skirtcafe.org

Hey Cessna, that is actually really encouraging to hear.

I do see what you are saying, Pythos. Everybody has to weigh if the importance of what they want is worth the hassle. For your friend continuing to be a pilot was worth the hoops she had to jump through and expense of proving her competence. From their own experience both AMM and Ian can say the fear is often worse that what actually materializes. It isn't that they have less to lose than you but that for them going out skirted and dealing with the actual consequences worked better for them than limiting themselves due to fears of what could happen. It is like that line from the movie Strictly Ballroom- "A life lived in fear... ...is a life half lived." At some point, could be age or any other number of reasons, you realize trying is more important that regrets. Please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouths, gentlemen.

Now as to your mother, Pythos, have I got a lecture for her! What a way to be unsupportive. Having met my husband on a long hair board I'm familiar with a lot of the grief men get about their hair both from his own experience and what other men have written. For many longhaired men parental approval never will come, the best you can get is them to stop hounding on the subject. It sounds like you really need to let mom know you love her so much that her comments really have the power to hurt because her opinion of you matters. In her view she's helping you the way she knows how even though the effect is completely the opposite. She needs to hear that you respect her opinion but you are going to do what is right for you. She's done a good job raising you to be able to make good decisions even if they are not what she would choose and she needs to respect that. Because you know she has had more experience in the world you will *ask* for her input from time to time but until you request it it is important that she not comment. Unfortunately, not every parent is able to let their baby be an adult so I don't know if the conversation would be of much use with her but it does need to be said.

Have that conversation, if not for you then for any future girlfriend. Any disapproval over skirts pales in comparison to how bad you look if henpecked by your mother. A mate needs to know that you will stand up for her when mother-in-law gets bossy (particularly if you plan to have children which would bring out a whole new level of "I know best" from mom) and how can you stand up for your wife if you can't do it on your own behalf?

Pythos wrote:I screw up once, and I am finished. So I am in a pickle.

I think I can understand how you feel: if you keep your head down and conform, you'll be "safe", whereas if you do something "different", you'll be in danger.

I think what experience has taught many of us Old Geezers is that it's actually not that simple. Even people who do Everything Right(tm) still can have their lives turned upside down -- they get an incurable disease, they get falsely accused of a crime, someone in power takes a dislike to them, NYC plainclothes police think you're pulling a gun when you try to pull your wallet out, etc. And the risks in being "different" are less than one's experience with one's family -- or in Junior High School -- would lead one to believe. Finally, the best to control the risks, to the extent that it's possible, is to try to evaluate the risks and strategies objectively. For example, if you stop thinking of the FAA solely in terms of how they can screw up your life, and instead think of them as human beings with their own lives and motivations to whom you are just another piece of paper that crosses your desk, you can consider how to approach them so they are less likely to want to act in a way that would screw up your life.

For instance:

Pythos wrote:I had a friend of mine go through GRS. She/he was dubbed mentally unfit until passing several tests that were both intrusive and expensive. My friend had the funds, and proved she was the same pilot as she was when she was male.

I'm guessing that the problem came when she wanted them to change her license from saying "male" to saying "female." You now need to think of this from the FAA administrator's point of view. He has a problem a problem: there's probably no set procedure for doing this, nor can he exactly ignore it, because the license no longer describes the person who has the license. He doesn't want to get in trouble -- he no doubt remembers all the flak about the 9/11 terrorists in their flight classes -- so he tries to come up with ways to at least show he's done his Due Diligence To Protect The Travelling Public.

Your situation is different. There's no reason why the FAA would even need to be officially aware of your choice of clothing off the job. They don't need to do anything at all about it. Even if they become unofficially aware of it, it's a whole lot simpler for them if they just pretend they never saw it.

Is it possible that an FAA official might become unhinged at the idea that a pilot might wear a skirt in his off-hours? Yes. But it's equally possible that a traffic cop that has pulled you over might think that you're reaching for a gun when you try to pull out your driver's license. Does that mean you never get in a car?

Skirt Chaser wrote:From their own experience both AMM and Ian can say the fear is often worse that what actually materializes.

I won't try to answer for AMM but that is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Fear stops us doing all sorts of things, but the experience of forum members is strongly biased towards the fear being far worse than the reality. The upside of facing down my unfounded fears is improved self-confidence in all that I do and that in turn has empowered me to make choices for myself that I might otherwise not have done. Result? I smile more than I used to.

Have fun,


Ian.

