Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
#2Cancel culture strikes again.
Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
#3From the boss's article:
> They may become inhibited and stilted, self-consciously muting the more overt expressions of their comraderie because they feel that frank vulgarity is inappropriate in the presence of females, even if that vulgarity is a male social lubricant and if women profess not to object.
They may openly rebuff her presence because they are unable to relate to her on masculine emotional terms.
They may treat her with patronizing tolerance, as the unit's mascot.
They may being to compete with each other for her attention, breaking up group loyalties and shared destiny for individual sexual or romantic gratification.
Although his conclusion may have been wrong, it sounds like he was ahead of his time in predicting some consequences of sexisim that many feminists point out exist today.
To balance out your opinion of how right he was, he also said this:
>In contrast, women do not naturally band together ritual comradeship.
Clearly, he didn't provide any sources or reason to believe that. His article was armchair speculation. Repeating cultural beliefs without support, as if they were scientific facts, served as the mainstay of "polite" racism and sexism for decades, and although polite society has moved on from those cultural beliefs, it's a lesson to all of us that the practice of writing these unscientific articles never went out of fashion.
Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
#4He claims this is why, but if you're the chief spokesperson for a company that can't get past a safety and reliability scandal, I think it's just he was asked to resign.
Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
#5From the boss's article: > They may become inhibited and stilted, self-consciously muting the more overt expressions of their comraderie because they feel that frank vulgarity is inappropriate in the presence of females, even if that vulgarity is a male social lubricant and if women profess not to object. They may openly rebuff her presence because they are unable to relate to her on masculine emotional terms. They m…
How could that statement balance my opinion of how right he was? If the only problem with it is that he didn't provide any sources or reasons to believe that, it is worth pointing out that you have neither provided sources or reasons to believe the opposite.
Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
#6He claims this is why, but if you're the chief spokesperson for a company that can't get past a safety and reliability scandal, I think it's just he was asked to resign.
He's only been there 6 months. Seems unlikely.
Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
#7this cancel culture thing is getting out of control.
First you cannot judge how people would talk or act in the past based in present values.
Why are people able to consider cultural subjectivity when talking about other cultures, but not our own? We are not the same society that we where 40 years ago. Things changed, opnions to
And event if the guy was sexist, this attitute dosent consider if his opnion changed over the years. People learn new things, get new experiences that change theirs perspectives.
Letting go a worker because of a opnion he held 35 years ago should be met with a lawsuit.
Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
#8 “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
#9Core to any sort of social progress is the belief that people can change, and people changing.
I sure as heck wouldn't want anyone judged for views they held 30 years ago. I don't want to be judged for the views I hold today in 30 years either.
That goes for most actions too: Even if you murdered someone 30 years ago, if you served your time and reformed, you ought to be able to have a normal life now.
I'm a different person now than I was in college, and I'll be a different person in another 30 years. I may be a better person or a worse person -- I don't know yet -- but I definitely will not the same person I am today. I can think of few things a person might have done in 1987 which ought to affect their lives now.
This does not reflect well upon Boeing at all.
There is also an element of ageism here. Virtually anyone beyond some age will have held currently-unacceptable views at some point in their lives.
Re: Boeing communications boss resigns over sexist article he wrote in 1987
#10From the boss's article: > They may become inhibited and stilted, self-consciously muting the more overt expressions of their comraderie because they feel that frank vulgarity is inappropriate in the presence of females, even if that vulgarity is a male social lubricant and if women profess not to object. They may openly rebuff her presence because they are unable to relate to her on masculine emotional terms. They m…
How could that statement balance my opinion of how right he was? If the only problem with it is that he didn't provide any sources or reasons to believe that, it is worth pointing out that you have neither provided sources or reasons to believe the opposite.
If you have some unsubstantiated armchair opinions about something, the right thing to do isn't to publish them and wait for someone to correct you, it's to remain silent until you find a reason for you opinion, or change your opinion. Otherwise, we would drown in a sea of well-written articles that say "X is true" and "X is false" with equal frequency, and no matter how many we read we would never learn anything.