The FAA has been infected...

Llewtrah381 said:
OK - next serious question: how does changing a term to be less gender-specific and, to some, implying sexism, relate to transgender issues? Seems like grossly overextending the argument.

To be clear, I’m not saying I personally would have pushed for the change re NOTAM and I’m not “in favor” of people changing genders. I’m saying it’s misleading to say one thing leads to the other without backing it up. And given my lack of personal experience or authority on either topic, I’m not so arrogant as to say my uninformed opinion is the most important one.
Click to expand...
You couldn't "see it", so I showed it to you. "Mission" is no more "gender-neutral" than "airmen". You've got men, women and airmen, the latter being both of the former. That anybody is concerned "women" are offended by "airmen" is a matter of their maturity. The snickering delinquents in the back row of a junior high school health class comes to my mind. Their shallowness leads to the specimens in the earlier photo being appointed to critical roles in our government. IMO.
 
Star Trek, 1966, the preamble ends with "to boldy go where no man has gone before"

Star Trek TNG, 1987, the preamble ends with "to boldly go where no one has gone before"

Imagine if Neil Armstrong had said "That's one small step for everyone, one giant leap for....what? Everyone again? Y'all? Maybe all y'all, cause you know, lots of people :mad2:
 
Bill said:
Star Trek, 1966, the preamble ends with "to boldy go where no man has gone before"

Star Trek TNG, 1987, the preamble ends with "to boldly go where no one has gone before"

Imagine if Neil Armstrong had said "That's one small step for everyone, one giant leap for....what? Everyone again? Y'all? Maybe all y'all, cause you know, lots of people :mad2:
Click to expand...

One small step for man (because he is a man), one giant leap for humankind.

One small step for a human, one giant leap for humanity

One smol boop for me, One dope yeet for err’body

Resorting to “but what about <insert historically significant phrase here>??” also adds nothing useful to a conversation about forward progression
 
drummer4468 said:
One small step for man (because he is a man), one giant leap for humankind.

One small step for a human, one giant leap for humanity

One smol boop for me, One dope yeet for err’body

Resorting to “but what about <insert historically significant phrase here>??” also adds nothing useful to the conversation.
Click to expand...

Didn't Neil claim the line was supposed to be "...one small step for a man, one giant leap...", but the transmission didn't fully capture it (or he went very soft on the 'a'.?)
 
GaryM said:
Didn't Neil claim the line was supposed to be "...one small step for a man, one giant leap...", but the transmission didn't fully capture it (or he went very soft on the 'a'.?)
Click to expand...

He may have, but he would still ostensibly be referring to himself, which makes sense
 
drummer4468 said:
It’s the old tired tropes like that that are demeaning and minimizing. Broad strokes of hyperbole, with a few strawmen sprinkled in, that do nothing to further meaningful discord. Instead it only serves to keep gender equality a relatively uncomfortable thing to bring up in conversation. Saying things like women only want cushy jobs while men do the dirty work is intentionally misleading and inflammatory. What many women DO want is to not be paid peanuts to scrub toilets, wait tables, etc while a large portion of the public sits back and perpetuates the grossly misrepresented “wage gap” argument and makes comments like “well I don’t see them signing up to be a garbageMAN, handyMAN, etc, har har.” I don’t know many dudes who endeavor to be garbagemen either, but I do know plenty of women in the automotive fields, working lobster boats, driving tractor-trailers, serving in the armed forces, etc.

I think we see the push for change more in (for lack of a better term)higher skilled fields because more time, work, and money goes into earning the title.

Flip the roles around and pretend that aviation was historically female-dominated. Spend years of working your *** off to be the best “airwoman” that you, a man, can be. You’re damn proud of your accomplishments, as you should be! The feminine title kinda bugs you, but you deal with it. Then one day, they eventually adopt a more inclusive term. Great! And then all you see/hear are sarcastic crusty old heads whining about how entitled and woke you are for wanting to feel a little more welcome in your field. How does that make you feel?



Prefacing this by stating the obvious: I’m not speaking for every individual here. Nor is my goal to be offended on anyone’s behalf. Just stating my own opinions. But the true equality I mentioned refers more to the “between the lines” environment. Sure, we can change official terminologies. But the very existence of this thread(and millions of others like it) demonstrates that many men aren’t 100% comfortable with letting go of historically masculine titles. Some are annoyed by it, some apathetic, some get angry. Yes, slow progress is being made. But in the end all the subtle nuances tend to quietly perpetuate the divide. Yeah, we can make attempts to foster equality with more and more gender-neutral terms, but when behind every change you get blowback from the ones going ”I’m not sexist but..” and “this is ridiculous, what more do these woke crybabies want, blah blah”…. all they want is to not silently feel like an outsider or guest in a male-dominated field. And media only exacerbates it with headlines like “Woman pilot does xyz”, “Woman scientist discovers abc,” when them being a woman has zero bearing on whatever the story happens to be.
Click to expand...

