text
stringlengths 0
105k
|
|---|
Of course, exercising one's legal right to cross that white line results in obscenities screamed louder than a banshee and an impressive array of creative hand gestures. |
In the eyes of drivers, bike lanes undermine cyclists' right to be on the road. In parts of the US and Japan, cyclists are even legally barred from using the road where bike lanes exist. |
Even worse than the roadside bike lane is the separated bike lane, which takes cyclists off the street altogether (in another win for drivers). |
Most seem designed with the idea that cyclists are creatures of leisure who meander from pop-up cafe to leafy park to corner store. |
The 9km Westside Bike Path, which stretches from Mile End to Glenelg, has more bends in it than a box of pretzels. |
When I'm sweating my way to work I don't appreciate a slalom course - give me get-to-work-on-time straight lines. |
And bike lanes get messy. Road sweepers can't access separated bike lanes and councils are often slow to react to reports of broken glass or obstructions. |
While cycling in England, I was prevented from reaching Brighton due to a fallen tree that covered the cycle lane I was using. |
A call to the council was met with, "We know that tree is there but no one uses that bike path so we're not moving it." The irony was lost on them. |
But segregated bike lanes aren't the worst offenders; that prize goes to the "shared use" lane. |
You'll see these glowingly depicted in artists' renditions of urban redevelopments: smiling cyclists roll down one side of a path, a white line marking its centre, while families with small children and dogs wander along the other. |
In reality, such paths are an invitation to the crash of a lifetime. Pedestrians walk at 5km/h, bicycles travel at 30km/h. Children and dogs don't pay heed to white lines. |
Lobby for bike lanes and you're lobbying to be marginalised and pushed off the road. |
Bicycles are vehicles and cyclists need to understand that they have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers. |
Cycle paths simply can't be built everywhere, so cyclists should get used to practising defensive cycling and the more riders there are on the road the safer our roads will be. |
Our city planners should work to calm our roads through driver education and suitable speed limits. |
So, with apologies to Bing Crosby, my argument is: Let me ride through the wide open city that I love. Don't fence me in. |
Originally published as Kanki Knight: Right to ride<|endoftext|>CLOSE Australian TV host Karl Stefanovic wears suit for a year. He says he was frustrated by the sexism targeted at his female colleagues – that they are too often judged for what they wear. |
Co-hosts Karl Stefanovic and Lisa Wilkinson are dressed for "Today." (Photo: Screenshot from "Today" website) |
Australian TV host Karl Stefanovic wore the same suit for a year and no one noticed. |
Stefanovic, who co-hosts the Today morning program in Australia, said he was frustrated by the sexism targeted at his female colleagues. |
"No one has noticed; no one gives a (expletive)," Stefanovic told Australian newspaper The Age. "But women, they wear the wrong color and they get pulled up. They say the wrong thing and there's thousands of tweets written about them." |
TV host Karl Stefanovic wears the same suit for over a year in subtle sexism point http://t.co/PkuAHFimRlpic.twitter.com/pNdZCc21L7 — Metro (@MetroUK) November 15, 2014 |
Stefanovic said women are judged "more harshly and keenly for what they do, what they say and what they wear," reports The Age. |
"I'm judged on my interviews, my appalling sense of humor – on how I do my job, basically," he said in the interview. |
Stefanovic's experiment started after his co-host Lisa Wilkinson gave a speech about sexism, and talked about criticism of her wardrobe. |
After the first month of wearing the same suit, Stefanovic told Wilkinson about his experiment. They then waited for the public to notice, but no one did, according to Today's website. |
In the big reveal, Stefanovic said he had worn the suit every day with the exception of a couple of days for dry cleaning. |
"You have been stinking," one of the co-hosts joked. |
Follow @JolieLeeDC on Twitter. |
More stories |
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1qONfUa<|endoftext|>You’ve probably always been told that flight attendants hate being referred to as stewardesses, that to do so is a faux pas on the order of asking for a Turkish coffee in a Greek café. But this isn’t entirely so. Many flight attendants are proud of having been stewardesses, and well they should be. They were the best-dressed, best-groomed runaways the world has ever seen. Readers who grew up in the 1970s or later may need to be reminded that stewardesses are what flight attendants were called once upon a time when they were uniformly young, single, slim, attractive, and female. A good smile (all teeth, no gums) and some ability as a conversationalist were further prerequisites. Sonnie Morrow Sims, for one, fit the bill in all particulars. In the early 1960s she might have been described as a leggy blonde; then, as now, it was a skill set that could open many doors. As a 20-year-old college dropout, she began flying for American Airlines in 1962, a time when air travel in general was a far more rarefied experience than it is today: even on routine flights she would pass out roses to women passengers and serve seven-course meals on fine china and linen tablecloths. She also flew on special charters such as the plane that took the Beatles from city to city in 1966 on their last U.S. tour and the government-contracted flights that ferried soldiers to Vietnam and, if they were fortunate, back home again. Flying with the Beatles was fun: she saved the utensils and everything else they touched in airsickness bags and sent it to her kid sister back home in Minnesota. The Vietnam flights were fun, too, in their way, though when the young soldiers she had just spent hours getting to know deplaned in Saigon or Da Nang, she would lock herself in the bathroom and sob, unable to say good-bye. |
