Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Turbo-Arrow-Driver, Nov 28, 2022.
LOL. Pretty clear answer.
First of all, you said a lot, but I still don't understand what exactly you think true equality for women is. I really would like to know. What are we striving for? Women being welcome everywhere? Women usually are, but *sometimes* they have to prove themselves first (and those instances are getting rarer and usually involve physical ability, which should be questioned!), which isn't any different than for men going into fields like teaching or nursery care. It's just the fields are different. Are we striving for equal amounts of women and men in every field? What if women actually don't want to go into engineering, oil work, or the military at the same rates as men do? Should we force women who don't want to go into those fields, or artificially restrict the size of those fields to keep the gender ratio "proper"? What is the end goal? It's not just wanting women to feel welcomed into every place, because that is accomplished in 99.999999999% of career fields in the Western world. If it's equal benefits, women are going to lose a lot, because men don't get maternity leave, sick leave for kids, or exemption for the draft in the vast, vast majority of the US, at least.
Also, you speak an awful lot about women's feelings for not being one. And every single woman has different feelings. And sometimes, we don't even know our own feelings! LOL I was in a all-male speech class in college with a male professor. I didn't feel like a guest or an outsider there because I knew that I had a right to be there, and it didn't matter that I didn't get the jokes or didn't hang out and study together. Women have long had the right to work anywhere they choose to, and it's not men's or society's fault if they personally think they shouldn't be in a place that isn't filled with other women. Sometimes, as a girl, you have to come to the realization that you hold interests and skill sets that very few girls have, and you're not going to find other women there. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be there, it just means that you have to stop judging "right to be there" based on how many other women are around.
There are some very annoying men out there, to be sure, but it isn't fair to judge an entire career field, society, or gender based on interactions with a miniscule percentage of that group. But then, I still hold to that antiquated concept of innocent until proven guilty, too.
As with racism, I've seen it - and seen it cut both ways.
I was a doc in the Air Force for 24 years during a fascinating time of transition. When I came in, hospital/clinic commanders were pretty much exclusively male and exclusively physicians (a fairly redundant statement at that time), regardless of competency for the Command role. Over time, they shifted to "best qualified", which meant opening up Command opportunities to people other than physicians who were best qualified to command. That GREATLY improved the quality of Commanders, since they pulled from a broader pool. That also gave more females of proper rank the opportunity to compete. I worked for and often with female Commanders of many different career paths who were excellent.
Interestingly, Nursing was - and, more than it should be, still is - a mirror image of that. Females absolutely dominated, military and civilian. I had male nurse friends who more or less laughed it off, but there were no more male Chief Nurses than there were female hospital/clinic Commanders at the start. It's getting better but isn't perfect. And I think it's one of several blind spots in the nursing profession at large.
After my Air Force time I ended up working for a consulting company that was dominated by nurses - almost entirely female as well. That bled over into the non-clinical leaders being almost entirely female and seeming to recruit mostly females. It was interesting...
When I went to medical school, my class was about 30% female, IIRC. We were all "equals" and I don't think any of us in the class made any gender distinctions. That said, those women who went into Surgery - a male-dominated specialty back then - had to be pretty tough. I saw that throughout my time as a doc. It's changing but slowly. If I'm not mistaken, many Med School classes are currently more than half female.
Yeah, but @2-Bit Speed had ulterior motives.
To be fair, I was already solidly in aviation before I met him...
I've seen it only once, in 40+ years in engineering. The [married] owner of a small business I dealt with would routinely make what were [to me] embarrassingly crude comments to his [young, very attractive] secretary. But she just as routinely threw it back at him, obviously dressed to accentuate her looks, and was good at her job and had worked there for quite awhile, so maybe it was just extreme flirting or maybe they were actually having an affair. But everybody else thought he was a creep.
Exactly. It's not PC to talk about it nowadays, but just as men's and women's bodies are shaped differently giving them different physical abilities, so are their brains structured differently giving them different mental abilities. Not better or worse, just good at (and thus interested in) different things. Why does that have to be a bad thing? And of course there are many exceptions, it's not just an either/or thing.
The relatively few women who do choose technical fields generally have no trouble getting hired, and are in my experience always welcomed by their male colleagues... except in cases where an obviously unqualified woman was hired just because she was a woman.
