MOD Diversity Chief

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Red Line Entry

I have every sympathy with women who object to holding the rank of Senior Aircraftsman. Changing it to, where appropriate, Senior Aircraftswoman seems entirely reasonable and does not change the SAC abbreviation.

Senior Aircraftsperchild or Senior Aircraftsentity would eliminate the pesky sexist 'man' suffix also w/o changing the SAC designation.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by Red Line Entry

I have every sympathy with women who object to holding the rank of Senior Aircraftsman. Changing it to, where appropriate, Senior Aircraftswoman seems entirely reasonable and does not change the SAC abbreviation.

which is what we used to have.

[NutLoose]

And don’t mention the Bible, not a Doris or Gertrude amongst the 12 apostles.

[Vonrichthoffen]

Originally Posted by Red Line Entry

I have every sympathy with women who object to holding the rank of Senior Aircraftsman. Changing it to, where appropriate, Senior Aircraftswoman seems entirely reasonable and does not change the SAC abbreviation.

I had every sympathy with women who object to everything, every-time , everywhere , whether appropriate or not. Until I walked away of course. Bliss.

[tdracer]

Recently, while playing sports with my buddies, I happened to use the term "guys" to refer to our team - which had both males and females on it. One of the male team members gently chastised me - commenting that in the diversity class he'd recently taken at his job, he was informed that referring to females as 'guys' was a "micro aggression" by some women. I responded that I considered 'guys' to be a somewhat generic team - not male specific. He agreed that he'd also considered 'guys' to be a somewhat generic term, but at least one women in the diversity class had agreed that being referred to as 'guys' was a "micro aggression". I responded (joking) "so I should say 'guys and chicks'?" (BTW I can accept women not wanting to be referred to as 'chicks' - it can be somewhat derogatory). Then, on a slightly more serious note, I asked him if I should be expecting an apology from all the women who refused to date me when I was young because I was short...?

Where does it stop? Are we going to need to replace the words "women" and "female" because they contain 'men' and 'male'? Words and phrases that we considered proper and polite just a year or two ago are now considered insults or aggressions by the perpetually offended woke crowd. Just keeping up with the changing standards is tiresome and detracts from actual productive activities.
The perpetually offended are going to be perpetually offended, no matter what we do or what words we use. At some point you simply have to tell them to off and grow up.

[NutLoose]

Funny how the the military is pushing for none gender specific while we still have

Kings and Queens
Prince and Princesses
Lords and Ladies
Earls and Duchesses
Sirs and Dames
and on. and on

[The Oberon]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

Funny how the the military is pushing for none gender specific while we still have

Kings and Queens
Prince and Princesses
Lords and Ladies
Earls and Duchesses
Sirs and Dames
and on. and on

Pedant hat on.
Dukes and Duchesses.
Earls and Countesses.

[TukwillaFlyboy]

Putin and Xi Jinping must be wetting themselves........

with laughter.

[pba_target]

I'd be interested to know, out of the long list of posters above, how many would sign up to a job title with an overtly female title with no male equivalent. How many male rearcrew would have signed up to be a "Crewlady" or techies to be a "Senior Aircraftswoman (Tech)" if there was no male equivalent?

[PlasticCabDriver]

Originally Posted by MPN11

...as it was no longer easy to identify Fg Off Harvey’s gender from the paperwork....and clothing field.

Naughty! You’ll [email protected] off again!

[TukwillaFlyboy]

Originally Posted by pba_target

I'd be interested to know, out of the long list of posters above, how many would sign up to a job title with an overtly female title with no male equivalent. How many male rearcrew would have signed up to be a "Crewlady" or techies to be a "Senior Aircraftswoman (Tech)" if there was no male equivalent?

Well , we can change Aircraftsman to Aircraftswomen if it makes you happy but its not the point.
Banging on about this sort of stuff in a military whose sole purpose is the use of lethal force to maintain security and further vital national interests conveys the impression of a lack of seriousness.
Lord save us if there is a serious hot conflict.
I doubt that Putin or Xi Jinping take the threat of concerted military response from the West seriously at all.
Maybe just fold the whole thing up and accept that China is the future.

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by Red Line Entry

I have every sympathy with women who object to holding the rank of Senior Aircraftsman. Changing it to, where appropriate, Senior Aircraftswoman seems entirely reasonable and does not change the SAC abbreviation.

I’m sure SACW was a rank when I was alive.

[Saintsman]

Don't forget to include AircraftsNonBinary in the rank structure...

[ORAC]

Yet animals such as the elephant and giraffe do not have derivative words for the females so why don't we just stop using the word 'woman',

They do. Just as humans as a group are called people but can be differentiated as men and women, elephants (as with bovines and many other species) are termed as bull and cow.