Not every stewardess at every airline had the opportunity to knock a bowl of cereal into John Lennon’s lap (he refused to laugh it off) or get shot at during takeoff by the Vietcong (they missed), but, for most, flying was an adventure in and of itself at a time when the average woman got married at the age of 20 and when opportunities outside the home were limited to teaching, nursing, and the secretarial pool. “None of that appealed to me,” says Sims. “I just really wanted to travel.” Well, sure. And for tens of thousands of young women like her, women who were spirited and daring, who may have wanted to meet Mr. Right, but not before a bit of larking about (“This morning, sight-seeing in New York—and in about five hours, I’ll meet my date for dinner in San Francisco,” read a 1961 recruiting ad for American Airlines), the draw was obvious. “Marriage is fine! But shouldn’t you see the world first?” asked a 1967 United Airlines ad. Yes, most stewardesses would have answered, endorsing both sides of the equation. “These women almost to a person were kind of the black sheep of their families,” says Laurie Power, who flew for TWA for 29 years, beginning in 1963. “They left”—home, college, other jobs—“because they couldn’t stand the drudgery of everyday life, which was marriage or teaching, and washing on Monday and ironing on Tuesday. So life as a stewardess took on a more dramatic, rather more interesting scale.” In Power’s case, that would translate into invitations to parties thrown by big-shot Hollywood producers, to countless hotel and restaurant openings, and, once, to a cruise on a yacht owned by John Theodoracopulos, one of the richest men in Greece. “A bevy of flight attendants in any gathering was always a good thing,” she says. “A bunch of pretty girls sitting around a pool—people were always inviting us here and there and everywhere, because we were sort of like icing, I suppose.” It would be only a slight overstatement to say that stewardesses in the 1960s were to glamour what firefighters and cops have more recently been to heroism. “We were almost on the same level as a movie star,” says Sonnie Sims. “People admired us when we walked through the terminal. I remember our uniforms—they were all custom-fitted. They were just sculpted to your body, so everybody looked fabulous. We were all thin and had these great figures and wore white gloves and hats. You walked through the terminals with your head really high and you knew everybody was staring at you.” Sex, of course, was part of the equation, crystallized by the publication in 1967 of Coffee, Tea or Me? Purporting to be the “naughty” and “uninhibited” memoirs of two stewardesses, the book—frank but not particularly salacious—sold more than a million copies and spawned three sequels. Its most commercially significant revelation: that some “stews” on some occasions had sex. No doubt the same could have been said about any group of young unmarried women, but most young unmarried women weren’t already pursuing a career in which they were winging their way to the farthest reaches of the globe—a mobility that was historically unprecedented for anyone, let alone America’s unchaperoned daughters. “I thought I’d died and gone to heaven,” says a former Pan Am stew recalling how one of her very first flights ended with a layover at a Lisbon beach hotel. The prerequisites were largely the same no matter which airline you hoped to fly for: with rare exceptions, you needed to have two X chromosomes; to be no younger than 20 and no older than 27; to be no shorter than five feet two inches or taller than five feet nine inches; to have a slender, “well-proportioned” figure (as a United recruiter once explained, “We are not looking for the Jayne Mansfield type”); to not, in any case, weigh more than 140 pounds; to agree to retire at the age of 32; to not currently be married (though it was permissible to be widowed or divorced); to not have children; and to absolutely, positively not be pregnant. In short, you needed to be both desirable and, at least in theory, available. Like starlets under contract to Louis B. Mayer’s MGM, stewardesses were told how to stand, how to walk, how to style their hair, how to make themselves up. Their “look” was as polished as the marble in a corporate lobby, and quality control was no joke: a woman who flew for TWA remembers that, aside from garden-variety infractions such as forgetting one’s hat or getting caught smoking in uniform, stewardesses could be suspended if their milky complexions were darkened or freckled by too much time in the sun. A former Eastern Air Lines stew recalls being plucked from a flight for having a bruise on her leg, as if she had been a damaged piece of fruit blighting a grocery-store display. |