She makes a great cat-sitter!
I cannot answer your question, @SkyChaser, because as you and others have said, "equality" is a slippery concept that means different things to different people, and is maybe but maybe not even the thing to be strived for at all. ("Fairness" may be better?) I am an academic, and so I know that there are some questions which cannot be answered in howevermany characters in a forum such as this. This is a field of ongoing study. These questions are embedded deeply in culture (not just in the HR offices where hiring decisions are made). Something a person could spend a lifetime studying. To paraphrase Ratatouille: "You could write books about it. And they have. Which is why I read."
I appreciate that you are the only one in this thread who is asking questions, and expressing an interest in listening to the answers. A rarity on PoA, indeed.
So, I can't answer your question, but maybe I'll answer a different one: What kind of change would I like to see in the world? Another question whose answer would take too long to write in a post... because I think about these things a lot, and the world is a complicated place. But let's start local: with this forum.
98% of the contents of this thread -- at least, up until the point where SkyChaser set a different tone -- were:
-- Puerile joking
-- Casually-lobbed, and completely unprovoked, snide remarks against the trans community
-- Slamming of organizations whose mission is to improve aviation culture for women: outrage and accusations of hypocrisy at their cause, resentment that they even exist
-- An implication --reiterated in many different ways-- that people who care about certain issues in our culture, shouldn't.
-- Outlandish straw arguments
-- Assumptions and presumptions about what "we" want -- as if we (women) all want the same thing
You have a thick skin for these things, as I do, which is how we have been able to join this aviation community and even thrive in it. But there is a selection bias here. PoA is not hearing the responses from the those countless (women, queer folk, trans people, etc.) who take one look at this forum, read a few threads about one of these issues, and decide immediately that this community is NOT a welcoming one. Whenever one of these threads comes up, I try to remind people that we are broadcasting to new members the kind of community we are.
As @kath wrote in the post above, not all women want the same thing, so I'll speak for myself.
Equal opportunity, which is important, is not the same as equal outcome. In my opinion, equal outcome is not necessary or achievable. We don't all have the same interests and abilities.
I am usually more comfortable in groups of men, even though I'm female. Maybe that's because I spent my adult life in a predominantly male profession. Since I retired and moved to a different city, I interact with more women. Sometimes I feel like I need to bite my tongue around them, because many have different opinions than I do about these issues. But that is me. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else.
Forty year engineering career. Saw harassment of women in the early part of my career (nothing physical, but I'm sure it occurred), some men saying they wouldn't take orders from a female superior, etc. Gradually faded away over time.
It faded not because all the male engineers suddenly got "woke," but because management savagely...and rightly, in my opinion....came down hard on those who still thought it was the '40s.
Last manager I had was a woman...in fact, a woman for which I was her mentor when she started in the group. She was successful; is now an executive. Had a bit to learn, management-wise when she started, but she was a good engineer and that helped a lot. What also helped her was me and another old engineer telling her she had our full support, and showing a good example to the rest of the team.
Because of our past history, we got along pretty good. She jokingly expressed a concern about the engineers working for her: "Pale, Male, and Stale." Indeed, in our ~15-person group, I think there were only two engineers who were less than 15 years older than her, and we were all white males. The jokes ended when she had a problem with Microsoft Word while trying to write her Master's thesis, and this pale male fixed it for her.
Great documentary on Amazon Prime, "Good Night Oppy". It's about the development, construction, testing, launch, and operations of the Opportunity and Spirit Mars rovers. VERY young set of engineers, and at least a third were women.
A male is 11 times more likely to die on the job than a female. Until that ratio changes, equality is a one sided concept.
That's because I don't have a black-and-white definition spelling out exactly what true equality is. That's not what I set out to do in my (admittedly verbose) postings.
Reading back, I can see how I was casting the impression of speaking for the feelings of all women, and that's not my intention at all. The crux of my arguments is based on my utopian dream of all people treating each other with the same respect and empathy they wish upon themselves and their own loved ones. I’m not very good at collecting so many complex thoughts into short forum posts, so I can see how I probably came off a little unhinged and off-target.
