Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

What is going on at the top??

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

What is going on at the top??

Old 29th Nov 2021, 08:13
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Middle East
Posts: 27
The feminine form of the noun "Aviator" is "Aviatrix".
That should settle this woke nonsense. Mind you, some of them think that grammar is some sort of fascist construct.

Good one, that made me chuckle!
Gulf Flyer is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 08:44
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 2,147
Originally Posted by Economics101 View Post
The feminine form of the noun "Aviator" is "Aviatrix".
As it was waaay back in post number 4!

CG
charliegolf is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 10:18
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,522
Sounds like another "can brevets be worn on woolly pullies" pot boiler !
In a thread majorng on nomenclature, LS8C1's claims for employment titling might be more appropriate for woodworkers ?? ... at least he (or she) avoided the constantly misused 'jet'.
Yes, I know, just another silly old duffer dwelling in times past - bring back the hairy blue and pint mugs and 'irons' and hob-nail boots and collar-separate shirts and button-sticks .... oh, no, not button-sticks that would be a step too far !!
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 11:47
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by charliegolf View Post
As it was waaay back in post number 4!

CG
Was never very good at Latin, but I thought the plural would be 'Aviatrices' .
NRU74 is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 12:10
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Economics101 View Post
The feminine form of the noun "Aviator" is "Aviatrix".
That should settle this woke nonsense. Mind you, some of them think that grammar is some sort of fascist construct.
I am not sure that is right.

Etymologygeek suggests the word aviator comes from the French aviateur. If so, aviatress and aviatrice have historic precedence
https://etymologeek.com/eng/aviator
https://etymology.enacademic.com/6263/aviator

Anyway if you want a gender free term, what is wrong with aeronaut?
Ninthace is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 12:12
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: lincs
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by downsizer View Post
Mate, come on. Well aware only a slack handful of currently serving ever post here anymore. That was the obvious point of my post.
Unfortunately (probably fortunately) the opinions of myself and fellow "male and pale" serving "Aviators" wouldn't be welcomed by the cybercops, as I've found out during endless D&I indoctrination sessions. Nobody is going to give an honest response on here if it isn't in keeping with current policy.
cheekychimp is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 12:26
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 788
Sorry, but 'Aviator' does not sound as intimidating as 'Airman' when its shouted out by the SWO (though they are probably not allowed to do that anymore in case it upsets someone...).
Saintsman is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 12:53
  #48 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,178
Originally Posted by Jimlad1 View Post
"back in the day", Airmen made sense. Society has changed - 1 in 5 of the RAF is not male, so airmen seems inaccurate and innapropriate.

As usual the "of course there's no such thing as discrimination (mainly because I'm a middle class white male)" brigade are out in force getting worked up about a change that makes no impact or difference to their lives, but may make a meaningful difference to those who are serving now.

To those who say "but standards and in my day" - firstly, the operative phrase is 'your day' - that was then, this is now. Thank you for your service, but let those who are serving now express a view on what they want - your views are an irrelevance. Secondly, the RAF is always changing and has done since it was formed. The RAF you served in was so different to the one you joined, the one you learned about as a kid, and the one you left as to be a never permanent organisation - don't assume that because things were done a certain way once, that this continues to make sense.

Finally, you may wish to reflect on the impact your words have - you may want to get all angry and hit the keyboard moaning about snowflakes and diversity and how it was better when you were in - but please remember that in moaning, you are directly attacking the people who serve now. I personally think they deserve more respect than being insulted by yesterdays men who are unhappy with the idea of a very simple change.
Got it in one. Anything called progress tends to be an anathema for some...they probably quietly pine for the days of full kit inspections and closely examining "airmen's drawers, cellular " to ensure the creases are correct.

It's possibly a good idea not to use "trices" or "trixes" with regard to ladies however...these terms can often be preceded and evoke Freudian predilections .

But, so far, amidst all the frothing nobody has mentioned the most important point.

Irrespective of the rank / job title the only real question, is....can they still perform their role professionally. ?

Presumably yes of course, therefore all the "woke" epithets and similar indignation is completely irrelevant because ultimately the only thing that matters is that people can still deliver and perform their professional skills and expertise when required to do so.
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 13:37
  #49 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,642
The only downside is it’s copying the French…..
ORAC is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 14:55
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 763
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
Got it in one. Anything called progress tends to be an anathema for some...they probably quietly pine for the days of full kit inspections and closely examining "airmen's drawers, cellular " to ensure the creases are correct.

It's possibly a good idea not to use "trices" or "trixes" with regard to ladies however...these terms can often be preceded and evoke Freudian predilections .

But, so far, amidst all the frothing nobody has mentioned the most important point.

Irrespective of the rank / job title the only real question, is....can they still perform their role professionally. ?

