The Institute for Women Of Aviation Worldwide (iWOAW) has launched a petition on Change.org, asking the FAA to eliminate gender-exclusive words that keep women out of aviation.
“In 2020, female pilots look up Notices to Airmen before each flight, validate their Medical Certificate by signing in the Airman Signature field, and refer to Airman Certification Standards to prepare for pilot tests,” the petition begins.
“The FAA’s website contains more than 40,000 references to Airman or Airmen; ICAO’s website lists close to 2,000 airmen references.”
“Research indicates that linguistic cues such as gender-exclusive terms that may seem trivial at face value can signal group-based ostracism,” the petition continues.
“Women do feel ostracized and are steering away from the aerospace careers publicly labelled as men’s careers,” iWOAW officials say. “Worldwide, the percentage of female pilots is less than 3%.”
The United States counts 262,025 commercial pilots including 13,692 women according to the latest U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics published by the FAA.
The petition asks the FAA and ICAO to remove gender-exclusive words from all their publications.
“It is common sense,” iWOAW officials say. “How long would it take the FAA and ICAO to change the wording if male pilots had to refer to Notices to Airwomen before each flight and carry a certificate including an Airwoman signature field?”
Gender-neutral terms such pilot, aircrew, or flight personnel already exist.
“Technology makes wording changes in documents a matter of will rather than a matter of means,” the petition says. “Yet, 110 years after Raymonde de Laroche became the 36th person — and the first woman in the world to earn a pilot license on March 8 — the FAA and ICAO continue to negate their presence in their publications.”
You can read — and sign — the full petition at Change.org.
I think it’s a great idea and I would totally support the change. Language matters. It amazes me how so many people believe that making the world more equal is somehow a sacrifice for them…
If you could please show me where the word airman/men has somehow led to less tangible equal opportunities for women to get into aviation in this day and age, I’d like to see it. The old saying of “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” comes to mind when I hear a platitudinal argument of “language matters.” If a word prevents you from doing something because it offends you, the problem lies with you the individual; not the word. In fact, if language truly mattered that much, humans would not have invented airplanes or gone to the moon, or faced any number of challenges we’ve met and overcome. They have been met in spite of naysayers trying to deride their efforts with negative words. And let’s not forget that airman/men isn’t used intentionally with the goal of specifically discouraging women from pursuing aviation like the words that HAVE been used to intentionally discourage people from their endeavors in the past. Fretting and obsessing about how words make us feel is moving society backwards at an alarming pace, and that’s the real sacrifice you’re asking we make with drivel like this proposal. This is a misplaced cry of inequality due to a word.
It signals “group-based ostracism” only if you wish it so. At our local airport we have multiple women of varied ages and backgrounds pursuing their dream of a private pilots license and possible career in aviation. This resolves to controversy for controversies sake. How many individuals in this ‘concerned’ group have been denied an opportunity to pursue a career in aviation because of a word in official FAA documentation. Everyone in aviation that I know is an enthusiastic supporter of ‘anyone’ who wishes to pursue a career and a professional life dedicated to the aviation community. The language is totally transparent and becomes a rock upon which one’s toes is stubbed only when one is trying to kick the rock with their toe. Women go fly !!!!!
While the idea is a waste of time for any benefit to be derived. I would have to remind that although many bold women have succeeded in aviation in certain capacities, there have been barriers to certain types of flying, especially combat roles for women. Today that doesn’t seem to be the case, and that includes astronaut roles. There will always be some types of flying that may require stronger physical strength which most women cannot exhibit. These factors will not be aided by the useless exercise of eliminating “airmen” from the lexicon. The determination of women to succeed in aviation is an individual dedication, just like it is for men.
I think this is a way to get their organisation some shred of credibility. Women have NEVER, I repeat NEVER…been kept out of aviation so they obviously have an ulterior motive. If a woman can perform to standard, she’s flying.
I cannot believe I wasted my time reading this. The time writing this and researching the 2,000 references could have been spent mentoring kids or flying. If someone finds a petition to keep Airmen in the regs forward to me. Oh and I am a woman proud to have my Airmen’s certificate.