Its not hyperbole. get back to me when women start complaining about not being able to be a steel rigger, a mason, a (pick a blue collar job) that isn't inside. No. they only complain about equality the inside jobs. I will wait while you provide the feminist equality proponents of getting more women into dirty nasty jobs. You can't. They only want selective equality not actual equality. And if you look at the wage gap vs hours worked, for the same exact job there isn't one. So if you want to talk about tired we can start there.
 
EdFred said:
Its not hyperbole. get back to me when women start complaining about not being able to be a steel rigger, a mason, a (pick a blue collar job) that isn't inside. No. they only complain about equality the inside jobs. I will wait while you provide the feminist equality proponents of getting more women into dirty nasty jobs. You can't. They only want selective equality not actual equality. And if you look at the wage gap vs hours worked, for the same exact job there isn't one. So if you want to talk about tired we can start there.
Click to expand...

“Getting women into dirty nasty jobs” isn’t the subject here though. We’re not talking about “all women.” But since you bring that up, I’ll posit that many women don’t want to be in those fields because of this exact widespread toxic philosophy. “This is a man’s job, you don’t wanna do this, you’ll break a nail, go back to your air conditioning, har har.”

Even so, like I said, I know plenty of women who do dirty, nasty jobs. And all they want is to do their work and accomplish their goals with dignity, without their presence in a “man’s profession” being a running joke(openly or subliminally) about being out of their element.

And yes, every semi-competent adult with two brain cells to rub together knows the “wage gap” is misrepresented BS. Every womens’ rights activist/scholar I have talked to is sick of that being brought up. Yes, we all know that women as a whole statistically work less hours at lower paying jobs. But that doesn’t negate the fact that, despite the media’s best efforts to convince you otherwise, women as a whole are not screaming for equal pay to work less hours. They only want to be treated and paid fairly for the work they do. Yes, there are outliers. Yes, social media amplifies stupidity. But how would you feel if, throughout your whole working life, you bust your ass and had to deal with cheap jokes, snide comments, implications that you weren’t as capable, that you want special treatment, broad generalizations as if you weren’t your own individual person, etc?
 
Last edited:
Come on, anyone with half a brain knows that when Armstrong said "one small step for man" he meant mankind, not specifically men. And when the original Star Trek preamble said "to boldy go where no man has gone before" they meant mankind. Come on, Roddenberry was one of the most progressive TV producers in the mid to late 60's, name another show that had such an ethnically diverse cast.

Anyone who is too dumb to recognize that "man" in the above references meant mankind is too dumb to be helped and no amount of appeasement will suffice.
 
drummer4468 said:
“Getting women into dirty nasty jobs” isn’t the subject here though. But since you bring that up, I’ll posit that many women don’t want to be in those fields because of this exact widespread toxic philosophy. “This is a man’s job, you don’t wanna do this, you’ll break a nail, go back to your air conditioning, har har.”

Even so, like I said, I know plenty of women who do dirty, nasty jobs. And all they want is to do their work and accomplish their goals with dignity, without their presence in a “man’s profession” being a running joke(openly or subliminally) about being out of their element.

And yes, every semi-competent adult with two brain cells to rub together knows the “wage gap” is misrepresented BS. Every womens’ rights activist/scholar I have talked to is sick of that being brought up. Yes, we all know that women as a whole statistically work less hours at lower paying jobs. But that doesn’t negate the fact that, despite the media’s best efforts to convince you otherwise, women as a whole are not screaming for equal pay to work less hours. They only want to be treated and paid fairly for the work they do.
Click to expand...
Really? Women have broken into every other field of endeavor or occupation that had toxic hostile masculinity in their way. So are male bricklayers more toxic than male physicians? Do Do male carpenters or high-voltage electricians represent an insurmountable barrier of toxic maleness? If so, where is the outcry?
Where I work we have an apprentice program for machinist. I have known many females who entered the program. With one and only one exception, over 30 years of observation has any female stayed as a machinist. Every other female apprentice Used it as a foot in the door to move into the front office. Every single one. They didn’t hide their motivation either. But because of equality they had to be brought on board. More resources had to be allocated for training in the apprentice program knowing that none of the women would stay.
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
Come on, anyone with half a brain knows that when Armstrong said "one small step for man" he meant mankind, not specifically men. And when the original Star Trek preamble said "to boldy go where no man has gone before" they meant mankind. Come on, Roddenberry was one of the most progressive TV producers in the mid to late 60's, name another show that had such an ethnically diverse cast.

