I really liked the story and the way it was told. I could sit there with the guys and experience their stress and panic.
The point about sexism was unnecessary and detracting to the story. It's yet another sad sign of how political propaganda infects absolutely everything. I long the days where you could simply enjoy a story without having to endure references to any kind of cultural war (sex wars, identity politics, etc), or narcissistic virtue signaling from an author.
Yes, sexism bad. Yes, woman were unfairly treated at some points in history. Yes, people should have sex to whatever consenting adult entity they prefer. But do we really need to plaster every single wall in life with those messages? To me it's just tiring. I need places where the relentless totalitarian narrative "our tribe good, that tribe bad" stops and I can simply enjoy life and smell some flowers.
I can't help but think the author craved a tap on the back, and wanted to send a message saying: "please like me because I'm one of your gang. I despise sexism and this story is factual evidence that the rival gang (sexists) are incompetent assholes".
But using the HN ethos, I should assume a positive intention from the author. Such a reading would be: "women are good intuitive thinkers, and the woman who walked out that flight knew the pilot was not competent". But if that's the intention, there's no logic or arguments to support it in the story.
Before this pilot crashed his plane, he said into the black box that when a man kills his wife, it's the wife's fault. This is excellent evidence that that sexism is alive and relevant in our world.
The fact that the pilot ranted about his female co-worker for 30 minutes, after engine start, in violation of cockpit hygiene rules, is how we know that the pilot's sexism is relevant to this plane crash.
> he said into the black box that when a man kills his wife, it's the wife's fault.
That's not what I read. He said a woman can drive the man crazy. The use of the word "crazy" show that the captain understood that such an action would be madness. He simply highlighted how interactions with their wives could be so infuriating to some men that they do crazy things.
He absolutely did say that. He specifically references the female co-worker he had a shouting match with the previous day, and then says:
"These are the kind of women you don’t wanna get married to. You know, some men, they lose their temper and the next thing you know, the wife is dead... it’s the woman who can drive you to do crazy stuff, you know?"
The idea that this is some kind of passive, context-free observation that some men kill their wives after getting frustrated with them is absurd.
Whoa. Yes, the altercation with the woman copilot is the context. It doesn't change what the Captain said:
> "These are the kind of women you don’t wanna get married to. You know, some men, they lose their temper and the next thing you know, the wife is dead... it’s the woman who can drive you to do crazy stuff, you know?"
How do you go from the statement above to: when a man kills his wife, it's the wife's fault? He is simply saying the wife's behavior is a factor, nothing more.
> The point about sexism was unnecessary and detracting to the story. It's yet another sad sign of how political propaganda infects absolutely everything.
disagree. it goes to show what was on the Captain's mind when he should have been focusing on preparing for flight, and getting his head in the game.
he was obviously rubbed raw by the interaction, and blamed it on sexist things rather than considering that maybe he had a hand in the outcome of the conversation with the woman in question.
this lack of ownership of one's own actions as demonstrated by the captain was apparent throughout the entire article and was a factor in the crash, as described.
> he was obviously rubbed raw by the interaction, and blamed it on sexist things rather than considering that maybe he had a hand in the outcome of the conversation with the woman in question.
If we consider that the captain spoke for 32 minutes, I don't think a half dozen quotes are necessarily representative of the 32 minutes.
It's possible he spent 30 minutes talking about her poor technical performance and poor teamwork with other pilots, and 2 minutes making sexist remarks. But sexist remarks are much more sensational, plays to certain prejudices, and are more likely to drive clicks than criticism (perhaps warranted) of someone's professional behavior.
sexist remarks are also very indicative of where his head was at the time. he was not focused on the task in front of him.
please stop seeing things like this as virtue signaling. it's myopic, and negatively colors your view of what is going on.
mentioning the sexism is a very effective way to communicate what was going on in that pilot's mind to people who have a good handle on why sexism is a problem and where it is commonly observed. that's all it is.
there's no "I'm better than you because I say sexism is bad" in this article.
> sexist remarks are also very indicative of where his head was at the time. he was not focused on the task in front of him.
My point, which I will repeat again, is that you should not judge "where his head was at the time" based on a handful of quotes cherry picked from 32 minutes.
> please stop seeing things like this as virtue signaling
Please stop seeing things as reinforcing whatever prejudices you walked into this with.
> I can't help but think the author craved a tap on the back, and wanted to send a message saying: "please like me because I'm one of your gang. I despise sexism and this story is factual evidence that the rival gang (sexists) are incompetent assholes".
FWIW I think Admiral Cloudberg's not a guy. Fair chance they've experienced sexism themselves.
The point about sexism was unnecessary and detracting to the story. It's yet another sad sign of how political propaganda infects absolutely everything. I long the days where you could simply enjoy a story without having to endure references to any kind of cultural war (sex wars, identity politics, etc), or narcissistic virtue signaling from an author.
Yes, sexism bad. Yes, woman were unfairly treated at some points in history. Yes, people should have sex to whatever consenting adult entity they prefer. But do we really need to plaster every single wall in life with those messages? To me it's just tiring. I need places where the relentless totalitarian narrative "our tribe good, that tribe bad" stops and I can simply enjoy life and smell some flowers.
I can't help but think the author craved a tap on the back, and wanted to send a message saying: "please like me because I'm one of your gang. I despise sexism and this story is factual evidence that the rival gang (sexists) are incompetent assholes".
But using the HN ethos, I should assume a positive intention from the author. Such a reading would be: "women are good intuitive thinkers, and the woman who walked out that flight knew the pilot was not competent". But if that's the intention, there's no logic or arguments to support it in the story.