Let's Talk Inclusive Language: Calling a pilot a "stewardess"
Let’s talk inclusive language
Have an inclusive language question?
You can send it to admin@worthwhileconsulting.com
All questions are anonymized.
If you’re wondering about it, chances are good someone else is wondering about it too!
Here’s a question from a LinkedIn follower:
“I’ve been enjoying your posts on the dumbass senator who called that pilot a ‘stewardess.’ When I saw the video it made me furious. People around me don’t seem to get why?
They’re telling me I’m oversensitive and like I’m making a mountain out of a molehill. They’re like, ‘He didn’t use any negative words, what’s the problem?’
Help! I can’t get across to them why I’m so mad.”
This question points to one of the main reasons why I put together the principles of inclusive language. The principles are designed to be an explanatory tool. One that gets across, in clear and universal concepts, why some language is problematic.
I’ve seen that even people who are “native speakers” of inclusive language can have a hard time explaining what’s going on in a way that really gets things across to people who have less experience with modern standards and expectations.
So I’m going to lay out the ways that calling a pilot a ‘stewardess’ violates every single one of my principles of inclusive language.
But before that, let me summarize the incident in question, since I’m sure not everybody has seen it.
Photo of pilot Laura Haynor testifying before the US Senate (via Independent TV)
On March 9th, Delta pilot Laura Haynor gave testimony for a Minnesota court hearing. She was there as a representative of The Air Line Pilots Association International, and was going to speak on information relevant to “safe and sick time” law.
Haynor introduced herself:
“My name is Laura Haynor, and I’m a Minnesota resident and a Minneapolis-based pilot for Delta Airlines.”
Seconds later, Minnesota State Senator Gene Dornink leaned into the microphone and said, “Then, Miss Haynor, is that correct, so can you tell me what a typical work week looks like for you as a stewardess?”
After being corrected by Haynor, who pointed out that she was, in fact, a pilot, Dornink said, “I don’t know why I said that, I’m so sorry.”
When I first watched the video of this exchange, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and thought this was just another example of an unconscious demotion, like the kinds that fill my examples database.
After rewatching, though, I now believe that his “slip-up” was actually purposeful, and political theater designed to appeal to a segment of his constituents.
How is calling a pilot a “stewardess” problematic? Well, it violates each of my six principles of inclusive language.
1. Reflect reality
Talking to a pilot as if she is a flight attendant does not reflect the reality that many commercial pilots are women.
Or that this particular woman is, in fact, a pilot.
2. Show respect
Asking a pilot who is testifying about her work conditions what a typical week is like for her “as a stewardess” is disrespectful.
It demotes her from a highly technical and high-prestige job to a job that is seen as tending to and serving people (aka “women’s work”).
What’s more, stewardess is not the modern or respectful term. That term is flight attendant.
Stewardess is like calling someone an authoress or a poetess. It’s outdated and really highlights that it is a woman doing the work (and not in a good way.)
3. Draw people in
Referring to a pilot as if she is a “stewardess” (again, should be “flight attendant”) marginalizes her from her profession. In fact, it pushes her right over the margins and out of her profession altogether.
4. Incorporate other perspectives
If a woman is testifying about her work as a pilot, then talking to her as if she is a flight attendant is not incorporating her perspective.
It also suggests that the perspective that women have no place in technical and demanding jobs is correct and reasonable.
5. Prevent erasure
Being unable to recognize that a woman is a pilot erases female pilots.
This is true whether the confusion is a genuine mistake because of a biased mental model or if it is just tacky political theater.
6. Recognize pain points
It is possible that every single woman in a technical or prestigious role has a story where she was disrespected, marginalized, presumed incompetent, unconsciously demoted, or more. These stories are painful.
Calling a pilot a “stewardess” is certain to cause pain not only for the pilot in question, but also for other women who have lived through similar insults.
Photo of Senator Dornink (via CBS News)
And there you have it! A professional and accomplished woman was disrespected and marginalized in an official and highly public forum.
On top of that, many women who are pointing out how offensive this was and how angry this made them are faced with linguistic distortions in response.
Softening language says things like, “He didn’t use any bad words. What’s wrong with what he said?”
Inflating language says, “You’re oversensitive. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill.” (This is just a hair’s breadth away from “You’re always so emotional” and “No need to get hysterical about this.”)
If someone tells you that a word or phrase is offensive, instead of dismissing their concerns because you can’t see the problem, you can use the six principles to learn more.
“How is it offensive? Does it not reflect reality?” You can keep going through the principles until you hit the one (or more) that are in play.
And if you’re trying to convince people that some language was genuinely problematic, using the six principles as your framework should help.
Want a version of this analysis that’s just 9 easy-to-read and easy-to-share slides? Click here to download!
Copyright 2023 © Worthwhile Research & Consulting