What is going on at the top??
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
PS. Are we renaming the noun woman too?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Star Trek had it correct, in as much as all senior officers, whether with XX or XY chromosomes*, were called 'Sir'.
*aware there were non-terran SOs who probably didn't have such things. But they were called sir too.
*aware there were non-terran SOs who probably didn't have such things. But they were called sir too.
much easier solution - call everyone Senior to you ma’am, regardless of chromosomal status.
As the officer class represent the authority of the Monarch, calling everyone 'Ma'am' is not a bad idea. Then just change it to 'Sir' when Her Majesty leaves her post and PoW takes over. Change as the incumbent changes sides.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: An Ivory Tower
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for those opposed to the change to Aviator on the basis that it is 'woke' and unnecessary then perhaps you could lobby for the use the collective noun 'airwoman/airwomen' for the next 103 years and then turn about again to airman/airmen?
This would satisfy the etymologists as it contains 'man' AND 'woman' and, surely, anyone objecting to the proposal is just being... woke!
This would satisfy the etymologists as it contains 'man' AND 'woman' and, surely, anyone objecting to the proposal is just being... woke!
Not sure how many people are opposed to a change of title per se - perhaps more that the new title is inappropriate and well - 'Naff'.
As I mentioned previously - the RCAF changed from 'Private' to 'Aviator' in 2014 for similar reasons and yet 'private' was a gender neutral term already ????
Try to improve all that is seriously wrong/substandard with the RAF = Too Difficult
Spend lots of money changing a title which might offend 1% of members of the RAF and at the same time filling in the 'inclusive'/'diversity' Box = Tick
As I mentioned previously - the RCAF changed from 'Private' to 'Aviator' in 2014 for similar reasons and yet 'private' was a gender neutral term already ????
Try to improve all that is seriously wrong/substandard with the RAF = Too Difficult
Spend lots of money changing a title which might offend 1% of members of the RAF and at the same time filling in the 'inclusive'/'diversity' Box = Tick
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So its a done deal, announced in an IBN dated 07 Dec with immediate effect we're all to be known as Aviators. That's nice when you consider the survey asking for people's views is still open, its almost like they don't care what we think and we're going to do it anyway.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
Yes, there are bigger issues, but tolerating stuff like this name change, and ignoring the feelings of the majority, is corrosive to the main. You only have to look at the AFCAS to see it, and ignoring the survey as it was a “done deal”, to appease an unrepresentative and minuscule minority, will only make it worse. https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...de-survey-2021
Headlines from the 2021 AFCAS
24% of the RAF think that change is managed well in the Service. Ie. 76% think it is bad!
17% of the RAF thought that morale was high, and 29% thought it was low. Ie. 83% think it’s ‘meh!’ or bad.
77% of the RAF thought their immediate superior understood and represents their interests. Ie. Immediate leadership is good.
29% of the RAF thought that their senior leadership (1-star and above) understood and represented their interests. Ie. 71% think that 1-star and above are disconnected from what they want.
42% of the RAF had confidence in their senior leadership (1-star and above). Ie. 58% have no confidence!
46% of the RAF felt valued by their Service. Ie. 54% don’t feel valued.
29% of the RAF plan to stay as long as they can. Ie. 71% are planning to leave as soon as they reasonably can!
55% of the RAF intend to leave at their next end of engagement, or stay until the end of it. Ie. 55% plan to leave without disadvantaging themselves.
3.7% of the RAF thought they felt discriminated against on the grounds of gender. Ie. Around 1,000 RAF Personnel of ~31,750.
1.2% of the RAF felt they were harassed on the grounds of gender. Ie. Around 380 RAF Personnel of ~31,750.
51% of the RAF are satisfied with their Service Families’ Accommodation. Ie. 49% are dissatisfied with their married quarters.
45% of the RAF are satisfied with their Single Living Accommodation. Ie. 55% are dissatisfied with their mess accomodation.
So what does that tell me? That personnel feel disconnected from their senior leadership (and it’s not surprising why) and people are more concerned about the poor state of their accommodation than they are about serious gender diversity and inclusion issues. It’s not just a 2021 thing either, but the WO and Senior Officer ‘Sycophant Twitterati’ that they seem to be listening to, do not represent the main stream views of the majority work force. We ignore that majority at our peril, if the rumoured 75%+ didn’t agree with the recent name change, this can only lead to higher dissatisfaction. It is also something that won’t be fixed by a single action, but any marginal gains are quickly eroded by a death by a thousand cuts!
Of the two dozen female colleagues that I have asked about the Aviator/Aviatrix, very few gave two hoots about the supposed gender issue raised by the legacy terms. However, 100% have said “My role is not an aviator, and I am a ********” (where ******** is any other Branch or Trade that does not involve flying). So really this seems to be a catastrophic fail all around from the opinions I hear about in the workspace.
If it was a lead on IOT then I suspect it would be a reshow!
Headlines from the 2021 AFCAS
24% of the RAF think that change is managed well in the Service. Ie. 76% think it is bad!
17% of the RAF thought that morale was high, and 29% thought it was low. Ie. 83% think it’s ‘meh!’ or bad.
77% of the RAF thought their immediate superior understood and represents their interests. Ie. Immediate leadership is good.
29% of the RAF thought that their senior leadership (1-star and above) understood and represented their interests. Ie. 71% think that 1-star and above are disconnected from what they want.
42% of the RAF had confidence in their senior leadership (1-star and above). Ie. 58% have no confidence!
46% of the RAF felt valued by their Service. Ie. 54% don’t feel valued.
29% of the RAF plan to stay as long as they can. Ie. 71% are planning to leave as soon as they reasonably can!