And of course there are other differentiators - and they doubtless vary from language to language.

https://termcoord.eu/2018/02/male-an...-animal-names/

The question is to why the rank/job descriptions should need to reference sex or gender in any way. After all, the majority don’t - doctor, pilot, grocer, electrician, lieutenant, general etc.

I believe we hav3 had several threads on this subject before - IIRC someone mentioned reviving the originally proposed RAF ranks. If you go back to 1918 the trades were divided into Technical, Administrative and General. The equivalents of an LAC being Air Mechanic 3rd Class, Clerk 3rd Class and Private 2nd Class.

Then people can get onto arguing about Space Force ranks…..

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3806/1

https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poe...g/old_men.html

The Old Men - Rudyard Kipling

​​​​​​​….We shall peck out and discuss and dissect, and evert and extrude to our mind,
The flaccid tissues of long-dead issues offensive to God and mankind –
(Precisely like vultures over an ox that the army left behind).

We shall make walk preposterous ghosts of the glories we once created –
Immodestly smearing from muddled palettes amazing pigments mismated –
And our friend will weep when we ask them with boasts if our natural force be abated.

The Lamp of our Youth will be utterly out, but we shall subsist on the smell of it;
And whatever we do, we shall fold our hands and suck our gums and think well of it.
Yes, we shall be perfectly pleased with our work, and that is the Perfectest Hell of it…..

[Ken Scott]

Never mind just about the gender discrimination, what about ‘Flight’, ‘Flying’ and ‘Pilot’ in some of the ranks? Blatantly labeling persons as aircrew who might proudly be ground branches/ tradespersons...? An entirely new seam of complaint to mine.

[LOMCEVAK]

Originally Posted by ORAC

They do. Just as humans as a group are called people but can be differentiated as men and women, elephants (as with bovines and many other species) are termed as bull and cow.

And of course there are other differentiators - and they doubtless vary from language to language.

https://termcoord.eu/2018/02/male-an...-animal-names/

Valid point. I suppose that the forensics of the grammar here is whether the common name for our species is 'man' or 'human'. I was assuming the former, you the latter, and in hindsight you are probably correct. But when it comes to it the context is what needs to be considered and that should determine whether 'man' applies to the whole species or just the biological male of the species.

[gamecock]

I responded that I considered 'guys' to be a somewhat generic team - not male specific.

As did one of the lads in the crewroom at Leeming in the 90s. After a perfectly-timed pause some wag then asked 'So how many guys you f****d then?'

[MPN11]

My Grandfather (RNAS, WW1) rose to the dizzy heights of Air Mechanic 1st Class. No gender bias was involved.

But, surely, the RAF could just revert to its RFC/Army roots, and have the lowest ranks gender-neutral as:
Private
Private 1st Class
Lance Corporal

[pba_target]

Originally Posted by TukwillaFlyboy

Well , we can change Aircraftsman to Aircraftswomen if it makes you happy but its not the point.
Banging on about this sort of stuff in a military whose sole purpose is the use of lethal force to maintain security and further vital national interests conveys the impression of a lack of seriousness.
Lord save us if there is a serious hot conflict.
I doubt that Putin or Xi Jinping take the threat of concerted military response from the West seriously at all.
Maybe just fold the whole thing up and accept that China is the future.

That's where you're wrong. If you were a major country (let's say the USA) facing a hypothetical massive shortage in a critical aviation role (let's say pilots) then the ability to recruit talent from all walks of life might be seen as vital.

If we in the UK were to have an underperforming recruitment organisation (hypothetically of course) can you not agree that the ability to recruit sufficient bums on seats of whatever gender or background might be vital to our ability to fulfil whatever role we choose for our defence organisation.

The military is an increasingly unattractive option in career terms and anything that we can do to broaden appeal gets my vote, notwithstanding the article that the OP pointed out which is probably (let's face it) a hatchet job by a rag.

[TukwillaFlyboy]

Originally Posted by pba_target

That's where you're wrong. If you were a major country (let's say the USA) facing a hypothetical massive shortage in a critical aviation role (let's say pilots) then the ability to recruit talent from all walks of life might be seen as vital.

If we in the UK were to have an underperforming recruitment organisation (hypothetically of course) can you not agree that the ability to recruit sufficient bums on seats of whatever gender or background might be vital to our ability to fulfil whatever role we choose for our defence organisation.

The military is an increasingly unattractive option in career terms and anything that we can do to broaden appeal gets my vote, notwithstanding the article that the OP pointed out which is probably (let's face it) a hatchet job by a rag.

Wrong ? No.
It just means we lose.
Where I live China is basically ignoring every country with a border in the South China Sea with impunity.
Australia’s exports , bar iron ore , have been boycotted by China to make a point.
International affairs are anarchic.
Capability is all that other nations understand and recognise.
”Woke” politics are the death of any serious military.