Post by: Rush on September 04, 2018, 03:43:15 PM
Post by: Little Joe on September 04, 2018, 04:21:23 PM
I agreed with every word but I would never be able to express it so succinctly. I wish we could make every educator, administrator and parent watch this. It might even be good for those young people that are the victims of the "victim mentality".
Post by: asechrest on September 04, 2018, 06:19:21 PM
https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
Quote
Back
Description
Product description
Something has been going wrong on many college campuses in the last few years. Speakers are shouted down. Students and professors say they are walking on eggshells and are afraid to speak honestly. Rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide are rising—on campus as well as nationally. How did this happen?
First Amendment expert Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt show how the new problems on campus have their origins in three terrible ideas that have become increasingly woven into American childhood and education: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; always trust your feelings; and life is a battle between good people and evil people. These three Great Untruths contradict basic psychological principles about well-being and ancient wisdom from many cultures. Embracing these untruths—and the resulting culture of safetyism—interferes with young people’s social, emotional, and intellectual development. It makes it harder for them to become autonomous adults who are able to navigate the bumpy road of life.
Lukianoff and Haidt investigate the many social trends that have intersected to promote the spread of these untruths. They explore changes in childhood such as the rise of fearful parenting, the decline of unsupervised, child-directed play, and the new world of social media that has engulfed teenagers in the last decade. They examine changes on campus, including the corporatization of universities and the emergence of new ideas about identity and justice. They situate the conflicts on campus within the context of America’s rapidly rising political polarization and dysfunction.
This is a book for anyone who is confused by what is happening on college campuses today, or has children, or is concerned about the growing inability of Americans to live, work, and cooperate across party lines.
Post by: azure on September 07, 2018, 06:31:21 PM
In the context of the university, I believe that the reason this "safety culture" is supported and allowed to thrive on campus is the paradigm that the student (or his/her parents) is the customer, and the customer is always right. Students bring safety culture into the university because they have been raised into that mindset in grade school and high school, and the university administration is afraid to do its job and challenge it for fear of losing the customer. The result is that students have virtual veto power over speakers invited to campus. If you invite a social scientist with a controversial theory that offends some members of a group who have been indoctrinated with "safety" or "victimhood" culture, those students and their supporters can raise enough of a stink to get the invited speaker disinvited. This has happened many times, and in some cases has led to much worse than disinvitation, including activists (who may or may not be directly connected to the students) harrassing, stalking, and/or making threats against the unfortunate would-be speaker.
He is absolutely correct that this is not in the best interest of the students. University is not about fostering an environment where students won't get their feelings hurt; it's about challenging preconceptions, learning to think for yourself, and gaining the skills to defend your principles with reasoned arguments. Censoring controversial ideas because they might offend someone is contrary to the purpose of the university. The only situation where it might be justified is where the would-be speaker is advocating physical violence, or where there is reason to expect that violence might erupt as a result of the event. But lectures by controversial speakers have been canceled for reasons that have nothing to do with threats of violence... and it has happened many times.
I'll just add that so far I know of no such student-forced disinvitation at my current institution. But I'm still fairly new here, and the subject hasn't come up in discussions I've been part of... yet.
Post by: asechrest on September 07, 2018, 10:01:31 PM
I didn't realize until now that the OP's video was done by one of the co-authors of the book I linked to. I bought the audio book and have been listening to it on my 40-60 minute commute twice a day.
So far it's a good listen. Makes you think, for sure.
It weaves in themes of safety culture, the iGeneration and social media, etc.
Generally, their points are that, as a wealthy society, we've been detrimental to youth by incessantly protecting them. They note rises in mental disorder and suicide rates in youth (with correlation, but not necessarily causation, with social media use), and then a vicious feedback loop wherein we attempt to combat this with protection against all adversity. The authors note that this goes against many well-known paradigms -- cognitive behavioral therapy, immunization, etc. -- that realize great success in a focus on regular exposure to stressors in order to combat and control our emotional responses.
It's an interesting book so far.
Post by: Username on September 08, 2018, 06:01:36 AM
Post by: Anthony on September 08, 2018, 06:41:19 AM
Students are not the customer, they are the product. The purpose of a university is to prepare the product to be in the best position possible to be purchased ("hired") by the real customer, the employer. This view has largely disappeared from universities and the load of preparing the product has shifted to the customer. "Some assembly required."