What they really were was bait, corporate geishas trained to please the male passengers who formed the bulk of the airlines’ passenger rolls—as much as 80 percent in the late 60s, by one estimate. An ad for United made the pitch with a frankness that would be disarming if it weren’t also appalling: “Every [passenger] gets warmth, friendliness and extra care. And someone may get a wife.” In fact, this was a two-way selling point: Eastern Air Lines, for one, boasted to potential stewardesses that its Miami-based flight-attendant training center was the “finest school for brides in the country.” In case you’re keeping score, some graduates did quite well for themselves. Henry Fonda’s fifth wife, Shirlee, was an American Airlines stewardess. Susan Gutfreund, the second wife of John Gutfreund, the former C.E.O. of Salomon Brothers, had briefly flown for Pan Am (as was invariably mentioned with a snide flourish in 1980s magazine articles recounting the couple’s greed-is-good excesses). The Sultan of Brunei, as you might expect, has an ex-stewardess wife. On the one hand, stewardesses were placed on a pedestal; on the other hand, not to put too fine a point on it, they were pimped. Feminists would point out that this is a dual role that pre-dates in-flight movies (which, by the way, were fleetingly introduced in the 1920s). But what about feminists who also happen to have been stewardesses? One such is Patricia Ireland. A lawyer, she was the president of the National Organization for Women from 1991 to 2001, but in the late 60s she had worked as a flight attendant for Pan Am. Yes, she says, the job “carried a certain prestige, but at the same time it was, you know, one step above cocktail-waitressing.” She cites her resentment at being forced to wear a girdle, which was then an industrywide requirement—“I thought there was no better prescription for varicose veins than to go in a pressurized cabin with the equivalent of rubber bands around your thighs”—as one of the seeds of her subsequent activism. (Before quitting, she also forced the airline to extend its health-insurance policies to stewardesses’ families.) And yet, she adds, “My concept of what women could do in the workplace was really very limited. . . . I look back now with awe at the blinders I had on, but it seemed to me at the time just the price of admission to the workplace in a job that was very exciting.” Or, as the authors of Coffee, Tea or Me? put it, “[We] were both from small towns and anxious to take a fling at the big, bad world. That’s true of most girls flying today.” Were stewardesses the first lipstick feminists? Their definition of liberation may have been full of contradictions; it may have been as much about glamour as it was self-determination; it may have bought into traditional notions of femininity with a rigor surpassing that of any cake-baking, Redbook-reading housewife of the era—it may have been feminism as only a Gabor sister could understand it. Still, you could do worse in charting what happened to women over the last 40 years than by examining the lives of stewardesses. |
Most airlines have flight-attendant alumni organizations with chipper yet wistful names evoking age, or flightlessness, or both. TWA and United have Clipped Wings clubs, Continental has the Golden Penguins, National has the Sun-downers, American the Kiwis (named, like the Penguins, for a flightless bird). If you attend a meeting or party given by one of these organizations, three things will happen. First, more than one still-slender, well-groomed woman in her 50s or 60s will ask if you need a drink. Second, you will meet at least one set of identical twins; ex-stewardess ranks are full of them. This is because airlines used to like twins the way farmers used to like 300-pound zucchinis (boffo photo op). And third, you will hear a lot of stories, and among them will be some common themes: The “coffee, tea, or me?” jokes got old awfully fast. There wasn’t as much fooling around as you’d think. Pilots were great. Pilots were jerks. But what you will hear more than anything else, over and over again, is how the very nature of air travel has devolved, how a mode of transportation that was once luxurious and exclusive—a “privilege,” some former stewardesses say—has become, even at its best, merely endurable. Once upon a time, you may be told, boarding a plane was such an event that stewardesses took souvenir Polaroids of passengers as if they were sailing on an ocean liner or catching a dinner show. Once, there were planes with piano lounges. Once, a first-class meal might have included turtle soup served from a tureen, Chateaubriand carved seatside, and cherries jubilee. Steaks would be cooked to order—eggs, too, on breakfast flights. This is a world that, for obvious reasons, is even harder to conjure after September 11. (Carving knives on an airplane?) There could be a Blanche DuBois quality to many in-flight reminiscences if most of these women hadn’t seen enough of life in the air to not be overly sentimental about it. For one thing, many former flight attendants will confess that, for all the bygone show, airline food was never any