A2A Forum Logo

[Ron Attwood]

Haven't seen the OP lately. It's like he threw a grenade into the room and ran away!

[CodyValkyrie]

I come from a different background in life perhaps. I cannot expect everyone to react like I did growing up, and I must remind myself. That being said, I was picked on incessantly to the point that I had to be removed from my middle school because of my troubles. At some point, although painful to deal with, I learned to develop a tougher skin, and learned to "fight back" in my own way. It defined who I was as I got older, and I attribute this to much of my character as an adult. I feel that if I had not learned some of these tough lessons, I would not have been able to help and assist others with depression and other mental issues (something that I volunteer regularly for). This characteristic also drove a lot of my success in various crafts, as people's non-belief in me gave me significant drive. While, certainly, there is a line that must be observed when dealing with personal interactions and offensiveness, I believe that to be a successful society, we must also not avoid adversity and difference. I cannot go through my entire life with a chip on my shoulder, nor should I expect everyone to subscribe to my beliefs. I also cannot live my life with blinders on, ignoring views outside my own. I firmly believe that nothing A2A has done was offensive in any way, and frankly, I find it petty to think otherwise. You don't have to agree with me, but it is my indelible right as a human to have an opinion, and the sooner we all recognize and appreciate this, the better the world will be.

[Jigsaw]

The world would be less gray. (grey for the UK guys )

Indeed. One last comment from me, after all.

Different tones make the music. If you only have one tone (i.e. all notes being equal), you only get noise. By the homogenization that so many PC advocates strife for we rob ourselves of the variety that is the spice of life. Instead of allowing a multitude of different colors, viewpoints, interests and opinions we'll get rid of everything that could potentially offend anybody and thusly turn into a big indistinguishable gray mass. Sounds like a totalitarian nightmare to me, and like a world I don't want to live in. Short and to the point: Political Correctness in its current form is the enemy of freedom.

*drops the mic for good now, promised!*

[Wasabi65]

What is wrong with being politically correct?

'political correctness'
noun
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Googling "political correctness" I saw the above definition... *however* a portion of that definition is somehow missing (underlined below):

the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

I think what we are talking about is the stuff that is "considered as taken to extremes". Treating someone how you wish to be treated is a fundamental rule of life (99.9% of the time we see that born out on this forum). But it can be perverted and taken to extremes. There is also a group dynamic involved in believing something (what "they" perceive) is somehow insulting etc. when in reality, that may not be the case.

Case in point: this Swedish notion of not just gender equality (how can that be a bad thing?) but taking it to an extreme - actually erasing gender identity. I see that as fundamentally stupid. Why? Well genetically, we have two chromosomes that (generally speaking) determine our sex (male / female). The female always contributes an "X", while the male contributes an "X" or "Y". How they combine determines the sex. Why on earth do I need to deny my sexuality to become "their" defined neutral type? So I do not offend anyone? How does that make any sense? That to me, is a form of "political correctness". So we go from something fundamentally good (gender equality) and push it to an extreme position (erasing gender identity). That is PC.

What is so bizarre is the reaction from (some of) the PC types. The hypocrisy is astounding. Going back to the definition, "they" don't want a particular group to be "excluded, marginalized, or insulted." But disagree with them, and their reaction can be physical violence against you. That "Modern Educayshun" video is really not far off the mark of reality. A very recent example of this was an incident at Mizzou (University of Missouri). See Mass media professor under fire for confronting video journalist at Mizzou (Washington Post). So their position goes from "not wanting to offend" someone, to full on physical violence against another human being. All because "they" don't agree with "them".

You are right. It DOES say that the term is primarily used pejoratively, I missed that.
So, to say "it's political correctness gone mad" it is actually tautological.
And it looks like political correctness has another new enemy:
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/tru ... 3929411920

[dvm]

What is wrong with being politically correct?

'political correctness'
noun
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Googling "political correctness" I saw the above definition... *however* a portion of that definition is somehow missing (underlined below):

the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

I think what we are talking about is the stuff that is "considered as taken to extremes". Treating someone how you wish to be treated is a fundamental rule of life (99.9% of the time we see that born out on this forum). But it can be perverted and taken to extremes. There is also a group dynamic involved in believing something (what "they" perceive) is somehow insulting etc. when in reality, that may not be the case.