I think that is somewhat true. However, I think it is true for young undergrads. Adults that go back to school to get degrees, and grad degrees for specific, career enhancing reasons are more the customers. When paying that much money they better be getting what they are paying for from the university. Don't waste my valuable time, and money.
Post by: azure on September 08, 2018, 07:03:47 AM
Students are not the customer, they are the product. The purpose of a university is to prepare the product to be in the best position possible to be purchased ("hired") by the real customer, the employer. This view has largely disappeared from universities and the load of preparing the product has shifted to the customer. "Some assembly required."
I would add, though, that the "student as customer" paradigm is really not new. College tuition was historically paid for by the students and their families. Public funding for universities on the scale we see today didn't exist prior to WWII, and really took off during the Cold War. What is new is that the "customer" (most importantly the parents) no longer understands the purpose of higher education and expects universities to continue to coddle students and protect them not only from physical danger, but even from assaults against their self-esteem. I salute the academic fellow in the OP for trying to educate the public about the real mission of higher education, but I also think that along with waking people up to what university is really about, college administrations need to be more assertive that the correct paradigm is, as you say, that the graduate is the product. Of course tuition is revenue and without revenue the institution dies, but at the same time if you're afraid to expose students to real challenges then you cheapen the true value of your product, and in the end the result will be the same.
A colleague was recently denied tenure entirely on the basis of student evaluations despite a solid record in scholarship and service. He was perhaps not the greatest teacher, but he was unpopular mainly because he insisted that students meet high standards to achieve high grades. There is a new movement at some universities to rely more on peer evaluation of teaching instead of student evaluations. Some colleges have declared openly that student evaluations will still be done, but will not be considered for promotion and tenure purposes. I think this is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step.
Post by: Username on September 08, 2018, 07:04:28 AM
Post by: Rush on September 08, 2018, 07:50:14 AM
There were times in history when one or another social agenda hampered these pursuits, often it was religion, but always one group imposing its preferred world view on everybody else and constraining higher pursuits of truth. What is happening now is no different. The victim hood mentality is like a religion, with fanatics herding people into a small corral (safe space) and oppressing all other viewpoints.
Higher education was never about teaching the young basic life skills. School in general was never about that. You learned that from your parents. Education was about higher culture (arts) and about discovering universal reality (science) and then applying it in the higher professions. For most of history only the upper classes had access to institutions of learning. But their discoveries benefited mankind in general. Medicine is one of the most obvious examples.
When society decided that access to higher learning needed to be made available to everyone that was a good thing but it sowed the seeds for a change in the idea of what education actually IS. The presumption now is that higher education is supposed to guarantee you a lifelong career to support yourself. Whoa!! That was never the original purpose! Your trades did that, your apprenticeships and your parents taught you that.
Okay fine, many jobs now are prepared for at colleges and universities. Maybe that's a good thing, but it seems to have eroded some of the fundamentals of traditional higher learning: specifically that it requires an open mind to all ideas without prejudice so that truth may be attained and a willingness to accept that truth wherever it leads the mind. Possibly this remains at the post graduate level in the hard sciences, but it seems most university environments now have lost the original mission.
Post by: Number7 on September 08, 2018, 08:03:19 AM
Because there is little bounce back for poorly prepared 'graduates' the system continues to see itself as the beneficiary, rather than the responsible party, and enjoys wasting a huge amount of revenue indulging egotistical programs, degree fields, and agendas that do nothing to complete the job of preparing students to find and succeed in a the open employment market.
Because they are a closed society and do all it takes to keep the unwashed (revenue providing taxpayers) out of the loop, and without a voice in the product, all they really do is protect the free flow of money to their lazy, unproductive coffers, JUST LIKE CONGRESS.
Post by: Anthony on September 08, 2018, 08:48:41 AM
Post by: invflatspin on September 08, 2018, 09:27:09 AM
A colleague was recently denied tenure entirely on the basis of student evaluations despite a solid record in scholarship and service. He was perhaps not the greatest teacher, but he was unpopular mainly because he insisted that students meet high standards to achieve high grades. There is a new movement at some universities to rely more on peer evaluation of teaching instead of student evaluations. Some colleges have declared openly that student evaluations will still be done, but will not be considered for promotion and tenure purposes. I think this is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step.