good—which isn’t to say they aren’t nostalgic about the days of dishing out lobster thermidor and Polynesian pork. Sonnie Sims: “If you think about it, we’re paying almost the same amount of money to fly now as we were 30 years ago. Airfares really don’t go up that much.” In fact, in constant dollars, they’ve gone down. A peak-season round-trip ticket between New York and Paris went for $530 in 1967, or roughly $2,850 in 2002 dollars; since there were no discount fares in 1967, it’s hard to make an exact comparison with today’s seemingly whimsical fare structures, but you should be able to buy an equivalent ticket for well under $1,500—less than $1,000 if you plan ahead. “Now it’s like the Greyhound bus,” says Sims, employing a simile popular among flight attendants, typically used with the same beaten disdain the editors of W might evince if forced to work for J. C. Penney. “In the 60s, everybody dressed up. Going on an airplane was a special event. Now it’s just a mode of transportation. People get on wearing shower sandals and tank tops. And of course the service isn’t as fancy anymore, either. We’ve taken away the caviar and everything else to save money. That’s all to keep the fares down. People complain about it, but it’s all so they can travel cheaply. And so they get what they pay for.” “Flying then was a lifestyle that can’t be replicated,” says Jane Rosenblum, a former Pan Am stew. “Our old first-class passengers now have their own planes. The old economy-class are now in first class. The rest of the world,” she adds, “simply didn’t fly.” |
If the passengers formed an elite class, so too did the women passing out pillows and carving meat with cavalier innocence. In 1965 a 20-year-old chorus girl from the Copacabana confessed to Newsweek, “I’ve wanted to be an airline stewardess since I was 11.” She and “several dozen sleekly tailored and equally determined young women” were interviewed while preparing to meet recruiters for United. “Right now this job means more to me than a college degree,” she explained, “or even a spot in the line with the Rockettes at Radio City.” Thus was revealed the natural pecking order among glamour-pusses. But if many were called, few were chosen: in 1958, the dawn of the jet age, only 3 to 5 of every 100 aspiring stewardesses got the job; nine years later, TWA boasted that it hired fewer than 3 percent of its applicants—meaning it was easier for the class of 2006 to get into Harvard this year (the college’s acceptance rate was 10.5 percent) than it was to serve martinis over the Atlantic during the Johnson administration. According to popular mythology, the airlines had distinct preferences when it came to their stewardesses. American and United were said to go for the girl-next-door or fraternity-sweetheart type. TWA and Pan Am, which flew international routes, supposedly went after the more sophisticated—or, in some eyes, snobby—sort of stewardess (or “air hostess,” the no less patronizing term TWA made a point of using). National, Braniff, and Pacific Southwest, smaller airlines with southern centers of gravity, were allegedly staffed by high-octane sexpots. As is often the case, there was some truth to the stereotypes: most of American’s stewardesses came from small towns in the South and Midwest, while Pan Am, which required knowledge of at least one foreign language, hired nearly as many European women as it did Americans. Some airlines asked for a year or two of college; some didn’t. Having survived the initial winnowing—aside from multiple interviews, the screening process might have included I.Q. and psychological tests (if only the F.B.I. were as thorough)—potential stewardesses were dispatched to training centers for what was typically a six-week course of instruction. The facilities could be quite lavish: some had swimming pools and tennis courts; some were actually on the grounds of resorts. Given that their female charges had been selected for pheromonal impact, the schools had unique security issues. Most came equipped with curfews and guards. A few went further: the dorm-room balconies at Braniff’s International Hostess Training College in Dallas had cage-like bars, allegedly because too many would-be suitors had tried to scale them. Perhaps for similar reasons, American’s Stewardess College near Dallas was at one point surrounded by an eight-foot-high electrical fence. “One likes to think that the fence was to keep the intruders out, rather than the students in,” notes Wings of Excellence, a semi-official history of American’s flight-attendant corps. If you can conceive of a cross between Acapulco and a P.O.W. camp, that seems about right. As for the curriculum, it was generally divided between safety training and this sort of thing, taken from the outline for a 1964 lecture at United’s training center: Coat: 1. How to carry properly; 2. How to put on properly. |
Together Look: 1. Coat always buttoned; 2. Wear gloves; 3. Carry everything on one side if possible; 4. Ways to carry purse; 5. How to carry gloves; 6. Scarf in summer raincoat. |