I'm just calling it as I see it. And what I see everywhere is, every time a thread/conversation pops up about a topic like this, it becomes an us-vs-them scenario. It's all the nuances, large and small, that add up and perpetuate divides between groups of people. Whether it's via language, expectations, or judgements.
Just look at the title of this thread. "The FAA has been infected..." A small, well-meaning change in terminology apparently means the FAA has been "infected,” as if by some kind of disease, wherein "those annoying progressives" have the audacity to want to be more inclusive. And these threads/conversations happen pretty much every time these changes, large or small, are made.
Also never meant to imply that every field needs equal parts men and women, or any form of "proper" gender ratio. Nor am I assuming anyone SHOULD feel uncomfortable by default. Quite the contrary. People can work wherever they want. Women in oil fields, men in hair salons, do whatever your heart desires. I just don't like the snide remarks about how "these damn woke-ists only want equality when it benefits them," as referenced by the "you don't see them fighting for equality in dirty work fields" remarks. Not just here but in general. Because wanting to belong and be accepted is a basic human psychological need, regardless of what fields people are more vocal about equality in. And not specifically to women either. Having lived and worked in a few different countries, I’m very familiar with what it’s like to be treated “respectfully” but still very much like an outsider who doesn’t quite belong.
And there's more to equal benefits than bringing one "side" up or down to the other's standards. My point is why not come together and adapt what's reasonably best for all parties? I.e. Women shouldn't have to lose anything; I think men SHOULD get paternity leave, more parental considerations, draft exemptions, etc..
Anywho, I’ve rambled on long enough. Hope this clarifies my posts at least a little bit.
And….this right here is why we can’t have nice things.
Until the media and politicians stop twisting the truth in a way to incite percieved feelings of victimization, the beat will go on. "Racism" will, too, until the media (can you read my lips, Washington Post?) reports the truth. Simply put, both races kill about the same number of people each year —3000 (+/-), but there's six times as many Whites. If you're White, though, you have 12 times the chance of being murdered by a Black than a Black being murdered by a White: FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 6 . Crunch the numbers yourselves. I assumed 76% of the USA population is White, 13% Black and prorated the interracial murders. Yet the media (W. Post) reports that arrest records indicate racism. Here's somebody else with a similar observation: What George Soros Gets Wrong on Criminal Justice | City Journal (city-journal.org) So, clean up your act, Media. You are tearing a great country apart.
Stupid pronouns again. Which “this” are you referring to exactly? The in depth discussion that’s occurring? That people have different opinions?
Say what you want, but this here is the true face of inequality.
This thread is infected.
I hope it doesn't spread.
I can’t delve very deeply into your article without registering. Do they account for other factors such as race, education, socioeconomic status (especially of their parents), etc.? I’m thinking, simplistically and with no proof, that, for example, deaths in coal mines are higher than average and there are more males there but that’s because of other relevant factors. And there are some careers (like coal mining and oil fields) where it’s much harder than average for a woman to work along side of men and they tend to be riskier fields, so women stay away. Again, an unproven speculation.
You raise a valid point but it seems to need some context.
Most of the "hate" you mentioned is coming from frustration, or at least that is what I am sensing. I could be wrong, as it's hard to determine feelings on the internet, but that is the only logical reason that I see. Most of the men here are middle-aged or older white men, who have spent quite a few years being vilified by the progressives and "woke-ists" you mentioned, and most have no crime except being born a gender and race combo that is currently trendy to disparage. I don't think snarky or snide is the right way to respond to it, but coming from a wider perspective, I can understand that response. Society has very much pushed male and female interactions into an "us vs. them" climate, and with policies like quotas for hiring and promotion that must be met regardless of actual skill resulting in men with actual skill being passed up for a woman who is not qualified and men's-only activities being called out as sexist and cancelled despite women's-only groups being called out as good things and encouraged, it would be hard not to get a bit bitter, in my opinion.
That said, I think there will always be a slightly "foreign" feel for a woman working in a field where mostly only men work. Women and men think differently and enjoy different things, in general. That doesn't make either one of them bad, but it does mean it will be very hard for a woman to fully enter into a man's world and equally hard for a man to fully enter into a woman's. It will never be the same for me, even if I do exactly the same job, as it is for a man. It can't be, because my body and brain are designed differently. Does that make me inferior, or you inferior? No, it just makes us different.