I was never full time. I taught at a couple of private schools, and I could see the handwriting on the wall. Some of the tough courses I taught I had to give some poor grades. The dept chair didn't really like that, and the students weren't happy either. Well, there was nothing I could do about it, if the students didn't meet the very clear standards of the class. I can't send a guy from basic DC circuits on to AC circuits if they didn't get the material. I stopped taking on tech courses and would only teach stuff like ethics and public speaking. No one cares what marks I give in those courses, so it was an easy deal for everyone. Finally I got bored with it all. Haven't taught a course in > 5 years and don't miss it. Sounds like the whole thing has only gotten worse.
Post by: bflynn on September 08, 2018, 10:35:47 AM
My take away is that the left is perverting the natural state because they're uncomfortable with being moral.
Post by: azure on September 09, 2018, 07:07:22 AM
There is often a disconnect between students viewing themselves as the customer because in their minds many are NOT paying their tuition. The government, through loans, and loan guarantees are seen to be paying their tuition. It is "free money" to them, and that is why many don't think they have to pay it back. Want to see why universities charge so much for tuition, and room and board? Blame the government. They charge as much as the max loan amounts.
I think you're partly right, in that the government is to blame, but they charge not so much whatever the "market" will bear (whatever the government will loan their "customers"), but what they need to in order to stay afloat with the administrative glut that is the reality inside all universities in recent years. This is pretty far above my pay grade, but my impression is that most of that glut is to comply with federal regulations. A couple of examples are the ADA and Title IX. Thus my employer has an Academic Achievement Center that's largely designed to improve the experience of students with disabilities (and also those for whom English is a second language), and a Title IX officer and associated staff.
Last year I sat on the calendar and scheduling committee, charged with setting important dates and scheduling final exams. You would not believe how hard it was to settle on when to start the so-called spring semester in January. Most of the colleges wanted the third week in January, but the graduate college needs to start the first full week of the year because they are on what amounts to trimesters. Why is this a problem? Because some undergrad seniors take courses in the graduate college, and federal regulations require that the semesters be synchronized and of equal length, among other requirements, as part of the eligibility conditions for federal financial aid. Even the financial aid office could not tell us for certain what it would take to get the university in compliance with the federal regs. Eventually we had to kick the problem up to the faculty senate for a final decision. I would bet good money that the end result will be yet another office created whose responsibility it will be to stay abreast of this and related information. Faculty positions are frequently cut, but administrative ones never are; they only multiply.
Post by: Anthony on September 09, 2018, 07:12:43 AM
Post by: Rush on September 09, 2018, 07:29:50 AM
This guy is smart. Here's another one that explains why Conservative and Lefties really do have different more codes.
My take away is that the left is perverting the natural state because they're uncomfortable with being moral.
Wow this guy is brilliant. I found yet another of his talks I'll post later if I can, but that one made plain to me he is, or was, basically liberal, however he said this: (I'm paraphrasing from memory)
"When I saw signs in anti-Trump demonstrations that said 'Patriotism equals Racism' that's when I stopped calling myself a liberal, because liberals in America have become so close minded and intolerant that they've actually become the opposite of their original ideal."
Or something like that. I think he now calls himself a libertarian. He is an academic who distanced himself from the far left when they went all wacko after the election. I'll have to watch him more to figure out what he actually is, he may still have socialist leanings which is not true libertarianism but in any case his work on explaining underlying psychology behind our political leanings is absolutely amazing.
Post by: Rush on September 09, 2018, 09:03:26 AM
Post by: azure on September 09, 2018, 10:20:15 AM
So at this point I'm a female ex-liberal with libertarian leanings, trying to find common ground between left and right to resist the polarization that seems to be tearing this country apart. From what I've seen so far, I like this guy a lot.
Post by: Rush on September 09, 2018, 10:33:34 AM
He's definitely a systems thinker. My takeaway from the second talk was that liberals and conservatives both act from moral perspectives, but prioritize different aspects of innate human morality. We need to appreciate that and understand it in order to be able to talk to each other. As someone who no longer identifies as liberal, I very much appreciate that perspective. For me the transformation began when I moved to a state where firearms have been a part of the culture for hundreds of years, that is being displaced by leftists who came in, like me, from elsewhere, intent on transforming the state into something more like Canada, with strict controls on gun purchases and ownership. Yet firearms are used in criminal activities here very rarely, and the per capita violent crime rate is also one of the lowest in the nation. Didn't make sense to me, still doesn't (even after the near mass shooting at Fair Haven). Then came the 2016 election, which I've been trying to understand ever since, both the popularity of Trump and the extreme reactions from some on the far left.
