[AerBabe]

Well, it IS the Daily Fail!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4797202/I-hate-admit-women-pilots-make-nervous.html

At least some of the people commenting are being sensible...

[Bob_pipedream]

I read a bit of the Daily wail the other day at the hairdressers (my monthly shearing of excess hair - apologies to those who are lacking in this department). I have to say that since reading this 'paper', those that purport to be Daily Mail readers now make me nervous... Every nation has them, I guess they are our equivilant of Fox news watchers/enablers.

[Charles Hunt]

I thought Captains were referred to by their surname.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Mysogynistic comments are just that - no more acceptable because in this case they are written by a woman, that if they would have been by a man.

[Paultheparaglider]

Perhaps it was Captain Michael Maria?

[Paultheparaglider]

I didn't read the comments as mysognistic - merely someone struggling with their pre existing stereotypes in an ever changing world. The world moves on far faster than our stereotypes do, and it takes a fair bit of honesty and courage to admit that in a modern PC world where you know you will be personally attacked if you don't sing from the PC hymn sheet.

Her views might be unjustified, and the author clearly accepts that, but expressing them took guts.

[lobstaboy]

I hate to admit it, but it's actually a good article once you get past the headline and the first sentence or two.

[davef77]

Women pilots make me nervous too.

I plan to move up to Advanced next year, Emily is bound to beat me

[Flyin'Dutch']

I didn't read the comments as mysognistic - merely someone struggling with their pre existing stereotypes in an ever changing world. The world moves on far faster than our stereotypes do, and it takes a fair bit of honesty and courage to admit that in a modern PC world where you know you will be personally attacked if you don't sing from the PC hymn sheet.

Her views might be unjustified, and the author clearly accepts that, but expressing them took guts.

Sorry, recognising that someone has antiquated sexist views does not excuse them from having these, let alone show having 'guts' for admitting it.

[Dave W]

It's like the 12 step programme, isn't it?

The first step is admitting you have a problem. That in itself is commendable.

Learning doesn't take place overnight: Humans don't have a switch that says "I don't have those views any more".

Berating people for natural human characteristics won't get rid of those characteristics any faster, and I suspect psychologists would say it can have the opposite effect.

(Having said all that, I haven't read the article because I won't read the Daily Mail. And that is no problem of mine.)

[Flyin'Dutch']

Sexism, racism, fascism etc are not addictions.....neither are they natural characteristics.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-thi ... 2017-08-16

[Dave W]

Come on Frank, that's not what I said. Pretty obviously not, I would have thought and somewhat offensive if I may say so.

What I said was that once a human has an ingrained opinion, however wrong, it is going to take some time to change it. The starting point is to recognise that is wrong, and it is pointless for others to complain that a mental switch hasn't been thrown at that point.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Sorry Dave, the 12 Step Programme seems to be a reference to the 12 Step Programme of dealing with addictions, the suggestion that sexism is a natural characteristic is ridiculous.

The views espoused by the 'journalist' are repugnant and need to be treated the same as as the sexist views uttered by The Donald, or racist, fascist and neo-nazi views aired by white supremacist groups and their members.

These are all symptoms of the same unacceptable behaviour.

Giving these the 'benefit of the doubt' by publishing them just means that some will see that as a justification that their antiquated and sexist views are OK too.

[Dave W]

FFS. One last try:

The reference to the "first step" was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek direct link to the point being made by Ptp: Many people hold opinions that are antiqued and wrong but which they don't recognise as wrong. Until they do recognise that, they won't (can't) undertake the introspection necessary to change their views. Deeply visceral opinions held for long periods of time don't change overnight; we should be encouraging people who want to change, not vilifying them for what they used to think.

Some almost Timothy levels of reading words without considering context and being willing to believe the worst of people (me, in this instance) there. Shame on you.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Don't get your hair off, just don't be an apologist for people displaying unacceptable views and behaviours.

Some almost Timothy levels of reading words without considering context and being willing to believe the worst of people (me, in this instance) there. Shame on you.

Harsh, but if calling something out for what it is equates me in your view to Timothy, then that is a cross I will have to bear!