Ironically enough, I think the path to "fairness", which I believe we should be striving for instead of equality, is through acknowledging these fundamental differences between sexes, not by asserting there are no differences.
Yup….there is this about that.
I skipped pages 3-6, what did I miss?
This is the interweb... what do you think you missed?
You are wise beyond your years.
I missed most of this thread, because I guessed what it was about and had no interest. Since it has gone on, I got curious. Seems like it evolved into an interesting discussion. Just addressing the original post, language evolves. I am sort of bilingual and spoke Spanish at home first as an infant I'm told. It took me a long time to understand some word usage in English. The example that comes to mind in this discussion is "negro." I couldn't understand why a Spanish word was used instead of the English.
I've always thought some words were masculine for convenience but included both sexes. Maybe I'm just naive. In this case it should have changed to NTPs - notice to pilots if it had to be changed. I guess that would have discriminated against controllers and navigators. Oh well.
Negative. That’s the true face of confirmation bias. If there's one thing a few Statistics courses taught me, it's how easy it is to manipulate numbers to paint a specific picture/narrative.
Just because men generally trend toward more dangerous occupations doesn’t indicate inequality. It indicates that men generally trend towards more dangerous jobs. So of course that means that for every X number of occupational deaths, a larger number of them will statistically be male. Which, while a true fact, doesn't really bring anything useful to the table.
I couldn't agree more. These things do indeed frustrate me. I've grown tired of seeing people insist on being ugly to each other when there are so many other civil, mutually beneficial pathways. And yes, the rampant "progressive" vilification of the white male definitely does have a pronounced effect on reactions. Using "progressive" loosely because the ones who act like that tend to be more focused on being right and bringing the other side down, than actually progressing. So I also understand the bad taste that leaves with those whose, as you said, only crime was being born a particular race and gender. But while that shouldn't be ignored, there is still the option of being a civil adult anyway. I can't stand how often most conversations about it devolve into knee-jerk mudslinging and snide insults with little-to-no real communication efforts. The tiniest bit of critical thinking and respect would go sooo far to find common ground. But that's apparently too much to ask of a lot of people.
I completely understand the "foreign feel" sentiment. And you're right, there's nothing wrong with it in that context. Men and women operate differently, that's just a fact of life. It's the people who make subtle insinuations and turn it into that intangible superior/inferior dynamic that bug me. Not saying it's extremely commonplace, or even intentional or conscious, but there is something to be said about many women feeling like they constantly have to prove their worth in the workplace/society. Not too dissimilar from the men in the above paragraph defending from undue vilification. Not the same thing, but similar concept. Hard to go further with that without diving into politics, and I don't want to do that here.
Also agreed on the point of acknowledging and embracing differences, whether in gender or any other facet of life, rather than pretending they don't exist. They absolutely do exist, and that should be celebrated instead of argued about. I think that's where a lot of people get caught up, by making that yet another polarizing issue. Males and females of any species are biologically designed to complement each other, not be treated like different species of higher or lesser value. I suppose, from this perspective, the word equality can be difficult to work with. Fairness and mutual respect are much better words.
Another interesting little bit of information about women feeling as if they have to prove their worth - often, it isn't the men who are telling them that they aren't good enough. Quite frequently, it's other women and sometimes, it's just themselves. Not all of women's feelings are grounded in reality, but it can be really hard to separate the feelings that are realistic from the ones that are created from past experiences or a combination of past experiences that may or may not have anything at all to do with what triggers the feeling of inferiority or need to prove worth.
Well, this is the internet. Seriously, though, POA is one of the only internet sites I have found that civil discourses on subjects like this are even a remote possibility. I've tried to have similar discussions on this subject elsewhere, with exactly the same tone that I've had here, and the response is always cursing and swearing at me, calling me all sorts of uncomplimentary names, and an absolute refusal to actually engage in the discussion. (And usually end up with the other person saying I couldn't possibly be a woman. LOL) I would love if more people here would engage a bit more, but this has been a significantly better discussion, snideness included, than I've ever found anywhere else!
Words -> Language -> Culture. Respect is the best word of all.