Presumably yes of course, therefore all the "woke" epithets and similar indignation is completely irrelevant because ultimately the only thing that matters is that people can still deliver and perform their professional skills and expertise when required to do so.
K n C, a couple of thoughts on what you have said. First, 'progress' implies a change for the better but some changes inevitably will be for the worse and both cases must be accepted as potential occurrences; please note my comment here is a generalisation without making any statement about the changes in hand. Secondly, an individual's performance will be affected by how they are addressed and respected so nomenclature and phraseology is important and, again, works both ways. Offensive and derogatory terms are unacceptable and cause demotivation and poor performance, but bland, ambiguous, dysfunctional wording can also be demotivational and destroys pride in oneself and in ones profession, thereby also reducing performance. There are two sides to every coin.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 15:04
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 689
I would have been insulted had someone called me an aviator. No way would I want to mistaken for a growbag except perhaps at weekends. Mind you, having graduated from 2 of the 3 Service Colleges, referring to me as an airman would have got you short shrift too.
Ninthace is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 17:08
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 72
Posts: 1,674
Well , as obvously those who served some time ago have opinions that are deemed irrelevant to the current debate, best we let the current generation get on with it in their considered wisdom..

.
Haraka is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 18:06
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Direct Rock Springs
Posts: 16
And lo, the scene is set for the annual CAS/ Chief Warrant Officers Christmas message…………I’ve just about recovered from last years!
BA283 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 18:40
  #54 (permalink)  
wub
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,163
So when a pilot says his aviators are sitting comfortably on his face, he is talking about his sunglasses, right?
wub is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 18:56
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: on the edge of a big fall
Posts: 129
[QUOTE][/Finally, you may wish to reflect on the impact your words have - you may want to get all angry and hit the keyboard moaning about snowflakes and diversity and how it was better when you were in - but please remember that in moaning, you are directly attacking the people who serve now. I personally think they deserve more respect than being insulted by yesterdays men who are unhappy with the idea of a very simple change.QUOTE]
Currently serving and do not feel attacked at all and agree with many of the comments above. What grips me is that there are more fundamental issues I'd like the hierarchy to address rather than trotting out low hanging fruit changes. I have been working in a building that has had no running water for nearly 3 months, arrive at work today to find out there is no heating as that has also failed. Changing the collective name for us counts for co*k all when even basics like infrastructure is crumbling and failing, and I haven't seen the MOD Net survey, which is probably a good thing as my shivering bursting for a pee response might not be as well considered as they expect.
higthepig is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 19:13
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 23,362
The annoying part is it’s not just a word change, it’s the costs involved, every poster, pamphlet, book and paperwork will need to be replaced to reflect the new title.

Still Av8or is easier to text

so what happens to LAC or SAC? As that is still Aircraftsman

Last edited by NutLoose; 29th Nov 2021 at 19:25.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 19:57
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedale, North Yorkshire
Age: 67
Posts: 1,101
Former Flt Lt Michael Davies wrote a book entitled 'Tale From the Headquarters'. Available from a number of sites. Read it and weep.
taxydual is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 20:19
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,146
The Royal Air Force does not own the word 'aviator', which has an accepted, long-standing and well-understood meaning.

Which is someone who flies.

Calling every member of the RAF an 'aviator' is as silly as calling every NHS worker a 'doctor', everyone in education a 'professor', and everyone in catering a 'chef'.

Anyone involved in any kind of writing, is of course a 'Poet Laureate'.

Language needs to be clear, and widely understood. This usage is neither.

Now if people are really too fragile/too intolerant/too good to accept the terms airman and airwoman, or aircraftman and aircraftwoman, then the RAF needs to invent a replacement that does not have an existing meaning.

Avior? Avion? Avionner? Aviane? Ardile? Brylcreamer?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 20:21
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Grid ref confused
Age: 61
Posts: 491
How about Erk.
cynicalint is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2021, 20:38
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
The Royal Air Force does not own the word 'aviator', which has an accepted, long-standing and well-understood meaning.

Which is someone who flies.

Calling every member of the RAF an 'aviator' is as silly as calling every NHS worker a 'doctor', everyone in education a 'professor', and everyone in catering a 'chef'.

Anyone involved in any kind of writing, is of course a 'Poet Laureate'.

Language needs to be clear, and widely understood. This usage is neither.

Now if people are really too fragile/too intolerant/too good to accept the terms airman and airwoman, or aircraftman and aircraftwoman, then the RAF needs to invent a replacement that does not have an existing meaning.

Avior? Avion? Avionner? Aviane? Ardile? Brylcreamer?
I prefer aeronaut. A nod to the naval roots, genderless noun, ideal
Ninthace is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.