Review: 1. Posture; 2. Standing; 3. Walking. If this wasn’t enough to drive her mad, the fledgling stewardess would also be subjected to rigorous instruction from “grooming supervisors.” Some airlines had regulation shades of nail polish and lipstick: Revlon’s Persian Melon at TWA, for instance. At Braniff, false eyelashes were encouraged but not mandated. The stewardess author of Flying High, a 1970 guide for prospective flight attendants, describes being forced by her unnamed airline to wear “sickly green” eye shadow during training, “which tended to make those of us with faintly sallow skin look as if we had contracted hepatitis.” A student would be assigned an ideal weight, based on her height and figure, from which the needle on her bathroom scale was not to budge—as pre-flight “weigh-ins” would later ensure—and even if she was on the gaunt side of well proportioned, as a young and bony Patricia Ireland discovered, she was forced into a girdle. The theory, as another woman phrases it: “At eye level, walking up and down the aisle, they wanted everybody to look smooth.” Supervisors routinely gave “girdle checks,” a procedure that consisted of flicking an index finger against a buttock. Perceptible jiggle meant failure—and a possible suspension. For those lacking seniority, scheduling was unpredictable and erratic. Pay was lousy for everyone, forcing many women to sleep four or five to an apartment in dormlike “stew zoos.” “If you wanted to eat,” says a former flight attendant, “you had to find a boyfriend real quick.” In 1960, a stew starting out with American might have made, depending on her schedule, at best $4,000 a year—the equivalent of $24,400 today. |
If women had enlisted to escape drudgery, they were disappointed to find plenty of it in the air. An Eastern stewardess described the job to Newsweek in 1968 as “food under your fingernails, sore feet, complaints and insults.” Another woman cited in the same article claimed to have tied a pedometer to her leg on a turnaround flight between Chicago and San Francisco; by the end of the day, she had clocked 17 miles. “The only glamorous part of this job is walking through the terminal,” a third stewardess complained. And then there were the situations for which no amount of training could prepare one. A TWA hostess was in the middle of the meal service on one of her first flights when she came to the seats of two men who were “fondling” each other without benefit of a blanket. “I had these two meal trays, and all I could think to say was ‘Would you like dinner now or later?’” A Pan Am stewardess remembers a flight with Elizabeth Taylor and Eddie Fisher while they were on their honeymoon. At some point the plane hit turbulence. “We wanted to check their seat belts, but we didn’t dare.” And why not? “They were under the blankets—use your imagination!” (As a general rule, even when retailing ribald anecdotes, former stewardesses maintain a Doris Day-like level of decorum.) It is said that one is statistically more likely to die crossing the street or driving to a supermarket than in an airplane accident. Whether or not you take comfort in that when boarding a plane, it was decidedly not the case in 1930, when the first stewardesses in America, or anywhere else, were hired by Boeing Air Transport, a forerunner of United Airlines. At that time, passengers had to worry not only about frequent crashes but also about sudden drops of altitude, which, in unpressurized planes, could rupture one’s eardrums. That stewardesses were required to be registered nurses and were initially outfitted with white, hospital-style uniforms was intended to be comforting, to reassure nervous fliers that they wouldn’t spiral into a cornfield on the way to Grandma’s or the anvil salesmen’s convention (though one could just as easily imagine the medical motif having the opposite effect). It was also hoped that the fact that stewardesses were women would have a galvanizing effect on male passengers—not in the Coffee, Tea or Me? sense but rather: These girls are man enough to fly—what are you scared of In terms of her more concrete functions, an air hostess’s duties in the early 30s might have included such pre-flight chores as loading baggage, dusting, making sure all the seats were screwed down tightly, and joining in a “bucket brigade” to fuel the plane. En route, she might have had to restrain passengers from throwing garbage and cigarette butts out open windows. These were not the glamour days that ex-stewardesses are so fond of talking about. By the 1950s, after the introduction of faster, safer, and pressurized planes, flying had evolved into a much less dodgy proposition; passenger complaints now had more to do with lost luggage than with getting killed. At some point during the decade, the number of air passengers in America first exceeded those who traveled by train; in 1957, a similar tipping point came for transatlantic crossings by air versus sea. In those days, commercial aviation was highly regulated. Among other things, the government dictated where and when the airlines could fly and how much they could charge; on transatlantic flights even the amount of legroom and the number and type of courses that could constitute a meal were prescribed by international agreement. (In 1958 there was a minor furor over what the word “sandwich” meant after Pan Am accused some of its European competitors of stretching the definition to include virtual smorgasbords.) With innovation so creatively discouraged, there were few ways for airlines to distinguish themselves. This was when industry leaders began to realize that the very