would easily condemn the employer in the law's eyes. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some employees are exempt from minimum wage and overtime laws in the U.S. Exempt Employee (see "practical application" near the bottom). I'm guessing other countries have similar laws and exceptions. RudolfRed (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt his W-2 will actually say 1.00 as there is almost certainly stock or other compensation effects, even if only from prior years.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right in the real world, since that form has in Box 1 "Wages, tips, other compensation." But if one actually were not compensated in any other way except for the $1 for the year, and didn't have any stock or options (this would never really happen), then it could have 1.00. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, if you are only paid $1 then you only earn $1... what is the question? --Tango (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the questions mentioned of "if one actually were not compensated in any other way except for the $1 for the year on their Form W-2, which employers give each employee to whom they pay a salary, wage, or other compensation as part of the employment relationship, and if it were a verifiable fact that they worked more hours in the year than minimum wage would yield $1 for because the company required them to put in more than a fraction of an hour in the year or else they'd be fired, wouldn't that be a violation of minimum wage laws?" and "I wonder what keeps miserly employers from [calling their maids, dishwashers, carwashers etc. salaried instead of hourly to escape minimum wage laws]"? I saw those questions in the OP's post. But RudolphRed's links seem to have answered them. 69.243.220.115 (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all CEOs should be paid $1 in salary, with all their compensation coming in company stock they must hold until well after they leave. (If they plead poverty and say they need money to live on until then, perhaps they could be paid as much as a line worker makes.) That way, if they leave the company in good shape, they do well, but if they drive it down to junk stock, they don't. That would solve the problem of incompetent CEOs collecting millions from the companies they bankrupted. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the typical rationale for a large percentage of compensation for executives being stock options, but I've also heard it argue that the value of the options is much more dependent on the market in general, rather than how good the CEO actually is. They can also encourage unwise risk taking - option holders can benefit greatly if the company does well but, unlike shareholders, do not lose money if they screw up. [3]Buddy431 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be regular stock, not stock options or any other arrangement which allows them to make money as the company fails. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely he purpose of a minimum wage law is to give legal recourse to employees who wish to complain about the level of compensation they receive. If a CEO elects to pay himself only $1, I doubt he can then take the company to court to recover his missing $6. Astronaut (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving, voting in a state's primaries

So I live in Pennsylvania, but there is a ~75% chance I am moving to Virginia as of March 4th. Virginia holds its primary on March 6th, and Pennsylvania on April 24th. I always vote in primary and regular elections, and I don't want to be disenfranchised. What can I do to be a voter in either primary? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Virginia; under law there is no voter registration in the 21 days preceding a primary or general election. Note that the reason it refers to county, city, or town, is that elections are handled at that level. This is confirmed with a quick look at the election web site for Fairfax County, the largest in Virginia. here says the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request an absentee ballot from PA and vote in the PA primary before changing your registration. Marco polo (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that PA's absentee ballot requirements are quite strict; there is a list of reasons you can request a ballot, and if you do not fall onto the list, then you cannot absentee vote. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you described, you will not be able to vote in either primary legally. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If PA won't allow you an absentee ballot because you will be out of state at the time, return to PA to vote in the primary, then register in VA for the next election. In general, 30 days residency is required before you can be legally considered a resident. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most states allow "away on business" as a reason for an absentee ballot. Assuming that you are in Virginia to work, that should meet that qualification. However, if you don't think that works, then you would have to return physically to Pennsylvania for the vote. Marco polo (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@IP: if I were trying to find a reason not to vote, then I would agree with you. But I'm looking for a reason to vote, and the chances of me being prosecuted for doing something which is maybe legal maybe not legal but unquestionably ethical is astronomically low; probably 98% of judges would throw out the case. @Marco polo: actually, that is a good idea. I will be living in one location for ~2 months, and afterwards my situation is unclear. I wonder if I could rightly change my mailing address to a "temporary" location in Virginia, but keep my official residence as Pennsylvania in the meantime. Would that be legitimate? Or do the DMVs and the like frown upon the idea of having a temporary residence for more than 30 days? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to ask your county elections office, not a bunch of random people on the Internet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a moment... one state requires 21 or 30 days residence before you are eligible to vote, yet the other doesn't allow you to vote the moment you set foot out of the state. Surely somethings wrong here. I presume you can get away with not telling anybody (including the DMV, the postal service or the voter registration people) that you have moved for quite a few weeks. Astronaut (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One option... if you can afford it... continue to own or rent your PA address until after the PA primary in April. As long as you do this, it should not matter to PA if you happen to own or rent a second house in VA. If it helps, imagine that you just bought a vacation home in VA, where you intend to spend the summers and the occasional weekend. You would still vote in the PA primary, as your house in PA is still your primary place of residence. Now imagine that on May 1st (ie after the PA Primary) you decide that you really really like your vacation home, and wish to move there permanently. You give up your PA residence and move full time to VA. Your former "vacation home" will then become your "primary place of residence". At some point over the summer you will be eligible to register to vote in VA for the general election. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually what I'm going to do: make my official residence in PA, and my temporary residence in VA. Given that I should be moving two months after arriving in VA, it's probably not even illegal. Although, as stated elsewhere, it is definitely not immoral.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how high is a trillion