So we have the worst pandemic in 1000 years and a possible civilization crippling event with a bug able to be as contagious as the flu, as mutating as HIV and as crippling as ebola, and some people are still stuck in PC social marxism? I doubt your gender studies or diversity and inclusion scholarship will be of much use in the triage ERs of Italy or the wards for the dying in the overwhelmed NYC or LA’s hospitals.
While I don’t think seeing “airmen” will automatically make future non-male pilots give up, I am all for more gender neutral language when possible such as “pilots” or “aviators.” One never knows if the FAA will make such a change feasible.
Better quit using the word “cockpit (I know it’s because the old biplanes had a place where the pilot sat with all the aircraft controls that resembled a pit used for chicken fighting). I think the term I learned for that place was Control Cabin when I was checking out on the Boeing 727 back in the middle 1970’s.. Next they’ll be wanting the Christmas Card Companies to change the wording: “Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards men” to “Peace on Earth and Good Will towards both sexes” but then what about the ones who don’t know what gender they are? Maybe substituting the word HUMAN for men or women, but those libtards would only find something else to complain about. I’d love to be able to ask all the female airmen who are flying for the airline I retired from what they think about the use of the airmen on their FAA paperwork.
I think it very interesting that life here in the Good Ole USA has become a life so filled with POLITICALLY CORRECT terms, that we forget the task before us. As far as aviation is concerned, I would hope to keep this P C stuff out! I have had the fortune of knowing several “women of distinction” in the aviation community, several having been on the USA aerobatic team several years ago, several as corporate pilots, even a few airline pilots, of which one was one of the first female Canadian airline pilot. I’ve also had the opportunity to work with several female A & P mechanics. Remember, most of these females had smaller hands than mine, and when bucking rivets, my big hands failed to allow me into many places we had to install rivets. When I was a student pilot, my flight instructor had a female student, that I had met in a previous occupation, and he requested that I ride with them on a short cross-country flight and observe the difficulty she endured, just to learn to fly. You see, she was a little bitty lady, and many high school girls were bigger than she was, and she learned in a Cessna 206. Just let your imagination run, on what she endured while handling that aircraft in a good cross-wind situation. That, was an education for me. She didn’t need the help of a politically correct group of supporters to gain her credentials, she did that on her ability. I respect people like her for even attempting that feat. I made several trips with her in the 206, but I had moved to another job when she transitioned into her Baron, and then I met her again when she flew the King Air. She didn’t need the excuse of being a female, she flew the King Air as good as or better than most males, her being a small statured female never held her back!
I received my private pilot certificate in 1969. The wording airman is just a word and nothing against women to be a pilot if they are interested in aviation. The push to change the wording is nothing more than political correctness in my opinion.
I think it is a tad odd that the group “Institute for Women Of Aviation Worldwide ” is based in Canada. I know it names has worldwide in it. Where are the US based groups who need this change? There may be some, lets hear from them.
I’d have no problem changing “Notam” to “Notap” (air person).
Politically correct or not, words DO matter. Nowadays, nobody says “****** in the woodpile” or “*** me down”. These are examples of once popular usage which are now considered unacceptable in polite company. There are many more.
We sound like a bunch of ten-year-olds in a treehouse with a sign “No Gurlz Allowed” nailed up over the door. They ARE allowed, and the very least we can do is make them a bit more welcome. Part of this would be the very minor effort of scrubbing sexist language (and most of it is inadvertent) out of our FAA paperwork, 95% of which never gets read anyway. Search and replace, anyone?
That’s life in the 21st century, we get to deal with it. Chill. Relax. It’ll be OK, honest.
If a person wants to join the aviation community as a pilot or in a different role but the word “airman” is a deterrent, then how will they “man up” or “woman up” and focus on the studying and hard work that is required? I earned a private pilot certificate on 1999 — the last thing on my mind was being deterred by the word “airman”.
Boys, this is a legit observation. Plenty of gender-free, inclusive descriptors that could be used….. Now if one suggests redefining existing words like “them” and “they” – that would be stupid.