Anyone who is too dumb to recognize that "man" in the above references meant mankind is too dumb to be helped and no amount of appeasement will suffice.
Click to expand...
Wow, you just made a point all right, but not the one you intended...

When Neil Armstrong said "man", he meant himself. It was a small step for himself, but a giant leap for the human race. Man refers to himself, not mankind...and I won't add that "anyone too dumb to recognize that" has half a brain...
 
Bill said:
Come on, anyone with half a brain knows that when Armstrong said "one small step for man" he meant mankind, not specifically men. And when the original Star Trek preamble said "to boldy go where no man has gone before" they meant mankind. Come on, Roddenberry was one of the most progressive TV producers in the mid to late 60's, name another show that had such an ethnically diverse cast.

Anyone who is too dumb to recognize that "man" in the above references meant mankind is too dumb to be helped and no amount of appeasement will suffice.
Click to expand...

Regardless, my statement still stands. Resorting to cherry-picking old pop culture references going “But but, what about <insert 60 year old quote here>” is nothing but an exercise in pettiness and avoidance.
 
dtuuri said:
Their shallowness leads to the specimens in the earlier photo being appointed to critical roles in our government. IMO.
Click to expand...
OK - I have no clue where that pix came from, who it's of, or any other context, so can you tell me whose shallowness you're referring to, what you mean by "specimens", what critical role they're in, and what info you have other than the pix to apparently dehumanize them by calling them "specimens" and on what you base an apparent criticism of their duty performance?

That said, I kinda get your point: I have a hard time seeing people covered with tattoos, especially on their face, and not having an "unfavorable" visceral reaction. But like with what's in your reply, times are changing and things I don't understand from my frame of reference don't mean they're "wrong", bad, or make someone unable to be an expert in their field. I did 24 years in the military, at a time when tattoos, like homosexuality, needed to be covered up. Now both are out in the open. Yes - that feels "weird" to me, after all that time. But I don't think of people covered with tattoos as "specimens".
 
Morgan3820 said:
Really? Women have broken into every other field of endeavor or occupation that had toxic hostile masculinity in their way. So are male bricklayers more toxic than male physicians? Do Do male carpenters or high-voltage electricians represent an insurmountable barrier of toxic maleness? If so, where is the outcry?
Where I work we have an apprentice program for machinist. I have known many females who entered the program. With one and only one exception, over 30 years of observation has any female stayed as a machinist. Every other female apprentice Used it as a foot in the door to move into the front office. Every single one.
Click to expand...

When did we start comparing which fields were more toxic than others? I’m not following your logic here. But I’ll counter that by saying I spent enough time in the army while women were fighting to be allowed into front-line combat MOS’s, to plainly see that they just want to do their damn jobs with neither special treatment or praise nor prejudicial treatment for being women.

Lots of women want office jobs. So do lots of men.
Also lots of stay-at-home dads in the country while mommy is deployed to Iraq. I’m failing to see why we started talking about comparing professions, instead of treating everyone individually with respect and decency regardless of their gender.
 
drummer4468 said:
When did we start comparing which fields were more toxic than others? I’m not following your logic here. But I’ll counter that by saying I spent enough time in the army while women were fighting to be allowed into front-line combat MOS’s, to plainly see that they just want to do their damn jobs with neither special treatment or praise nor prejudicial treatment for being women.

Lots of women want office jobs. So do lots of men.
Also lots of stay-at-home dads in the country while mommy is deployed to Iraq. I’m failing to see why we started talking about comparing professions, instead of treating everyone individually with respect and decency regardless of their gender.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anybody is suggesting to do otherwise. I think this whole thing started when someone mentioned the obvious lack of female representation in physically demanding outdoor career paths and you took exception to it. Nobody suggested disrespecting women, or anybody else.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I don’t think anybody is suggesting to do otherwise. I think this whole thing started when someone mentioned the obvious lack of female representation in physically demanding outdoor career paths and you took exception to it. Nobody suggested disrespecting women, or anybody else.
Click to expand...