I think I understand Pythos' concern.
I worked in an industry subject to considerable government regulation. In order to get many of the jobs you had to pass drug testing, a background investigation, and psychological screening. There was a "Fitness for Duty" program to assure as best as possible each employee's continued fitness. This included random drug testing, and a "continuous observation" program. The continuous observation program obligated employees, and especially managers, to report anything they observed about an employee (on or off duty) that might adversely affect his physical or psychological fitness to perform his duties. Sounds very 1984-ish, doesn't it?
Some things to report were obvious, like drinking before coming to work or while on duty, or using drugs, or being arrested for DUI.
Since "psychological fitness" is a somewhat tenuous concept, it was really up to the observer what to report or not. So if you behaved in a way that was different from the norm, or at least different from your usual behavior, it might be reported. Anything that was reported had to be judged by management as to it's relevance. If management had concerns, you would get sent for a psychological evaluation. While such things were supposed to be confidential, some word would probably get around (particularly if you were kept out of your normal job until "cleared"). So even if in the end you kept your job, it was something to be avoided.

Kris

There was a "Fitness for Duty" program to assure as best as possible each employee's continued fitness. This included random drug testing, and a "continuous observation" program.

I see somebody has worked in the nuclear industry....

crfriend wrote:

There was a "Fitness for Duty" program to assure as best as possible each employee's continued fitness. This included random drug testing, and a "continuous observation" program.

I see somebody has worked in the nuclear industry....

Guilty, as charged!

Kris

Thank you Kris. You have illustrated in sparkling clarity my concerns when it comes to my chosen career. There are many in the industry that would pay little mind to my attire when out and about in life. But there are those people with issues of their own that want nothing more than someone to beat up job and future wise. To them a guy in a skirt has "mental issues", which makes him psychologically unfit fit to operate and aircraft.

There are those that would tell me, "I have to decide which is more important, your career, or fashion freedom", to which I answer "why should I have to make such a decision? I am doing nothing wrong." At the same time I am putting my future in jeopardy.

This sucks...majorly.

By the way, kris what you described sounds unbelievable un-american. It seems so against what the Founding Fathers intended it makes me wonder if this was the Mackarthy era.

[... T]here are [...] people with issues of their own that want nothing more than someone to beat up job and future wise. To them a guy in a skirt has "mental issues", which makes him psychologically unfit fit to operate and aircraft.

This phenomenon deserves some examination, and you may well find that it hinges more on the individuals' own failures/foibles in their own profession than any perceived "oddity" in their target's. Stabbing folks in the back to get one's own career ahead is as old as history; it's something that each and every one of us who pursues a calling needs to take into account. That said, demonstrated capability in one's career tends to outweigh detractors who are trying to advance their own agenda at another's expense; that maxim is not 100%, of course, but I'll bet that in the long haul it's better than 90%.

There are those that would tell me, "I have to decide which is more important, your career, or fashion freedom", to which I answer "why should I have to make such a decision? I am doing nothing wrong." At the same time I am putting my future in jeopardy.

It all depends. Exactly how proficient are you at your calling? If your performance "on the clock" is unimpeachable and unassailable, then the "boss class" is quite likely to cut you quite a bit of slack in places you might not even imagine. If you're "merely human" when you're "on the clock" then it might be slightly different -- right or wrong, the extremely proficient do get preferential treatment, and sometimes that proficiency is innate and unquantifiable.

[...W]hat [Kris] described sounds unbelievable un-american. It seems so against what the Founding Fathers intended it makes me wonder if this was the Mackarthy era.

There are "reasons" for the treatment described. From my understanding, Kris is a civilian (i.e. not military, where different laws apply), and was involved in a positively fascinating, challenging, and, to the populace living in the areas adjacent to the machines which he may have helped design, build, operate, or train others to operate, which involved the potential for positive catastrophe. Hence, the regulatory authorities (the NRC in this case) took extraordinary measures to ensure that the humans that were "in the loop" always functioned at the positive peak of their potential. I am not going to pass judgment as to whether this was "right" or "wrong"; I am going to merely say that's what was (and may still be, for the remaining installations).

Things are not always as they seem.

crfriend wrote:

[...W]hat [Kris] described sounds unbelievable un-american. It seems so against what the Founding Fathers intended it makes me wonder if this was the Mackarthy era.