Case in point: this Swedish notion of not just gender equality (how can that be a bad thing?) but taking it to an extreme - actually erasing gender identity. I see that as fundamentally stupid. Why? Well genetically, we have two chromosomes that (generally speaking) determine our sex (male / female). The female always contributes an "X", while the male contributes an "X" or "Y". How they combine determines the sex. Why on earth do I need to deny my sexuality to become "their" defined neutral type? So I do not offend anyone? How does that make any sense? That to me, is a form of "political correctness". So we go from something fundamentally good (gender equality) and push it to an extreme position (erasing gender identity). That is PC.

What is so bizarre is the reaction from (some of) the PC types. The hypocrisy is astounding. Going back to the definition, "they" don't want a particular group to be "excluded, marginalized, or insulted." But disagree with them, and their reaction can be physical violence against you. That "Modern Educayshun" video is really not far off the mark of reality. A very recent example of this was an incident at Mizzou (University of Missouri). See Mass media professor under fire for confronting video journalist at Mizzou (Washington Post). So their position goes from "not wanting to offend" someone, to full on physical violence against another human being. All because "they" don't agree with "them".

You are right. It DOES say that the term is primarily used pejoratively, I missed that.
So, to say "it's political correctness gone mad" it is actually tautological.
And it looks like political correctness has another new enemy:
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/tru ... 3929411920

Here is very astute observation as to the why of some of the problems we are encountering on our campuses and elsewhere in our society. This a statement by the President of Wesleyan University. I found it to articulate my own observations and he certainly has courage for speaking out in the current PC environment. The religious aspect does not negate the truth of his statement in my opinion it applies to believers and non believers alike.

http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-i ... niversity/

[pilottj]

What do you call this? America has more female role models than you can imagine. In aviation, sports,science, any field you can name.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx_ui2qWgqI[/youtube]

There are certainly women in male dominated fields here in America. But outside of circles in the said fields, how many know about these ladies? Women role models aren't celebrated unless they look good for TV. Ask a random person on the street if they know who Patty Wagstaff is. If a little girl wanted to be a pilot, she would have to research this info herself because her parents likely wouldn't know. You and I know who Patty is because you and I both follow aviation.

Name a female role model in Autosports who isn't Danica Patrick. You and I know both know why Danica is known and its not because of her driving abilities. Danica is well known because of her looks (not her fault) rather than what she has accomplished in the sport. She is not the first woman race car driver, there have been many female drivers before her, but none of them look good as good in a bikini as Danica apparently. Why do you think GoDaddy was her sponsor? Have you seen their advertisments and who their main demographic is? What does this tell young girls who want to race cars? It tells them that they better also be a supermodel if they want sponsors and want to succeed. If Patty Wagstaff was also a supermodel, I bet she would be more well known outside of aviation circles.

This is true in many male dominated professions. Little girls have very few role models who achieved success based on their skills and determination rather than their looks. Little girls sure know about the Kardasians and Paris Hilton tho.

I found a link to the Pink Music video called Stupid Girls. If you know any young lady who doesn't want to pick up the barbie doll, instead wants to do other things with her life instead of falling into a stereotype, show them this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR4yQFZK9YM

Cheers
TJ

[pilottj]

Here is some philosophical food for thought

Perhaps there are two extremes. The Swedish example is one extreme...us all being 'grey'. What is the opposite extreme tho? We all are whatever 'color' we are born with and must stay in those 'traditional' roles for the sake of diversity. That is almost like a caste system. If you are a woman, your options are this, if you come from Mali, your options are that. The society that forces(encourage/discourage via social pressure) people to stay in pre-defined 'traditional' roles based on their upbringing is no different than the society that forces everyone to be grey and undefined.

Both are extremes and neither one encourages true individual freedom and growth. To be honest I would like to be in a society where we all START as grey (everyone starting with the same access to opportunity), but then we are able individually grow and follow a unique path of our own desires, free from the rule and 'guidance' of govenment, corporation, religious instution, social 'fads'...and even parents (the individual freely chooses their source of 'guidance'). The only 'law' being that ones desire doesn't violate the rights/desire of others. I firmly believe respect for authority is earned, not given.

You would have quite a different society in a few generations. A society like that is probably an idealistic Star Trek vision right? Maybe it is, but thats not going to stop me from trying to live like that myself.

lol Here is a line to wrap your head around...a lyric from one of my favorite bands...Funkadelic - 'Freedom is free of the need to be free'

Cheers
TJ

[Wasabi65]

Here is some philosophical food for thought

Perhaps there are two extremes. The Swedish example is one extreme...us all being 'grey'. What is the opposite extreme tho? We all are whatever 'color' we are born with and must stay in those 'traditional' roles for the sake of diversity. That is almost like a caste system. If you are a woman, your options are this, if you come from Mali, your options are that. The society that forces(encourage/discourage via social pressure) people to stay in pre-defined 'traditional' roles based on their upbringing is no different than the society that forces everyone to be grey and undefined.

Both are extremes and neither one encourages true individual freedom and growth. To be honest I would like to be in a society where we all START as grey (everyone starting with the same access to opportunity), but then we are able individually grow and follow a unique path of our own desires, free from the rule and 'guidance' of govenment, corporation, religious instution, social 'fads'...and even parents (the individual freely chooses their source of 'guidance'). The only 'law' being that ones desire doesn't violate the rights/desire of others. I firmly believe respect for authority is earned, not given.

You would have quite a different society in a few generations. A society like that is probably an idealistic Star Trek vision right? Maybe it is, but thats not going to stop me from trying to live like that myself.

lol Here is a line to wrap your head around...a lyric from one of my favorite bands...Funkadelic - 'Freedom is free of the need to be free'

Cheers
TJ

Spot on!
Idealism is just that...the way we should live in ideal circumstances. Just because those circumstances do not currently exist the ideals should not be rejected but serve as goals to aim for.

[mer8771]

Here is some philosophical food for thought

Perhaps there are two extremes. The Swedish example is one extreme...us all being 'grey'. What is the opposite extreme tho? We all are whatever 'color' we are born with and must stay in those 'traditional' roles for the sake of diversity. That is almost like a caste system. If you are a woman, your options are this, if you come from Mali, your options are that. The society that forces(encourage/discourage via social pressure) people to stay in pre-defined 'traditional' roles based on their upbringing is no different than the society that forces everyone to be grey and undefined.

Both are extremes and neither one encourages true individual freedom and growth. To be honest I would like to be in a society where we all START as grey (everyone starting with the same access to opportunity), but then we are able individually grow and follow a unique path of our own desires, free from the rule and 'guidance' of govenment, corporation, religious instution, social 'fads'...and even parents (the individual freely chooses their source of 'guidance'). The only 'law' being that ones desire doesn't violate the rights/desire of others. I firmly believe respect for authority is earned, not given.

You would have quite a different society in a few generations. A society like that is probably an idealistic Star Trek vision right? Maybe it is, but thats not going to stop me from trying to live like that myself.

lol Here is a line to wrap your head around...a lyric from one of my favorite bands...Funkadelic - 'Freedom is free of the need to be free'

Cheers
TJ

We are not the same, nor should we be! We are borne different and should not change that. My daughter is considered on of the guys, I would never ask her to change that. To the point she thought she was a lesbian, she tried and found out that she is not. She works on her own car, and help me rebuild the engine. How dare someone try to change her, or me, or you, if that's your choice. I hope I got you meaning wrong. EDIT: I read it a few times, I did get it wrong. We are what we make our self. We do start out the same, Some have a better life, some make a better life. I came out of a whom, I'll end up in the ground. In that aspect, we are the same.

I got a call yesterday that my son got into a fight at school, he was defending Josh, a handicapped person. The guy he helped is 17, my son is 12. People were picking on Josh for playing with GI Joe's in the lunch room. I can't tell you how proud I am of my kids, they both are different and stand up for what they believe in. Why would you want everyone to be the same? I just don't get it.

I love Patty Wagstaff so much my wife hates her!
She is a role model to me and my daughter. In the air and on the ground. I saw her in Florida with my daughter, she stopped to spend time with us and said that it's hart warming to see a Dad and daughter spending time together just to see her.

BTW, your the one who brought her up, now you deal with my wife!

Maybe we should just be pushing everyone to reach their potential, rather than always playing it safe and telling people that they won't make it, regardless of their gender, species, skin colour or the logo on their passport.

Thank you! Well said.

[Ian P]

TJ: I could post a whole list of high-level female motorspots personalities here, but that's possibly because I follow motorsport on a global level, rather than single nation centric. Just to take one example, Max Verstappen's girlfriend - Mikaela Ã…hlin Kottulinksy - is a good driver in her own right, but what's she better known as? Max Verstappen's girlfriend, right?

However... Why is she known as that, rather than as a driver in her own right? Because Max Verstappen is a Formula 1 driver, which, outside of North America perhaps, is considered the top tier of motorsport, so he's simply more famous than she is, driving in a German single make national series that most people won't know. Therefore, the cameras tend to focus on him, rather than her, which makes sense, really.

Not everything is about sexism, racism or anythingelseism, even when it might appear to be at first and that's worth remembering. There are lots of female role models out there - the US military alone has quite a number of female pilots now, women in airliner cockpits are far from unknown. Anyone who is actually interested in finding them can do so. Why should they get more focus than men in the same position? Being put under more scrutiny than their male counterparts doesn't help people want to reach and stay at that level, surely.

Maybe we should just be pushing everyone to reach their potential, rather than always playing it safe and telling people that they won't make it, regardless of their gender, species, skin colour or the logo on their passport.

Ian P.

[pilottj]

A person who is of a minority who suceeds in a field where the minority is not openly encouraged to participate should be celebrated. Of course their are lots women role models out there, like Mer's wife, however they are generally only known within the circles of their chosen fields. Women role models are not celebrated the same way or frequency that the male role models are.

You do not have to be a pilot or interested in aviation to know who Chuck Yeager is. You do not have to be interested in soccer/football to know who David Beckham is. You do not have to follow golf to know who Tiger Woods is. If you are a young man deciding what to do with your life, you have all these figures already known to you who you can look up to. You are already encouraged to know that they succeeded with will, determination, skills in their given fields, not solely based on their looks.

If you are a young woman yet to decide where you want to go in life, who do you go to? What household names and inspirations do you have to draw from to know you can go into any field and succed if you have the will to do it. Where are the women celebrated for their accomplishments rather than their looks. They certainly exist in every field, yet are rarely celebrated. Thats the difference.

If you want to see more young women pursue careers in these professions such as this one, then perhaps people like Patty should be celebrated on a pedastool like a Chuck Yeager or like Amelia Earhart was in her day.

Cheers
TJ

[N324JK]

Maybe someone's already posted this (full disclosure: I haven't taken the time to read every post in this thread with a high degree of academic comprehension), but there's actually a growing movement that says it's actually politically incorrect to tell a woman how to dress, or what photos/art/displays of women are appropriate, because to do so is to carry on the over-sexualization of the female form. If a woman wants to wear something (or not wear it), or do something that might be considered "unlady-like", the movement argues that it's that woman's prerogative. Moreover, the movement would suggest that, outside of stuff that's actually intended that way, it's the viewer, not the creator, that ascribes a sexual context to artistic renditions of the female form.

Case in point: let's say the lady depicted in the A2A logo were a real person (and there's a chance it is based on a real person). Should she not be allowed to wear those clothes and strike that pose because someone else is offended by it? What if it just happened to be a portrait of the artist's daughter, and she chose to pose that way - should she be shamed for doing so?

I'll also echo that we have to keep these things in context, as so many have already pointed out. A2A traces its roots to warbirds of WWII vintage. Nose art was a thing back then, and trust me, there are several examples much more scandalous than the one A2A chose. Would we put that on a taxpayer-funded aircraft today? The answer is clearly no, we wouldn't. But back then, it wasn't a big deal, and for the hundreds of thousands of air crew that fought and died in WWII, maybe that nose art was one small way to keep going in an environment that was very unforgiving. And even in the rest of the art world, there are thousands of paintings, sculptures, photos, etc., that depict the female (and male) form very explicitly. Some of them even have an overt sexual theme to them. It doesn't make those pieces any less artistic, or outright obscene.

I think, in this crazy world, there are plenty of things over which to get offended, and rightly so. I should also say that people shouldn't be made to feel guilty about getting offended by what others do. My only point is that we shouldn't require others to accommodate our specific sensibilities. To enforce a "grey" world (or "gray", if you prefer that spelling) devoid of anything offensive, but at the expense of total loss of individual expressions and desires, just seems like a waste of life, because all you end up doing is looking for, and then shouting down, anything remotely disagreeable to your constitution.