Oh, there definitely is less representation of women in physically demanding career paths. I never intended to deny that.

But that’s irrelevant. What I took exception to was the hamfisted, derogatory nature of that post. “You don’t see them signing up to be garbagemen, they only want the indoor jobs” or something like that. Apologies if I misunderstood, but I found that incredibly rude.

I jumped into this thread when it was about simple changes in terminology to be more inclusive and respectful. But as usual it devolved into a men vs women vs progression vs entitlement battle.
 
drummer4468 said:
“Getting women into dirty nasty jobs” isn’t the subject here though. We’re not talking about “all women.” But since you bring that up, I’ll posit that many women don’t want to be in those fields because of this exact widespread toxic philosophy. “This is a man’s job, you don’t wanna do this, you’ll break a nail, go back to your air conditioning, har har.”

Even so, like I said, I know plenty of women who do dirty, nasty jobs. And all they want is to do their work and accomplish their goals with dignity, without their presence in a “man’s profession” being a running joke(openly or subliminally) about being out of their element.

And yes, every semi-competent adult with two brain cells to rub together knows the “wage gap” is misrepresented BS. Every womens’ rights activist/scholar I have talked to is sick of that being brought up. Yes, we all know that women as a whole statistically work less hours at lower paying jobs. But that doesn’t negate the fact that, despite the media’s best efforts to convince you otherwise, women as a whole are not screaming for equal pay to work less hours. They only want to be treated and paid fairly for the work they do. Yes, there are outliers. Yes, social media amplifies stupidity. But how would you feel if, throughout your whole working life, you bust your *** and had to deal with cheap jokes, snide comments, implications that you weren’t as capable, that you want special treatment, broad generalizations as if you weren’t your own individual person, etc?
Click to expand...

Find a conductor, because you have gone off the rails. And no where did I say there was "women's work" or "man's work." What I said was you will be hard pressed to find women complaining about equality in dirty nasty jobs. The vocal ones only complain about equality in the "cool" or "prestigious" jobs.

And you found it rude because it's true?

As I said they don't want equality they want selective equality.

And if there truly was a wage gap where someone could save 22% on paying their employees, why wouldn't they fire all the guys and hire only women?
 
Llewtrah381 said:
OK - I have no clue where that pix came from, who it's of, or any other context, so can you tell me whose shallowness you're referring to, what you mean by "specimens", what critical role they're in, and what info you have other than the pix to apparently dehumanize them by calling them "specimens" and on what you base an apparent criticism of their duty performance?
Click to expand...
Not gonna play with you. If this is your idea of dressing for success I hope you live a long life to enjoy what this country is becoming. Some things should be self-evident, but you have to open your eyes to see them. Of course, with Twitter and Face Book censoring news articles and broadcast networks, too, I understand why you don't know these "guys" (I don't do pronouns). I choose not to know very much about them because I've heard enough.

Rachel Levine blasted for call to 'support and empower' youth with transgender treatments: 'Unserious regime' | Fox News

Non-binary Biden nuclear official accused of stealing woman's suitcase at airport | WPDE
(This author refers to this guy as "they". That kinda stuff makes me sick)
 
GaryM said:
Didn't Neil claim the line was supposed to be "...one small step for a man, one giant leap...", but the transmission didn't fully capture it (or he went very soft on the 'a'.?)
Click to expand...

Yes. And knowing that, you can kind of hear it when you listen to the recording; sounds like "fora man" From a quarter of a million miles away with 1969 technology, it's amazing you can understand anything he said.

I'm just waiting for the stink the first time somebody tells a rescuer that "they're still in there", and the rescuer dies looking for a second person because the first victim identifies as "they/them".
 
Dana said:
I'm just waiting for the stink the first time somebody tells a rescuer that "they're still in there", and the rescuer dies looking for a second person because the first victim identifies as "they/them".
Click to expand...
I would expect, upon the implication that there are multiple persons involved, the rescuer will immediately ask how many people are involved. I would also think that whatever the answer is, the rescuer will examine the site to ensure there *weren't* any other people there.

Ron Wanttaja
 
EdFred said:
Find a conductor, because you have gone off the rails. And no where did I say there was "women's work" or "man's work." What I said was you will be hard pressed to find women complaining about equality in dirty nasty jobs. The vocal ones only complain about equality in the "cool" or "prestigious" jobs.

And you found it rude because it's true?

As I said they don't want equality they want selective equality.
Click to expand...

