Isn’t it surprising that travelling businessmen prefer elegant air hostesses to dumpy flight attendants?

I have elevated a recent comment of mine to a post. Here:

The Economist used to be a magazine for adults. For “men of the world.” It has now succumbed to finger-wagging puritanism. As the Hainan Airlines and Qatar Airways people know, customers want to be served – all other things being equal – by attractive women (or charming gentlemen.) Pretty women cheer up nervous or stressed or bored businessmen. International airlines carry a lot of such men.

A nice pair of legs ankling down the aisle is one of the rewards of masculine success in being important enough to fly. If a man is a moral kind of chap, it will remind him happily of the comforts of wife and home.

The Economist used to deal in the real world. Clearly their columnist has had backlash from his readers. But in response he doubles down on the virtue signalling.

The blind liberalism of The Economist in its current state simply ignores the reality of sexual and racial differences. It also ignores the importance of religion. In short, it fails to do what it most should – tell the unvarnished truth.

Elite business journalists in the West might claim that dumpy efficiency is what makes an air hostess but that is not the romance of flight. Everybody instinctively understands that.

This sort of thing just confirms my opinion that social media such as blogs must be used to tell the honest truth when the mainstream media like The Economist will not.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: