Ms. Magazine's blog just ran an article about a passenger getting kicked off a flight. Sadly for this reader, the plane hadn't taken off yet.
Shortly before takeoff, this passenger found out that the pilot of the plane he was on was a woman. He doesn't seem to have a clue what goes into becoming an actual pilot; but he'd heard somewhere that being a woman is entirely a matter of answering "yes" to a one-question exam regarding current possession of a vagina. (And some would argue even that's too comprehensive.)
At any rate, the passenger in question didn't see how this alone could qualify her to pilot even a smallish plane, let alone a passenger jet. Understandably, he stood up and began to shout that he should have been warned that this was the case and he couldn't possibly fly with a vagina at the controls. (That last bit is an exact quote, other than one word that I paraphrased. Though not by much.)
The good news is that the pilot -- who, it turns out, is in possession of a complete human body, including a brain and a healthy temper -- kicked him off the plane. The better news is that her airline backed her decision.
The bad news is that I'm sad about one sentence when it comes to how Ms. reported this. I really hate it when people who are on the same side nitpick one another. It doesn't help anybody and it makes the enemy laugh.
But I think this particular wrangle sums up everything Ms. is fighting for. So I'm going to go ahead and...not argue or criticize, but bring the matter up for passionate discussion.
Here's how Melissa van Gelder begins her article:
"Imagine you're a certified commercial pilot, and you're among the 6.6 percent of them who happen to be women. You've passed all the same training as your male colleagues and proven that you can fly a plane."
Perfect, right? Says everything we need to know.
Unfortunately, the second sentence of that paragraph doesn't stop there. Here's how it reads in full:
"Imagine you're a certified commercial pilot, and you're among the 6.6 percent of them who happen to be women. You've passed all the same training as your male colleagues and proven that you can fly a plane just as well." [emphases most definitely mine]
Really? Just as well?
If men are what women are supposed to be measuring up to, by definition men are superior.
Notice what we use in the common parlance: something is the gold standard when it's the established yardstick. Nobody uses a cubic zirconium standard.
We know that not all men who make the attempt will become pilots. Being male isn't enough, in and of itself, to qualify one as a pilot.
We also know that being male doesn't cut the amount of work and study involved in becoming a pilot.
Which means that gender is irrelevant in this arena.
The fact that most pilots are men is a direct result of sexism.
To say that women can be pilots because women are people and people can be pilots is to make the point that sexism is damaging and wrong.
To say that women who try very hard can be just as good as men is to voice your agreement with the basic premise of sexism -- namely, that men are the real people, but occasionally women can qualify as human, too.
If that's the fight, I'm sitting this one out.
We need standards in this world. Good, high standards. We need them in pretty much every aspect of life.
We just don't need our standards to have penises automatically attached to them. Because then we're fighting the wrong battles.