I must have misinterpreted earlier because I agree in that regard. The vocal ones are usually in the "cool" jobs. And I believe it's because in general, they worked very hard to get those jobs, so they rightfully demand the respect and equality they've earned. But respectfully, I still think the whole "selective equality" part is rude. Maybe that's another misinterpretation on my end. Just because only certain groups are vocal about it, doesn't invalidate the others. I believe "selective equality" is generally a snide and sarcastic concept, used too often to lazily deflect and dismiss/devalue valid grievances.
 
dtuuri said:
...Their shallowness leads to the specimens in the earlier photo being appointed to critical roles in our government. IMO.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that those individuals are not qualified for those roles?
 
Dana said:
I'm just waiting for the stink the first time somebody tells a rescuer that "they're still in there", and the rescuer dies looking for a second person because the first victim identifies as "they/them".
Click to expand...

I guess answering the 'how many souls on board?' question is getting more complicated.
 
GaryM said:
Didn't Neil claim the line was supposed to be "...one small step for a man, one giant leap...", but the transmission didn't fully capture it (or he went very soft on the 'a'.?)
Click to expand...
Or he botched it in the excitement of it all. :dunno:
 
Palmpilot said:
Are you saying that those individuals are not qualified for those roles?
Click to expand...
Right. One steals ladies' clothes and suitcases (on tape apparently) when not managing nuclear whatever, the other is recruiting little kids nation-wide to change their sex (or something too close to that for my comfort). Being transgender appears to me to be the main qualification they held for the appointments. Straight, serious smart folks need not apply, imo.
 
Palmpilot said:
Are you saying that those individuals are not qualified for those roles?
Click to expand...
I think he's saying he's uncomfortable with the world changing, even for things that don't directly affect him. I'm uncomfortable with the rate and direction of change, too, but things have always changed, I can't think of a better country in the world to live in, and that's the cost of "liberty": if I have it, so does everyone else, even for things that make me uncomfortable. I personally see more threats to our way of life from people who tend to be covered with tattoos than people changing genders, but that's my bias and I know it's unfounded. And I don't make a public stink about it either.
 
dtuuri said:
the other is recruiting little kids nation-wide to change their sex (or something too close to that for my comfort). Being transgender appears to me to be the main qualification they held for the appointments. Straight, serious smart folks need not apply, imo.
Click to expand...
Can you back any of that up or is it just baseless fearmongering?
 
dtuuri said:
Being transgender appears to me to be the main qualification they held for the appointments. Straight, serious smart folks need not apply, imo.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Levine health secretary in PA, and confirmed by a Republican Senate there, over multiple terms?

And the NRC official is an MIT graduate with an advanced degree in nuclear engineering I believe.
 
dtuuri said:
Right. One steals ladies' clothes and suitcases (on tape apparently) when not managing nuclear whatever, the other is recruiting little kids nation-wide to change their sex (or something too close to that for my comfort). Being transgender appears to me to be the main qualification they held for the appointments. Straight, serious smart folks need not apply, imo.
Click to expand...

Levine, then Pennsylvania Secretary of Health, was the genius that forced long-term care facilities and nursing homes to accept Covid patients, and we all know how that worked out. Making matters worse, she moved her own mother OUT of a long-term care facility right before the order took effect.
 
If I was the type to categorize jerks into male and female instead of just gender-neutral jerks, and had bad experiences with men in aviation, I might be able to understand seeing this as a step forward, but frankly, I don't see how changing a term changes anything. I can be an airman, a crew member, a flying person, a pilot, a student, a jet jockey, whatever. Being considered an "airman" still didn't change the fact that aviation is the first place I was welcomed with open arms, despite it's believed sexist tint. I think what it really boils down to is whether or not the woman holds grudges against men in particular for things one, two, or even twenty men did to her years ago, or even yesterday. I prefer to believe that most men aren't sexist jerks, and so far, I've yet to run into evidence for a contrary theory. I've certainly met some, but that is hardly representative of half the human race. Because of that, I see the "man" in words like "airman", "fireman" and "councilman" to be nothing more than shorthand for "airpeople", "firepeople", and "councilpeople", which is the proper English interpretation of those words, and has been for hundreds of years.

But men, especially those who hold the view that women are regularly victims of sexist policies or behaviors in the workplace, can I ask a new question? How many of you see actual sexism in your jobs? What jobs do you hold? What are the acts regarded as sexist?

I am really just a researcher at heart, and I'd appreciate y'all's particpation in my survey. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top