femaleness of stewardesses was a marketable asset. (Through the 1930s and 40s, many airlines had preferred hiring male stewards, partly in emulation of train and ocean-liner service.) As The Saturday Evening Post noted in 1954, “Because service is one of the chief areas of competition among the lines, the companies increasingly are stressing the importance of the girls.” That same year American became the first airline to impose the mandatory retirement age of 32, thereby hoping to ensure its stewardess corps’s ongoing pulchritude. It was, perhaps, a largely symbolic gesture, given that the average stewardess flew for only two years anyway, most of them quitting in order to get married—a high turnover rate that would last into the 1970s. Gwen Mahler, a former TWA hostess, is a statistical case in point: she started flying in 1955 at the age of 20, retiring a year later to marry a pilot she had met over a malted at New York’s LaGuardia Airport three months into the job. (She got the conversation rolling by admiring his uniform.) As for colleagues who took a more careerist approach, “I can remember thinking, Oh, this gal has been flying for four, five years? I wonder what’s wrong with her?” |
It was on October 26, 1958, that Pan Am flew America’s first regularly scheduled commercial jet flight, its Boeing 707 taking off for Paris from New York’s Idlewild airport. By the early 60s all the major carriers were flying jets on their most significant routes. The fastest comparable propliner, the DC-7, took more than eight hours to get from New York to San Francisco or Los Angeles. A 707 made the same trip in a little over five hours. Not only did jets offer a faster, quieter, and smoother ride (“You’ll be able to stand a half-dollar on edge. . . . You’ll be able to hear the ticking of a watch. The flower you bought when you left will be fresh when you arrive,” gushed an ad for the 707), jets were sexy in the same early-60s way that the Kennedy administration and James Bond movies were, all kept aloft by an atmosphere of sleekness, power, and Cold War technology. For those who could afford it, jet travel made the world accessible in a way we now take for granted—and have maybe even begun to fear a bit—but was intoxicating at the time. This was when the jet set was born, when the fanciful premise of Frank Sinatra’s “Come Fly with Me,” of casually floating down to Peru or sipping exotic booze in far Bombay on a whim, became a reality—at least for movie stars and international playboys. This was the cultural breeze that lifted stewardesses to their apex as icons of glamour. Their uniforms had traditionally taken many of their stylistic cues from the military, but now it was time for something new in the air, and in 1965 the advertising executive Mary Wells persuaded Braniff International Airways to hire Emilio Pucci to redesign its stewardesses’ uniforms with his op-art patterns and palette of Lilly-Pulitzer-on-acid colors. He wasn’t the first name designer to dress stews (Oleg Cassini, for one, had created uniforms for TWA in the 50s), and he wasn’t being entirely fair when he observed that “most airplane stewardesses are dressed as if they were traveling by bus in the year 1925.” (Many stewardess uniforms were beautifully tailored and split an interesting difference between classicism and the stray space-age flourish.) But he was the first to take the implicit come-on of the stewardess’s role and bring it into line with the new decade’s louder, more in-your-face sensibility. The airline’s ads were soon smacking their lips: “Does your wife know you’re flying with us?” Braniff’s stock, which had been trading around $24, was goosed up to $120. “We were envious of the Braniff uniforms,” admits one former Pan Am stewardess, who along with her sisters was still stuck in wool suits that looked like “something Tippi Hedren might have worn” (as V.F. contributing editor Laura Jacobs once put it). The owners of Braniff’s rivals were certainly envious of its stock price, and soon every carrier’s stewardesses had to have modish uniforms. Hems went up, colors got bolder, fabrics became more oil-based. United’s new outfit was punctuated by a bright orange hat that looked like a cross between a jockey’s cap and a mailbox. National promoted “uniforms that purr,” with hats and jackets made of simulated tiger fur—allegedly designed with the input of the stews themselves. The nadir, arguably, was the paper uniforms TWA introduced in 1968 to promote certain of its destinations. They came in four styles: a Roman toga, a faux-lamé miniskirt that was meant to represent Paris, “penthouse pajamas” from Manhattan, and an English “serving wench” getup. The ads promised “the end of routine travel with hostesses to match,” and this proved to be true, since there was nothing routine about watching a flight attendant whip out a roll of masking tape to repair her uniform, or, worse, catch on fire. (The uniforms’ manufacturer had quickly run through its supply of nonflammable paper). The promotion lasted just seven or eight months. The airlines’ advertising agencies also followed the Braniff lead. Pan Am’s radio commercials asked, “How do you like your stewardesses?,” as if they themselves were the cuts of meat they were cooking to order. Continental, which had long painted its planes with splashes of gold, introduced the slogan “The Proud Bird with the Golden Tail.” Since the airline’s stewardesses were dressed in golden uniforms, this was widely perceived as a clumsy double entendre in the new sex-sells climate. |