I sincerely doubt that the words Airman or Airmen “keep woMEN out of aviation” due to some sort of perceived gender-exclusivity aimed specifically to deter them from a career in aviation. For starters, it’s just a word that’s not even remotely close to a slur of any kind. Short of being intensely hypersensitive and looking to be offended by a word, I don’t see how anyone could legitimately claim a word prevented them from pursuing a career in any field. For example, a few years back the US Air Force toyed with the idea of changing the junior enlisted rank label from “Airman” and the general term applied to all members of the Air Force (officer and enlisted alike are referred to as airmen) to something without “man” or “men” attached. Women in the Air Force overwhelmingly came out against the change, saying they were proud to be airman/airmen and thought it a wasted effort when their were far more important issues to be solved. I’ve served with, and continue to serve with women in the Air Force, and all of them think this sort of petition has the opposite effect desired by those who put them forward by delegitimizing the strides women have made over the decades to be treated equally without regard to their gender. This sets them back instead of moving forward, and it pisses them off when they read of wasteful drivel like this petition.
Okay…what replaces it? Airperson? AirLGBTQ? AirHomoSapien? AirOperator? AirYouGuessTheGender? Or just plain Air (even a drivers license has a gender designation though these days some states are allowing ‘other’ and who knows what?
To keep it simple:
P.C.B.S.
Next wil come the request to identify the “I’m not sure WHAT sex I am. Oh boy
That’s not with those petitions than women will became foreseeable equally to men. They will be so, in aviation, on sake of theirs capabilities that, undoubtedly, are the same compared to the men. A petition like that is, truly, a inadequate and false liberalism and, indeed, pathetic and ridiculous.
Ever notice the only people who comment on these stories are dudes?
https://manwhohasitall.teemill.com/product/womankind-classic-t-shirt/?fbclid=IwAR0AGrt77g3ODi3Oxj0tGkP61SjN8—sgn0s6NeXHJW-Zset4ObES76rx0
OK just to even that out I will step in. I do not claim to speak for all women or even a majority, just myself so lets put that up front. While it would be nice to see gender neutral terms being used it can hardly be called out as a force that is keeping women out of aviation and to say such is to trivialize what barriers there truly are.
The big driver for careers in aviation, particularly the airlines, has been past service in the military as a pilot and it is only recently (relatively) that the military did start allowing women into that position. That feeder system is slowly building up the number of women pilots available to transition to civilian life and careers as professional pilots. There was a rather well seated culture of male exclusivity that had to be penetrated first and I have nothing but praise for the women who broke through that barrier. Now as we see more women as successful pilots in the military, and in turn the airlines, more women are feeling encouraged to go down that career path.
We are breaking down invisible barriers in the aviation world and in many others as well so it will become an increasingly more common sight to see women in those fields. In my own field of engineering I mostly work with women who are secretaries or other such administrative aids but it is slowly changing. It is a long and sometimes painfully slow process to make such changes in career paths that had been considered the domain of men but that process is happening. It cannot happen overnight, or maybe even a decade, but it is happening and a few poorly chosen terms used in an industry is the least of the factors that might be impeding the change.
Yes it would be nice to see the terms change but keep in mind just how ingrained they are. It costs money to edit and then reproduce all of the documents, signs and whatever the old terms are used in. Should the FAA pull funds from other areas, some critical, to pay for such a sweeping change? A commitment to the change would be fine with an extended timetable where the changes can be folded in with other changes as they are required. That is just common sense and while it might not satisfy the more militant groups that want the change immediately, that commitment should be fine for the rest of us, men and women.
Check out Mary Annie’s comment above.
Pathetic
Eggads…Just when you think the PC Culture has worn itself out. Pathetic is an understatement Pretty soon they’ll be putting implants in babies to electrocute them if the word “man” comes out of their mouth. This is Liberalism folks. Plane and simple.
Ridiculous proposal, but if we have to change it, let’s call ourselves “aviators.”
Right . That’s what the Army has always called its pilots .
These types of requests to change wording is getting out of hand. People say ‘you guys’ when referring to mixed sex or same sex groups and couples without anyone getting out of shape. It is just a figure of speech. The term airman in FAA and ICAO documents is not intended to exclude women any more than saying mailman or postman. It would also have to change wording in many places to the annoying he/she reference that has started showing in many places and people either use he or she in examples rather than saying he/she. I just do not understand why people are getting all up about such unimportant things………aviation has bigger fish to fry.
Oh yeah those few words are keeping women out of aviation
Men is in the word women
wo”men”
Is it not?
would you rather is be called notices to Airmen and airwomen?
This is crazy
and in no way does it keep females out of aviation.
Also we would have to change all our licenses, medicals, etc to say something else