55% of the RAF intend to leave at their next end of engagement, or stay until the end of it. Ie. 55% plan to leave without disadvantaging themselves.
3.7% of the RAF thought they felt discriminated against on the grounds of gender. Ie. Around 1,000 RAF Personnel of ~31,750.
1.2% of the RAF felt they were harassed on the grounds of gender. Ie. Around 380 RAF Personnel of ~31,750.
51% of the RAF are satisfied with their Service Families’ Accommodation. Ie. 49% are dissatisfied with their married quarters.
45% of the RAF are satisfied with their Single Living Accommodation. Ie. 55% are dissatisfied with their mess accomodation.
So what does that tell me? That personnel feel disconnected from their senior leadership (and it’s not surprising why) and people are more concerned about the poor state of their accommodation than they are about serious gender diversity and inclusion issues. It’s not just a 2021 thing either, but the WO and Senior Officer ‘Sycophant Twitterati’ that they seem to be listening to, do not represent the main stream views of the majority work force. We ignore that majority at our peril, if the rumoured 75%+ didn’t agree with the recent name change, this can only lead to higher dissatisfaction. It is also something that won’t be fixed by a single action, but any marginal gains are quickly eroded by a death by a thousand cuts!
Of the two dozen female colleagues that I have asked about the Aviator/Aviatrix, very few gave two hoots about the supposed gender issue raised by the legacy terms. However, 100% have said “My role is not an aviator, and I am a ********” (where ******** is any other Branch or Trade that does not involve flying). So really this seems to be a catastrophic fail all around from the opinions I hear about in the workspace.
If it was a lead on IOT then I suspect it would be a reshow!
Cpl Clott, this is not how surveys work. For example:
You can't use the headline figure to conclude that 55% are dissatisfied, however tempting that might be, because the AFCAS questionnaire, like many surveys, uses normative questions. So whilst 45% are satisfied, what you won't know is how many are 'neither satisfied nor dissatisfied'. It could well be that 55% are incandescent about the state of their mess accommodation, but it could also be that 30% are ambivalent, so only 25% are actually dissatisfied. You need the detailed breakdown to avoid drawing false conclusions.
You could be right in all that you say but based on the stats alone you might also be wrong - 50% confidence in achieving (eg) a delivery date can be interpreted as either yes or no, depending on how optimistic you are.
45% of the RAF are satisfied with their Single Living Accommodation. Ie. 55% are dissatisfied with their mess accomodation.
You could be right in all that you say but based on the stats alone you might also be wrong - 50% confidence in achieving (eg) a delivery date can be interpreted as either yes or no, depending on how optimistic you are.
Easy. Not many people have 3 legs
Quite a few have one leg while many more have half a leg or just two thighs.
Therefore, the average number of legs per person in somwhere above 0 and less than 2. i.e. 1.(n) .
Consequently those with 2 legs have an above average number of legs per person than the national average.
Stats can prove anything you want.
You are quite right. stats show that the majority of the british public have an above average number of legs.
Easy. Not many people have 3 legs
Quite a few have one leg while many more have half a leg or just two thighs.
Therefore, the average number of legs per person in somwhere above 0 and less than 2. i.e. 1.(n) .
Consequently those with 2 legs have an above average number of legs per person than the national average.
Stats can prove anything you want.
Easy. Not many people have 3 legs
Quite a few have one leg while many more have half a leg or just two thighs.
Therefore, the average number of legs per person in somwhere above 0 and less than 2. i.e. 1.(n) .
Consequently those with 2 legs have an above average number of legs per person than the national average.
Stats can prove anything you want.
Touche! that skill is taught after winning a Parliamentary election!
Just another statistic for you, "The further north one goes, the average Puffin gains an average of 1 oz gain in weight. which is why there are no puffins at the pole or the equator, They are either then too big or small to survive. Conversely, the further south one goes...loses 1oz...."
Puffins by the way, are aviators; Emus are not. Both avian creatures, though I dare not use the term - bird!
Perhaps we could use the term Avian instead of Aviator, both associated with flight, but not all capable of it.
Just another statistic for you, "The further north one goes, the average Puffin gains an average of 1 oz gain in weight. which is why there are no puffins at the pole or the equator, They are either then too big or small to survive. Conversely, the further south one goes...loses 1oz...."
Puffins by the way, are aviators; Emus are not. Both avian creatures, though I dare not use the term - bird!
Perhaps we could use the term Avian instead of Aviator, both associated with flight, but not all capable of it.
Last edited by cynicalint; 10th Dec 2021 at 23:06.
Touche! that skill is taught after winning a Parliamentary election!
Just another statistic for you, "The further north one goes, the average Puffin gains an average of 1 oz gain in weight. which is why there are no puffins at the pole or the equator, They are either then too big or small to survive. Conversely, the further south one goes...loses 1oz...."
Puffins by the way, are aviators; Emus are not. Both avian creatures, though I dare not use the term - bird!
Perhaps we could use the term Avian instead of Aviator, both associated with flight, but not all capable of it.
Just another statistic for you, "The further north one goes, the average Puffin gains an average of 1 oz gain in weight. which is why there are no puffins at the pole or the equator, They are either then too big or small to survive. Conversely, the further south one goes...loses 1oz...."
Puffins by the way, are aviators; Emus are not. Both avian creatures, though I dare not use the term - bird!
Perhaps we could use the term Avian instead of Aviator, both associated with flight, but not all capable of it.
You will also find the Norwegian birth rate used to peak when the migrating storks arrived, and for all I know, it still does. Statistics are misused on a daily basis but that should not be used to discredit that particular branch of maths, rather it should make us want to learn more so we are not so easily deceived..