This was the era of the swinging stew, first enshrined in popular culture by the 1965 play Boeing-Boeing, in which a bachelor—played by Tony Curtis in the same year’s film version—juggles three unwitting stewardess girlfriends, thanks to the miracle of dovetailing flight schedules. The subsequent success of Coffee, Tea or Me? in 1967 prompted its paperback publisher, Bantam, to exhume a dud airline novel from 1960 and republish it as The Fly Girls with a new front cover featuring half-dressed hostesses and back-cover copy that pretty much defines the narrow genre of stew lit: “Underneath their uniforms, they were simply girls—warm, soft, yielding creatures who lived too fast and loved too recklessly. Everyone thought they were such angels. . . . They didn’t know about those passionate nights in those strange hotel rooms such a long, long way from home . . . ” Occasional public scandals involving stewardesses and other airline personnel only served to enhance their image as Playmates with wings. At a 1962 presentation on flight safety for Congress, a TWA flight engineer showed pictures he had taken with a hidden camera of, in newspaper columnist Jack Anderson’s description, pilots “cavorting with stewardesses in flight.” Flight attendants periodically made headlines by being arrested for prostitution. Was there a natural affinity between the two professions? A lawyer for five such women explained the connection to The New York Times in 1971: stewardesses “meet men easily and are able to see them in the afternoon.” But a flight attendant defended her colleagues against the “unfair” aspersions: “If you took all the secretaries in the Empire State Building, the percentage [also getting paid to have sex] would be about the same.” When quizzed about the “swinging” issue, former stewardesses roll their eyes with the politest annoyance imaginable, much the way the president of a sorority house might if asked to give a disquisition on binge drinking. Oh, it may have gone on. There may have been certain “types” who went in for that sort of thing—can we talk about our charitable work now? “Well, there was as much as you wanted, that’s for sure,” says a former stewardess, the “much” being male companionship. “But among my colleagues,” she continues, “very few of them took as many chances as I did. They were more gently reared, I suppose.” Indeed, the general sense you get after talking to dozens of stewardesses is that the profession’s libidinal reputation has been oversold, an impression shared by previous reporters: as the Saturday Review assured readers in 1971, flight attendants had been “badly misjudged” and were decidedly not “vixens.” But special mention must be made of the stewardess-pilot relationship. The airplane was a workplace in which hierarchy, thanks to the gender divide, was infused with a jolt of sex—always a provocative dynamic, as doctors and nurses will also tell you. “Back in the 60s, we were just stupid,” says Kay Moran Tolhoek, who flew for Eastern for five years, beginning in 1962. “These captains would hit on these flight attendants right out of Arkansas or some damned place, and they’d end up having affairs for six, seven, eight years. And you knew the captain wasn’t going to divorce his wife. The majority of them were just fooling around, and it really was the naïve girls that these captains zeroed in on.” “I suppose there is as high an incidence of stewardesses involved in an affair with the married captain as there is of secretaries who have affairs with their married bosses,” writes the author of Flying High. “You are not fated to have a mad affair with a married pilot if you become an airline stewardess, but if you want to, you can certainly find an attractive one to have it with.” Attractive, maybe, but not likely a big spender: to this day, pilots are saddled with an industrywide reputation for skinflintiness and a bent toward tackier forms of moonlighting. One representative anecdote, which may put the eroticism of the pilot-stew relationship in perspective: A former stewardess remembers inviting a captain back to her place for what she thought would be a “hot date.” Instead, he arrived with Amway samples. |
The 1970s proved to be as awkward a decade for air travel as they were for everything else in which taste is a consideration. A quick way to chart the industry’s growing glamour gap: In the 1970 film Airport, the stewardess heroine was played by Jacqueline Bisset, a renowned European beauty. In Airport 1975, the equivalent role went to Karen Black—as fine an actress, but also the one who could just as convincingly play a Denny’s waitress. Reflecting the times, the airlines’ advertising was becoming increasingly crude. “It was really quite unbecoming,” says Laurie Power, “but it was part of that era, when they had nothing else left to sell. Everybody had movies, everybody had multi-course meal services, everybody had everything, you know—what else could they do?” Marketing studies said essentially the same thing. And so it was in 1971 that National introduced a slogan that soon became infamous (at least among stewardesses, who hated it): “I’m Linda [or Cheryl or whoever]. Fly me.” Building on the momentum of its “Proud Bird with the Golden Tail” campaign, Continental now boasted that “we really move our tail for you.” Reinforcing this message with unintended synergy was the 1969 film The Stewardesses, a soft-core drive-in favorite in which it was revealed that stewardesses spent their free time trying on bras, showering, and practicing yoga poses in the nude.