|
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11148459)
Your presumption that most on here are serving is touching!
|
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! |
Originally Posted by Economics101
(Post 11148498)
The feminine form of the noun "Aviator" is "Aviatrix".
CG |
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 !! :p |
Originally Posted by charliegolf
(Post 11148642)
As it was waaay back in post number 4!:ok:
CG |
Originally Posted by Economics101
(Post 11148498)
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. 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? |
Originally Posted by downsizer
(Post 11148586)
Mate, come on. Well aware only a slack handful of currently serving ever post here anymore. That was the obvious point of my post.
|
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...).
|
Originally Posted by Jimlad1
(Post 11148467)
"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. 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. |
The only downside is it’s copying the French…..
|
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips
(Post 11148764)
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. |
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.
|
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.. :)
. |
And lo, the scene is set for the annual CAS/ Chief Warrant Officers Christmas message…………I’ve just about recovered from last years!
|
So when a pilot says his aviators are sitting comfortably on his face, he is talking about his sunglasses, right?
|
[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. |
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 |
Former Flt Lt Michael Davies wrote a book entitled 'Tale From the Headquarters'. Available from a number of sites. Read it and weep.
|
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? |
How about Erk.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:52. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.