Oh, believe me, it’s the same for us men lol. We’ve all got plenty of internal conflicts affecting our sense of worth. Stemming from anything from past trauma to recent breakups, or even that one really stupid thing we did when we were 15. Most are just conditioned to internalize and bury it. Which sometimes works, and sometimes becomes very unhealthy and manifests in toxic ways.
And it’s factors like that which make these topics so difficult to discuss publicly. There are so many variables and unknowns in this calculus of life, which all feed into and interact with each other. Yet the majority of people want the condensed, oversimplified, Facebook-shareable quotes to explain things. Which now translates to “every statement needs to be a mic-dropping, destroy-your-opponent-however-you-can bombshell”. You see it in every clickbaity video title, captioned political meme, and rant video filmed in a vehicle.
I’m all for off-color jokes and cutting sarcasm to feed my military-grade sense of humor, but not at the expense of those not laughing with me. When cheap inappropriate jokes and sarcastic jabs become peoples’ actual arguments, it’s just…depressing.
But I also like having these conversations. Observing the idiosyncrasies of the human condition has always been a hobby of mine, even if It does get frustrating a lot of the time. I appreciate your insight and respectful demeanor while asking solid questions.
And as long as both “us” and “them” consider there to be enough difference to argue about it, “us” and “them” aren’t going to see any level of equality, because “us” can’t ever be like “them”.
it would be like saying two football teams can have equality when It’s a win-or-lose competition.
The NFL allows ties. Just sayin'
Do they then say those two teams are equal, or do they continue trying to improve their record over the other?
Depends if they are in the same division/conference, or not.
High quality speculation, jumping to conclusions, and name calling?
Unless I am forgetting something, I think everyone actually refrained from name calling this time. No guarantee on the other two, though.
"Fairness" can be pretty slippery, too, and might not really be the right objective.
An extreme example may illustrate the point. Suppose our legal system had a law whereby every convicted criminal would have his sentence determined by a coin toss. If it comes up heads he's beheaded but if it's tails he's merely spanked.
Now, such a system would be fair. There would be no possibility of bias in sentencing. A person's race, gender, language, economic status, age, citizenship, etc., etc., would have absolutely no bearing on the sentence whatsoever. Everyone would be treated exactly the same.
But I think we'd all agree that such a system would not be just. Beheading someone for stealing a loaf of bread, while giving a mass murderer a spanking, would be completely insane.
Similarly, but perhaps more subtly, it just doesn't work to treat male and female people the same. Heck, it doesn't even make sense to treat everyone of the same gender "the same." And we don't. We constantly adjust our tone, our vocabularly, our actions, etc., to suit the other person and the situation.
I doubt that any woman really wants men to treat her the way we treat each other. Guys constantly rag on each other, tossing around crude insults and nicknames, lots of locker room talk, demanding someone surrender their "man card," and so on. That's the way we are and have been for thousands of years. But we don't typically talk to women that way, and I don't think most women want us to. (I don't want to presume, though, so if I'm wrong tell me.) At the same time, though, I expect women to let men be who we are with each other and for both sides to make appropriate adjustments in our interactions and show some tolerance in both directions.
Now I personally consider it a stupid waste of resources for the FAA to change the meaning of NOTAM, especially to do it in such an awkward way, and I realize they were mostly interested in avoiding changes to every document that uses the acronym "NOTAM." I am as entitled to my opinion on the subject as you are to yours, and I think worrying over what, to me, is minutiae, is a waste of time. BUT when speaking with you, @kath , I would not refer to you as an "airman" because I know you are bothered by the term. I would gladly adjust my language and use some other term like "pilot" (but I wouldn't invent something silly like "airperson").
Such adjustments and accomodations for each other are the lubricants that allow society to function.
Terms such as "fairness" or "equality" are really not adequate to the task. They lead to oversimplification of a very complex subject. Male/female interactions have been going on as long as humans have been around, but we seem to find ways to muddle through. Otherwise the race would have become extinct a long, long time ago.
Fishing and Hunting Workers...
Aircraft pilots and Flight Engineers...
Refuse Waste and Recyclable Material Collectors...
Structural Iron and Steel Workers...
Delivery and Truck Drivers...
Cribbed from the internet. Might I point out that these are all heavily male dominated professions.