Two cents' worth of opinion from a guy who didn't have any money to buy the air time to share it in the first place.

[Alan_A]

Haven't seen the OP lately. It's like he threw a grenade into the room and ran away!

I suspect that from his point of view, he opened a door, asked a decently well-modulated question, and got a bunch of grenades thrown at him. If so, can't blame him for fleeing. But that's just my perspective.

Speaking of my perspective...

There's always give and take in these things, and extreme positions usually come out badly. As should be clear by now, I'm a somewhat left-leaning person, but the operative word is "somewhat." The extreme left - for example, the militant PC university-based crowd - is well on the way to a Stalinist kind of absolutism.

On the other hand, there are a few politicians (somebody cited Trump above, but there are others) who have taken to using phrases along the lines of "now I'm not going to be politically correct" as kind of open door to all kinds of racist and otherwise over-the-line statements. The phrase in this context is what's known in the trade as a "dog whistle" - a cue that's meaningless to most listeners but reaches an extreme part of the audience and signals that the speaker agrees with whatever extreme viewpoint is on the table.

Better to be an informed consumer.

I think most of us live our lives in the middle and try to get along and find our way, which for my money is the best way to go. Real people, in my experience, don't line up with ideologies. I'll cite just one example - I have a good friend from high school and college who's a retired, decorated NYPD Lieutenant. Probably the smartest and most logical person I know - has Spock-like tendencies. He's also a lawyer and taught law at the Police Academy in NYC. We've had fascinating conversations about gun policy. I lean toward some restrictions, but I have a background in policy analysis and understand that simple solutions usually don't work. He's more pro-gun but is able to talk about the issues from a policy standpoint, and concede certain positions (e.g. greater gun availability might lead to more bad stuff, but there'd be offsetting social benefit). So we're able to have good rational conversations about it. I can't say I've changed my view but I've learned quite a lot in the process and probably have come out at a more nuanced place.

Oh, one more thing about him - he's also a committed vegan, on the grounds that "there's already enough suffering in the world." Not the first person you'd think of when hearing "vegan," but there you are.

Like I said, better to be out in the middle of the road where things are messy but real.

My (further) $.02

[JJB17463rdBombGroup]

The OP (Mike) from Sweden is welcome on this forum even if many of us disagree about his opinion.
As long as Scott says he is O.K. though as the final say is up to Scott of A2A.
So far I've only seen one person banned on this forum and that was quite a while ago.
I don't even remember who that person was either.

[spadjockey]

What do you call this? America has more female role models than you can imagine. In aviation, sports,science, any field you can name.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx_ui2qWgqI[/youtube]

There are certainly women in male dominated fields here in America. But outside of circles in the said fields, how many know about these ladies? Women role models aren't celebrated unless they look good for TV. Ask a random person on the street if they know who Patty Wagstaff is. If a little girl wanted to be a pilot, she would have to research this info herself because her parents likely wouldn't know. You and I know who Patty is because you and I both follow aviation.

Name a female role model in Autosports who isn't Danica Patrick. You and I know both know why Danica is known and its not because of her driving abilities. Danica is well known because of her looks (not her fault) rather than what she has accomplished in the sport. She is not the first woman race car driver, there have been many female drivers before her, but none of them look good as good in a bikini as Danica apparently. Why do you think GoDaddy was her sponsor? Have you seen their advertisments and who their main demographic is? What does this tell young girls who want to race cars? It tells them that they better also be a supermodel if they want sponsors and want to succeed. If Patty Wagstaff was also a supermodel, I bet she would be more well known outside of aviation circles.

This is true in many male dominated professions. Little girls have very few role models who achieved success based on their skills and determination rather than their looks. Little girls sure know about the Kardasians and Paris Hilton tho.

I found a link to the Pink Music video called Stupid Girls. If you know any young lady who doesn't want to pick up the barbie doll, instead wants to do other things with her life instead of falling into a stereotype, show them this video.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR4yQFZK9YM[/youtube]

Cheers
TJ

Little girls sure know about the Kardasians and Paris Hilton tho.
That's why we have parental controls on our T.V. Those two are about the worst out there. How about Serena Williams and her sister.