There are "reasons" for the treatment described. From my understanding, Kris is a civilian (i.e. not military, where different laws apply), and was involved in a positively fascinating, challenging, and, to the populace living in the areas adjacent to the machines which he may have helped design, build, operate, or train others to operate, which involved the potential for positive catastrophe. Hence, the regulatory authorities (the NRC in this case) took extraordinary measures to ensure that the humans that were "in the loop" always functioned at the positive peak of their potential. I am not going to pass judgment as to whether this was "right" or "wrong"; I am going to merely say that's what was (and may still be, for the remaining installations).

Things are not always as they seem.

Carl, you have accurately described the situation. You can add to the list of "may haves", "secure", which post-9/11 added even more emphasis on assuring the reliability of people with certain access and knowledge.
Was it possible for someone with an axe to grind to use the system to unfairly report someone? Yes, of course it was.
Did I trust that management would, after review, disposition such a report in an appropriate receptacle? Yes, I did.
Good employees are hard to find and expensive to replace. They were not dismissed lightly. In fact, even if there were a legitimate concern, every effort was made (counseling, rehab, etc) to help the employee deal with his problem and get back on the job.
So far as I know, what I described is still in effect, perhaps under other names, at all licensed US civilian nuclear facilities.

Kris

Pythos wrote: There are those that would tell me, "I have to decide which is more important, your career, or fashion freedom", to which I answer "why should I have to make such a decision? I am doing nothing wrong." At the same time I am putting my future in jeopardy.

This sucks...majorly.

Pythos, now you know what it's like to be a qualified and competent woman, trying to enter a field that's generally been the preserve of men. Or a non-white person, trying for the same social rights as a white person in a white-dominated society. You're right, it's not fair, it's totally arbitrary, it denies you the rights you feel entitled too. I'm sorry you're having to find out first-hand that things aren't always fair and equal for all of us. But keep your chin up, chum; you'll find a way through this. You seem like the determined type. Don't let the "unfairness" of it all undermine you, or take away your courage.

Cheers,

Jill

This though is a lesson I did not need. I understand the BS that is racism and sexism. Why do you think I am so against it, have been so since I was a weee lad. What I don't get are those that have been discriminated against, being just as bad when it comes to their own prejudice.

Pythos wrote:What I don't get are those that have been discriminated against, being just as bad when it comes to their own prejudice.

Unfortunately, prejudice is a human failing. Most of us are subject to it in one form or another, even those who are objective enough that they don't want to be. And there's another human failing that's pretty common -- lack of objectivity. If you're intelligent, and I suspect you are, you'll remember this when you feel yourself about to make a judgement based on someone's appearance, something it's extremely difficult for even the most enlightened people to avoid doing. And I'm sure you'll find a way to both keep on wearing skirts and be a successful pilot, if you want both badly enough.

Cheers,

Jill

AMM wrote:There's no reason why the FAA would even need to be officially aware of your choice of clothing off the job. They don't need to do anything at all about it. Even if they become unofficially aware of it, it's a whole lot simpler for them if they just pretend they never saw it.

This reminds me of something else I forgot to put in earlier. Pythos, you certainly aren't the only one at work with tastes outside the acknowledged norms. You can bet there are a lot of colleagues with interests you don't know about who probably worry about discovery as well. Because of this they also know what you do outside work often has little bearing to your competency for the job.

AMM wrote:
Your situation is different. There's no reason why the FAA would even need to be officially aware of your choice of clothing off the job. They don't need to do anything at all about it. Even if they become unofficially aware of it, it's a whole lot simpler for them if they just pretend they never saw it.

Is it possible that an FAA official might become unhinged at the idea that a pilot might wear a skirt in his off-hours? Yes. But it's equally possible that a traffic cop that has pulled you over might think that you're reaching for a gun when you try to pull out your driver's license. Does that mean you never get in a car?

In fairness to Pythos, the FAA wouldn't likely ignore it if the responsible individual in his FSDO thought it Pythos' clothing choices indicated some kind of mental disorder. A single DUI could put his medical certificate at risk, and each time he has to renew his medical certificate (which he must maintain to keep his pilot privileges), he must be found not to have any mental disorders that could affect his operation of the aircraft. If the responsible individual in his FSDO thought that a skirt made Pythos crazy, you can guarantee that he would investigate further. This is for two reasons:

1. The FSDO would have a lot of explaining to do in the unlikely event that Pythos were to have an incident, God forbid.

2. The FAA has never been known to be either entirely fair or entirely rational with respect to its administrative enforcement actions, whether dealing with its controllers or with pilots.

As someone who would wear a skirted suit to my job if I either thought I could get away with it or could walk away from my job if I couldn't, and as someone who would have followed Pythos' general career path if I had it to do over again, I can fully sympathize with his position.