So at this point I'm a female ex-liberal with libertarian leanings, trying to find common ground between left and right to resist the polarization that seems to be tearing this country apart. From what I've seen so far, I like this guy a lot.
I like the way he looks at it from both sides without demonizing either side.
Post by: invflatspin on September 09, 2018, 10:49:47 AM
So at this point I'm a female ex-liberal with libertarian leanings, trying to find common ground between left and right to resist the polarization that seems to be tearing this country apart.
When I changed from left to right, it was pretty rapid. There wasn't much crossover time. I suspect that the environment you are in is causing some internal conflict. Give it a couple years, maybe someone a bit more palatable than Trump and you will embrace open markets, individualism, and the philosophy of inalienable rights of the people. I tried the libertarian thing, and there's a lot to like there, but after spending a bit of time in the deep south I realized there are plenty of people not ready for that much oversight in their own lives. (hehehe)
Post by: Jim Logajan on September 09, 2018, 11:17:16 AM
Apparently he's not a socialist. I love the analysis of male/female differences. Men think systematically and women think emotionally and libertarians are 80% male. I'm a female libertarian and I definitely think systematically. Explains why I prefer male company over female company and why I became an engineer.
Ironically, three women of humble backgrounds are generally credited with inspiring the modern libertarian movement:
Rose Wilder Lane’s “The Discovery of Freedom”
Isabel Paterson “The God of the Machine”
Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”
All published in 1943. Interesting article on them here:
https://fee.org/articles/3-women-who-inspired-the-modern-libertarian-movement/ (https://fee.org/articles/3-women-who-inspired-the-modern-libertarian-movement/)
Post by: Little Joe on September 09, 2018, 11:18:10 AM
I think you're partly right, in that the government is to blame, but they charge not so much whatever the "market" will bear (whatever the government will loan their "customers"), but what they need to in order to stay afloat with the administrative glut that is the reality inside all universities in recent years. This is pretty far above my pay grade, but my impression is that most of that glut is to comply with federal regulations. A couple of examples are the ADA and Title IX. Thus my employer has an Academic Achievement Center that's largely designed to improve the experience of students with disabilities (and also those for whom English is a second language), and a Title IX officer and associated staff.There are bullshit regulations like that in almost every industry. That is why Trump is pushing so hard to get rid of them, and the economy is responding. Yet some people still believe Obama when he says the reason the economy is so hot is because of his policies.
Last year I sat on the calendar and scheduling committee, charged with setting important dates and scheduling final exams. You would not believe how hard it was to settle on when to start the so-called spring semester in January. Most of the colleges wanted the third week in January, but the graduate college needs to start the first full week of the year because they are on what amounts to trimesters. Why is this a problem? Because some undergrad seniors take courses in the graduate college, and federal regulations require that the semesters be synchronized and of equal length, among other requirements, as part of the eligibility conditions for federal financial aid. Even the financial aid office could not tell us for certain what it would take to get the university in compliance with the federal regs. Eventually we had to kick the problem up to the faculty senate for a final decision. I would bet good money that the end result will be yet another office created whose responsibility it will be to stay abreast of this and related information. Faculty positions are frequently cut, but administrative ones never are; they only multiply.
Post by: azure on September 09, 2018, 11:34:35 AM
When I changed from left to right, it was pretty rapid. There wasn't much crossover time. I suspect that the environment you are in is causing some internal conflict. Give it a couple years, maybe someone a bit more palatable than Trump and you will embrace open markets, individualism, and the philosophy of inalienable rights of the people. I tried the libertarian thing, and there's a lot to like there, but after spending a bit of time in the deep south I realized there are plenty of people not ready for that much oversight in their own lives. (hehehe)
I already embrace individualism and individual rights, especially the right to liberty. Open markets too, though I think some regulation is necessary e.g. to prevent monopolies. My main disagreement with some on the right is legislation of personal morality; I still say "keep your laws off my body". And the harsh words against the left in general (including on this board) turn me off pretty strongly. We're all the same species, therefore all intelligent, and we're all Americans (I think, on this board, that's probably true?) I doubt the university environment has much effect on my thinking, since we're way too busy most of the time at work to talk about politics.
As I think about it more in light of the talk Rush posted, it may be the liberty/oppression dimension that has moved me rightward after coming here. The invasion of out-of-staters here in Vermont, imposing urban, left-wing values on a rural, rather libertarian culture seems to me to be a form of colonialism. Fortunately the rural culture is still very strong, and I don't think I'm alone in changing my own views after coming here rather than trying to turn Vermont into something else.
