On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 7:10:07 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I want to add my voice to those who have already posted that they understand why the ad was so cringeworthy.

When I first skimmed over it in print it elicited a "something's not quite right" reaction in the back of my brain, but I didn't really pause to think about it (perhaps I should have). On reflection, it doesn't surprise me at all that a significant number of very accomplished women glider pilots might feel a snub at being portrayed in by the senior representatives of the sport (SSF and the Editors of Soaring) as basking in the glow of the dashing and adventuresome man who performs daring feats of airmanship that women can't even comprehend on their own - and that their trajectory in the sport is to become romantically involved with such a man. That's the obvious implication of the content of the ad - probably unintentional and based on a set of subconscious presumptions about what's nostalgic versus rubbing salt in a wound. Just because something is subconscious and counter to what a person might support explicitly doesn't make its impact less corrosive. I'd also note that it appears that the "thought bubble" was added to the retro material by whomever put the ad together so the "historical graphic" seems to have had its more objectionable presumptions reinforced by contemporary sentiments. People should think about that - it's unlikely that this ad was written as irony and even if it was, it doesn't come across that way. In either case it's a fail and a corrective statement is wholly appropriate.

Pointing out the obvious shortcomings of a not-so-subtle diminishing of women's place in our sport is not an assault of freedom or a liberal conspiracy to "cancel" men, a "PC takeover" by overly sensitive snowflakes, or anything of the sort. It's simply pointing out that these sorts of obvious to some but (apparently) oblivious to others slights get noticed and cumulatively diminish the enjoyment of those women who do participate in soaring. These representations also erode the propensity to join of 50% of the population who might consider our sport. That's hardly a group we should be writing off - their participation rate is tragically small as it stands.

A very wise person once told me "feedback is a gift". People have to screw up their courage and make an effort to provide you with an opportunity to learn and grow. Defensiveness is the enemy of understanding - and vitriolic ad hominem reactions are simply indefensible. I have to admit true astonishment at those who have run off to some woman in their life to ask "this isn't sexist, right?". That's hardly a defense of anything.

My hope is that most of us can learn something of value from this episode.. I certainly have.

Andy Blackburn
9B
Andy, nice interpretation of your point of view. I would like to ask you the question in reference to this depiction topic only. Are the women or men more subtly sensitive about the depiction? I was just reading something called the Woman Enemy, which pretty much came to the conclusion that 95% of sexist facts were undermined by other women. Maybe I should go back and read the, The rules Of The Feminists' Fight Club". I do not mean to rub in salt as you stated, just looking for a better understanding. Bob