The Apology

On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Let's all think about that for a bit.
Which part should we all be thinking about for a bit, Gregg?

The part where you suggested that professional women are "childless corporate whores?"
The part where you said the woman in the ad "would be more attractive if she kept her mouth shut?"
The part where another poster described the women who took the time to write to express their perspective on the ad as "femnazi's" and suggested defunding the WSPA?

I'm just curious, as there is A LOT to think about there.
Hugh, the term is Feminazi, it is a pejorative that refers to women as strong willed whom demand social equity and equality. Personally, I am a huge advocate of social equity between genders and race. What I do not support is the efforts of the feminazi movement to make every aspect of their perceived sexist displays as an opportunity to advance their agenda at the expense of others. In this case it was the SSA, SSF and the Editor. Do I believe that the apologies should have been issued, NO, what should have happened is that the targeted victims should have simply explained the actual meaning of the illustration. Yes, the SSA, SSF and the Editor were targeted, make no mistake about it.
Now about defunding the WSPA, I would do that tomorrow, it should be combined into the general soaring community and not hold separate classifications.. combine all contestants into a single group, "Glider Pilots". I know of several female pilots that would hold their own against men, like Linda said, "Bring It ON". Last time I looked the female glider pilots were flying white gliders and not pink.
As for me, I owe no apology, I have extended an invitation to Linda that I hope she accepts, but she will have to clean up her vulgarity.

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:24:47 PM UTC-5, Gregg Ballou wrote:

A lot of people don't understand how gliders stay up, if you see a problem because a woman asked a question you are projecting your sexism. You say the man is guilty because of his hat, that is a hell of a Kafka trap. Ironically the drawing is most likely from a romance novel written for women. Poor women, women have lost a lot since the 1950's if you think being a childless corporate whore is better than being a stay at home mother you need to talk to some honest women. And yes women could fly then, if they wanted to, women have been flying since long before the Wright brothers.

Tom-

Right here my friend.

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 1:35:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Wow, a lot of emotions got stirred up here.

Let me see if I can understand how this ad could have been interpreted by the women who complained.

The background poster looks like something from the 50's, the glorious time for men, when women were second class citizens.

The questions being asked by the women "What? No engine? But how?" imply that she's just another dumb blonde, who cannot possibly understand the technical intricacies of motorless flight. Contrast that with the male pilot, whose head gear alone tells us all we need to know about his piloting skills and expertise in flight mechanics.

The caption "Beginning brilliant new love story - Swept Off Her Feet" could imply that there's no point in trying to explain all these intricacies to a women because that would distract her from her main purpose which she can only find in the bedroom and in the kitchen.

With this in mind, I fully agree with Chip and I totally understand and support Linda.

Cheers,
Doug

So, are you also going to take names and excommunicate pilots who disagree with you/Linda?

Tom

So...Â* Does the Camel cigarette ad featuring Betty Skelton offend any
men?Â* Certainly not me!Â* I saw the ad which looks like a full page from
a comic book at the Santa Rosa, NM airport.Â* I was so tickled by it that
I looked her up.Â* I'd say she accomplished a lot more than a lot of the men.

Here's a link to the ad.Â* It's a bit difficult to read...
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-CAMEL-...-/174121210320

On 10/23/2020 2:34 PM, wrote:
Wow, a lot of emotions got stirred up here.

Let me see if I can understand how this ad could have been interpreted by the women who complained.

The background poster looks like something from the 50's, the glorious time for men, when women were second class citizens.

The questions being asked by the women "What? No engine? But how?" imply that she's just another dumb blonde, who cannot possibly understand the technical intricacies of motorless flight. Contrast that with the male pilot, whose head gear alone tells us all we need to know about his piloting skills and expertise in flight mechanics.

The caption "Beginning brilliant new love story - Swept Off Her Feet" could imply that there's no point in trying to explain all these intricacies to a women because that would distract her from her main purpose which she can only find in the bedroom and in the kitchen.

With this in mind, I fully agree with Chip and I totally understand and support Linda.

Cheers,
Doug

--
Dan, 5J