Post by: Little Joe on September 09, 2018, 11:47:37 AM
I already embrace individualism and individual rights, especially the right to liberty. Open markets too, though I think some regulation is necessary e.g. to prevent monopolies.I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the vast majority of conservatives feel that there needs to be "some" regulation. Otherwise, we have anarchy. As long as there are bad people trying to take advantage of others, then there will need to be rules, enforcement and punishment. It is the depth and breadth of those rules and regulations that are stifling and repulsive.
I also think most conservatives are right along with you regarding keeping the government from regulating morality.
Two exceptions that come to mind are abortion and gay marriage.
Although I am ambivalent on the issue, many people think that abortion is not just a personal morality. It is more similar to murder. Personally, I disagree with that.
As for gay rights, yes, there are a lot of people against that on moral grounds and they have a right to vote on that basis. I just disagree with that too.
Post by: azure on September 09, 2018, 04:31:30 PM
Two exceptions that come to mind are abortion and gay marriage.
And as you might expect, those are the two main ones where I disagree most strongly with social conservatives.
Gay marriage, being gay myself (though single, but have several friends who date or have partners)... though I'm not lockstep with the community since I agree with the SCOTUS majority on both Obergefell AND Phillips.
Abortion is actually much tougher for me (life is, after all, another of those inalienable rights), but I still feel that it needs to be kept legal.
Post by: Rush on September 09, 2018, 06:10:42 PM
And as you might expect, those are the two main ones where I disagree most strongly with social conservatives.
Gay marriage, being gay myself (though single, but have several friends who date or have partners)... though I'm not lockstep with the community since I agree with the SCOTUS majority on both Obergefell AND Phillips.
Abortion is actually much tougher for me (life is, after all, another of those inalienable rights), but I still feel that it needs to be kept legal.
Did you just now come out on the board or have I been missing something? ;D ;D
Post by: azure on September 09, 2018, 07:12:53 PM
Did you just now come out on the board or have I been missing something? ;D ;D
Maybe here, but I did at least once before on PoA. You must just have missed it. ;)
Post by: Rush on September 09, 2018, 07:47:21 PM
Maybe here, but I did at least once before on PoA. You must just have missed it. ;)
I did. I sometimes vanish for long periods of time, usually when real life gets too busy.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on September 10, 2018, 06:29:36 AM
I did. I sometimes vanish for long periods of time, usually when real life gets too busy.I beg your pardon! PilotSpin is real life. This morning I woke up and thought, we’ve heard how Rush’s colonoscopy went, but I wonder how Stan’s went!
You don’t get much realer than that. :)
Post by: Little Joe on September 10, 2018, 06:30:50 AM
Maybe here, but I did at least once before on PoA. You must just have missed it. ;)Not that it makes any difference, but I am glad you clarified it (again?). I had been curious if you were male or female. A few things you had said had me a bit confused. Now, I understand.
As I said, it makes no difference to me, but I am glad to know, just for context. I welcome your additional point of view in our discussions.
Post by: Anthony on September 10, 2018, 10:23:37 AM
Maybe here, but I did at least once before on PoA. You must just have missed it. ;)
I also thought you were a female, not a Gay man, so thanks for clearing that up! :)
Post by: Jim Logajan on September 10, 2018, 10:39:17 AM
I also thought you were a female, not a Gay man, so thanks for clearing that up! :)
From azure in esponse 18 of this thread:
“So at this point I'm a female ex-liberal with libertarian leanings....”
I presume she meant “gay” generically to include lesbian? I only ever noted azure’s background in physics, which to me was the only personal aspect worth noting. ;D
Post by: Rush on September 10, 2018, 11:04:33 AM
From azure in esponse 18 of this thread:
“So at this point I'm a female ex-liberal with libertarian leanings....”
I presume she meant “gay” generically to include lesbian? I only ever noted azure’s background in physics, which to me was the only personal aspect worth noting. ;D
Well remember where I said I prefer male company to female? Gay female is an exception because they're not the usual bimbos and smart females like Becky are also an exception. And pretty much any female who bothers to become a pilot. And when Azure said she is an ex-liberal with libertarian leanings, that's thrilling.
Besides I have a whole history with the gay community which if I ever get around to doing my post in the get to know each other thread I'll expound on.
Post by: Anthony on September 10, 2018, 11:23:44 AM
From azure in esponse 18 of this thread:
“So at this point I'm a female ex-liberal with libertarian leanings....”