<|endoftext|>One of the hot topics in computer upgrades for the next couple of years is going to be the move to DDR4. Intel has already announced that the Haswell-E / X99 platform will be based on DDR4, and we can only assume that other future platforms will use it as well. The shift from DDR3 to DDR4 is a the big jump for DRAM manufacturers as well, shifting gears to the new product and maintaining stocks of both for the meantime. ADATA is one of the first to officially launch their consumer memory, their Premier line of DDR4. |
JEDEC specifications have the DDR4 base frequency at 2133 MHz with sub-timing latencies of 15-15-15 at 1.2 volts. This is where ADATA will be positioning their first DDR4 modules in the market, and we can assume that others will as well until higher frequency parts are binned. Compare this to the rate of DDR3-2133, which is often at 10-12-12 timings or similar, but uses 1.65 volts, and typically comes with heatsinks. |
Because we are far from the launch of a consumer platform for DDR4, as one might expect this comes across more as a paper launch. ADATA in the past typically publishes a PR about new memory about two weeks before it goes on the market, and I am asking about pricing which was not mentioned. Given the pictures we received with the modules, it would seem that 4GB and 8GB modules will be first to market for DDR4 unless another DRAM manufacturer has something up its sleeve. |
Source: ADATA<|endoftext|>The moon is orbiting the earth and rotates at a rate such that it turns around exactly once per orbit. This means that the same face is always presented to the Earth. |
A similar example is if you get a friend to walk in a circle while always facing the centre, they are rotating once every orbit. |
The obvious question is why did this come about, is it just fluke? It is all because of tides; the gravity from the moon distorts the sea (and to a lesser extent the Earth itself) into an ellipsoid. As the Earth rotates this distortion moves around the Earth triggering the tides. The energy to drive the tides comes from the Earth's rotation and the earth is slowing down its rotation - we know that there were 400 days in a year 250 million years ago by studying corals - the Earth also creates tides on the Moon; But because the Earth is about 80 times heavier than the moon they are far stronger. Originally the Moon was spinning, but these immensely strong tides required so much energy that the Moon's rotation slowed down so much it is now always facing the earth. Essentially there are still tides - the moon is distorted, but they are locked in one place, so it is said to be tidally locked.<|endoftext|>This year's 51st issue of Shueisha's Weekly Shonen Jump magazine is revealing on Monday that Daisuke Ashihara's World Trigger manga is going on an indefinite hiatus due to Ashihara's poor physical health. The manga won't appear in the 51st issue, nor will it appear in the 52nd issue slated for November 28. The editorial staff said that the manga will be on hiatus "for a while," and currently the manga's return date is undecided. The staff added that it will announce the date for the manga's return in a future issue. |
The 50th issue had announced on Monday that the manga didn't appear in the issue because of Ashihara's sudden illness. The magazine's editorial staff had said at the time that the series would continue in the 51st issue. |
Ashihara took a one-week break in September 2014 to treat the nerve roots affected by cervical spondylosis (wear and tear on neck area of spinal column), and has since taken several one-week breaks due to sudden illness.<|endoftext|>Prime Minister Narendra Modi is never away from the front-page headlines. For the past week or more, regular readers of newspapers have been waking up to even more coverage of him and his government than one has got used to seeing routinely. The occasion is, of course, the completion of his first year in office.On Tuesday, the coverage seems to have reached its pinnacle with newspapers filled with graphics, report cards and even a long drawn letter penned by the Prime Minister himself to the citizens, assuring them that “this is just the beginning”. Not all seem to be convinced, though. Newspapers from around the country reacted differently to the first one year of the National Democratic Alliance government. While front pages of some national dailies were completely ‘Modi-fied’ to mark the occasion, others ran with lukewarm response to the year and an objective analysis of the government’s first year. Many papers from the regional press around the country decided to treat it is an another day in the office and led with their usual reportage instead.A common denominator, however, in all major newspapers’ front pages was the large advertisement where the PM chose to pen his letter to the nation that occupied almost half of the front pages.Here’s a look at the front pages: |
The Times of India |