A while ago I heard a statement that was difficult to believe. So in an effort to find some kind of confirmation or otherwise, could somebody please answer this question. If one trillion dollars in $100 dollar bills were stacked flat in a single pile, how high would the pile be ?190.148.133.230 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site says you can stack 233 bills per inch, if not compressed: [4]. So, since you would have 10 billion bills, that would mean 10 billion/233 = 43 million inches = 3.6 million feet = 677 miles. Now we have to think about the compression factor. That all depends on how they were stacked. If we envision a system of shelves every 1000 bills or so, then they might not be compressed much at all. I don't know what the max compression might be. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was great StuRat. Thank you. best laugh I've had all day and it got me thinking that befor doing that I'll also have to consider humidity. It might have a significant effect.190.148.133.230 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That system of shelves would have to be very strong to be 667 mile high. – b_jonas 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

As we currently have no way to stack or build anything that high, the point is moot. We could, however, build many much smaller towers, either with or without shelves. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Just to put numbers into some sort of perspective, consider that we're still only about 73% of the way to the first million days of the Christian Era. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. How dirty the bills are would also matter (the 233 is for new, clean bills). I'll mark this resolved. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Resolved it may be, but here is another (I know it's not a single stack) visualization: http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html Mingmingla (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, this is another attempt to visualize large amounts of money... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the question and the answers should probably state whether trillion (and billion) is long or short scale, because there's a big (factor of 1000) difference. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we seem to be talking about the US dollar, then the short scale is clearly the one to use, especially since a trillion US dollars in the long scale is far more money than has ever existed on the planet. StuRat (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooters Airline

I am curious to know from an economics point of view why Hooters as a Restraurant concept seems to be economically viable but I have not seen any Hooters as an Airline concept. Would it be viable to form and run a Hooters Airline? Or is the experience of flying different from the experience of eating in a restraurant. 220.239.37.244 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been special flights, such as one for nudists and one for smokers, but I don't think such niche markets can really support an entire airline, as they need volume to make it economically viable. Even supersonic passenger flight wasn't economically viable in the end. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people travel in airline with spouses/partners and families. A Hooters restaurant is generally frequented by single/unaccompanied men. But an airline business, targeting only single men, is not economically feasible. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Southwest Airlines of the '70s was kind of like that. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those hostesses with their keen-high sock-clad feet are nowhere near the Hooters girls. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If my memory of slang is correct, knee-high socks were never "keen" (def 8), as that term belonged to the 1960's. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Hooters Air. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holey moley. I was about to point out that one of the reasons airline stewards/stewardesses don't look like they used to is because there were a metric ton of sexual discrimination lawsuits in the 1960s over outfits, hiring practices, age discrimination, and so on. I wonder how "Hooters Air" got around those. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you get a job at a place like Hooters, it's obvious that your job is to titillate men. It's not like a regular job, where that shouldn't enter into it. StuRat (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, do you know about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? It doesn't quite work that way in the United States. Especially with airlines. You don't get to just say, "sorry, this is the sexy ladies airlines only; non-sexy ladies, don't apply." That's against the law. As I pointed out, in the 1960s there were a large number of lawsuits over this, and that's one of the reasons the airline industry changed. I might also point out that apparently Hooters has had repeated problems with the EEOC in its own, "regular" business as well in the 1990s. It appears the inquiries were dropped mostly because of public opinion (read: politics), not because of any legal precedent. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As that article says, most of the cabin staff wore normal uniforms. There were just a couple of "Hooters Girls" on board. It was very clear what their job was, but I don't see any real discrimination there - they were fully informed when they took the job and there is a legitimate business reason for requiring them to dress the way they do. If they had required all the cabin crew to wear Hooters uniforms, they might have had a problem because a lot of their job wouldn't require such a uniform (the most important part of the cabin crew's job is related to safety, not hospitality). They may also have struggled to find women both qualified for the job and willing to dress like that. --Tango (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain why it gets around the EEOC's prior rulings regarding stewardesses. It is discriminatory if you are limiting your hiring to specific ages, genders, and races for those sorts of jobs. I'm not sure that "titillating airline passengers" counts as enough of a "legitimate business reason" for the EEOC. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How was their business model different than the Hooters restaurants, a modeling agency, or any strip club, for that matter ? If any business is ever allowed to hire only pretty women and put them in skimpy clothes, then why shouldn't that airline ? I believe the critical point is whether they have full disclosure. That is, if you think you are being hired to be a normal stewardess and then get told you have to wear skimpy clothes and flirt with the customers, then you have a right to complain. If they tell you all this before you accept the job, then you don't. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Fulling informed"? XPPaul (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. --Tango (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully informed that they wouldn't be fully uniformed. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stewardesses look hot enough the way they look. XPPaul (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]