I presume she meant “gay” generically to include lesbian? I only ever noted azure’s background in physics, which to me was the only personal aspect worth noting. ;D
Thanks Jim. I think your assumption is correct.
Post by: azure on September 10, 2018, 11:30:45 AM
From azure in esponse 18 of this thread:
“So at this point I'm a female ex-liberal with libertarian leanings....”
I presume she meant “gay” generically to include lesbian? I only ever noted azure’s background in physics, which to me was the only personal aspect worth noting. ;D
You've guessed right. I don't usually use "lesbian" to describe myself except among lesbian friends. Maybe I should, as it would be clearer. I just have a rather uneasy relationship with the lesbian community, as a large segment of that community believes in pseudoscience. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused!
Post by: asechrest on September 10, 2018, 12:21:43 PM
I, also, remember Azure's physics prowess from the PoA forums. Can't remember what thread I learned that in. Maybe a global warming thread in Hangar Chat?
Post by: Number7 on September 10, 2018, 01:30:18 PM
What gives with that.?
Post by: nddons on September 10, 2018, 03:34:56 PM
I beg your pardon! PilotSpin is real life. This morning I woke up and thought, we’ve heard how Rush’s colonoscopy went, but I wonder how Stan’s went!It went well, thank you for asking. I’m always reminded of Led Zeppelin’s album “In Through the Out Door.”
You don’t get much realer than that. :)
Post by: nddons on September 10, 2018, 03:44:23 PM
You've guessed right. I don't usually use "lesbian" to describe myself except among lesbian friends. Maybe I should, as it would be clearer. I just have a rather uneasy relationship with the lesbian community, as a large segment of that community believes in pseudoscience. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused!Enlightening conversation! Thanks for sharing.
Since we’re talking terms (honestly I never considered “gay” to be more associated with one sex or the other; I thought it was a universal term) I often wonder why the GLB community associates itself with the T - trans. I don’t see the logical association between the former and the latter. What are your thought if you don’t mind me asking?
Post by: azure on September 10, 2018, 04:05:29 PM
Enlightening conversation! Thanks for sharing.
Since we’re talking terms (honestly I never considered “gay” to be more associated with one sex or the other; I thought it was a universal term) I often wonder why the GLB community associates itself with the T - trans. I don’t see the logical association between the former and the latter. What are your thought if you don’t mind me asking?
Partly I think that it is because all of us are "sexual minorities" in a sense, and experience discrimination from the larger society. Partly it is certainly historical, since drag queens and other male-to-female-spectrum transfolk frequented the same bars and hangouts as much of the gay (male) community since at least as far back as the '60s, and were very active in the Stonewall rebellion.
It's definitely not the whole LGB community though. Many lesbians hate transfolk, at least MtFs, particularly the radical feminist side of the L community, because they consider them to be men invading women's space. Some certainly do, but some rad feminists carry this to extremes. It's a very bitter controversy, but to me it's old and tired, and based on the kind of tribalism I've come to despise. I'm perfectly happy with the idea of an LGBT community.
And yes I had hoped people would interpret "gay" in the general sense... but I guess for many it still means only "gay male".
Post by: Little Joe on September 10, 2018, 05:08:42 PM
I'm not so sure. After all, this is a pilots (supposedly) site. Most pilots are men, so I assume most people here are men until they identify themselves differently. Just as I assume most are white. It is not a racist or sexist thing. It is statistics. When I worked in the corporate world, I had many gay friends. Most of them were female, but I don't recall the word "lesbian" popping up very often.
And yes I had hoped people would interpret "gay" in the general sense... but I guess for many it still means only "gay male".
Anyway, unlike Jim, who sees no importance to it, I find it important to help understand our differences as well as our similarities. When you look at it though, you find that there are many more similarities than differences.
Post by: azure on September 10, 2018, 06:29:00 PM
I'm not so sure. After all, this is a pilots (supposedly) site. Most pilots are men, so I assume most people here are men until they identify themselves differently. Just as I assume most are white. It is not a racist or sexist thing. It is statistics. When I worked in the corporate world, I had many gay friends. Most of them were female, but I don't recall the word "lesbian" popping up very often.
Oh yes, I didn't think there was anything sexist about it, just a question of what the term means to people here, and perhaps elsewhere. I wasn't thinking in terms of the statistics since I had already said I was female... but yes, I know that could have been missed. No worries. :)