The Elimination of Sexism and Stereotyping in Occupational Education
Sayman, Donna M., The Journal of Men's Studies
They called it "BOCES." Until recently, I did not even realize it was an acronym. It really stands for "Board of Cooperative Educational Services," and represents the vocational education system for the State of New York. For me the name evoked images of young girls learning banal skills that would keep them enslaved to low paying jobs. This was not the educational track for me although the majority of my peers were enrolling in cosmetology, nursing, or secretarial programs in droves.
During the 28 years that have passed since I left high school, I envisaged vocational education as having evolved into a sophisticated, high-tech organization that allowed students to acquire knowledge that would equip them for the world of work. It is a truism that vocational schools, now more correctly termed "Career and Technology Centers" are updating their programs to a more rigorous standard that enables students to compete in a global economy.
Within this bright and promising hope of new technological promise is a dark side that reveals continued archaic practices of relegating women to training programs that guarantee a lower paying vocational future than their male counterparts. An inverse relationship is formed as men are still expected to choose specific occupations that continue a cycle of culturally produced gendered occupations.
In American society schools were constructed to mirror the workplace. Experiences that reinforced prescribed sex roles molded and confirmed both by the traditional curriculum and by teacher expectations that were a subtle harbinger of social relations students would encounter when they entered the workforce. Concept formation of what is considered masculine and feminine was habituated in the classroom, through athletics, and in all unstructured activities. This hedonistic ideal was reified for young women and men in the media, the home, and especially in the structure of typical schools (Kimmel, 2000).
Years after the Civil Rights Act and other laws to assure equality were firmly in place, American women still found themselves marginalized socially and economically. They comprised the largest demographic living in poverty and yet continued to hold themselves responsible for their plight (Kincheloe, 1999). Studies that focused only on the barriers for girls and women failed to take into account the social and educational ramifications that dilemma held for boys and men. The problem of nontraditional career choice for men was not addressed or even recognized in current regulations as being an essential component of sex discrimination.
In order to break the cycle of poverty that continued to grow for women and children, educators needed to concentrate on eliminating issues that promote sex role specific occupations and ease avenues for boys and men wishing to enter nontraditional careers. To ameliorate the disparity for girls, it was necessary to understand the dynamics of how boys are educated and how occupations become unequally dominated by one sex group.
Career and Technical educational programs viewed themselves as breaking down barriers that promoted nontraditional occupational choice. A nontraditional occupation was defined as one that employs less than 25 percent of one sex (University of Hawaii, 2003). Statistics have shown that there existed a definitive gap in career technology education between boys and girls (Bostic, 1998-1999; Reese, 2002). Understanding the factors that influenced educational and career choice of women and men were crucial to discovering reasons for this inequity. Teacher styles and teacher/student interactions are still much the same today as they were decades ago. Equal enrollment in a classroom does not mean equal experience.
For decades researchers have examined how sex inequality in schools can affect academic and occupation choices for females. In his research to discover variables that influenced involvement in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering (SME) educational programs, Jerry Trusty (2002) suggested that differences in socialization and different interaction styles of the classroom teacher may influence whether girls as early as the middle school grades will pursue SME studies. These interactions encompassed direct and indirect methods of involvement. If the girls in the classroom did not receive one-on-one communication, it was due to the behavior of the boys. Often boys' misbehavior would divert the teacher's attention to them, thus neglecting the better behaved girls in the room. Trusty's research was thorough in its accurate reflection of how educators can ignore the needs of girls in the classroom, but the needs of boys and the social constructs of why their behavior demanded attention was not recognized as problematic rather only stated as a natural occurrence.
Occupations and Inequality
Occupations can be portrayed as being more suited for either males or females. Women have long recognized that work traditionally done by men brought with it higher pay and a higher status. Regrettably, historical evidence has illustrated that as a job comes to be viewed as "feminized" it was often transformed into a deskilled, lower paying profession (Kincheloe, 1999). How society viewed an occupation as suitable for a women was a mitigating factor as to whether a young girl will pursue a nontraditional career choice (Bostic, 1998-1999). Peer pressure placed enormous sway in her decision.
An historical approach to the articulation of sex role divisions and the economy deemed that the capitalist mode of production was simply the most current representation in a litany of human exploitation. The term "housewifization" (Mies, 1998) described the praxis of portraying a housewife's work as a natural process that was expected and normal. In contrast, the man was depicted as the breadwinner on whom the family had financial dependence. The wife was then relegated to the position of reliance on her husband. This construct instilled an ideological control that devalued work done by women. The chimera was perpetuated strongly in the classroom. Teachers possessed unparalleled authority to construct social reality often accomplished without full knowledge of their actions.
This ideal of sex specific occupations was highly ingrained in schools. As early as the pre-kindergarten grade levels, children were shown examples of categorically particular careers. Despite educational reforms and curriculum modifications that sought to incorporate equal conceptions of occupational identification for boys and girls, differences in what was expected from each sex is as glaring today as it was decades ago.
Traditionally, vocational education has offered prodigiously sex-specific programs. Breaking through these categorical barriers has been slower in the career and technology schools than in many other areas of education. In 2001, women's groups found that in New York vocational education programs girls were receiving inferior training compared to boys (Gehring, 2001). The New York City school district had failed to update curricula for female students in the city's 18 vocational-technical schools. It was discovered that female students were not receiving equal educational opportunities as evidenced by the fact that 13 of the city's 18 vocational-technical schools students were highly segregated by sex. These programs also reflected long standing gender stereotypes. In the vocational schools that had a predominantly higher percentage of women, programs offered led to lower paying jobs such as cosmetology and childcare. By contrast, the predominantly male populated vocational schools offered programs leading to higher paying careers such as engineering and technology.
Another example of how vocational education promoted and perpetuated the construction of sex-specific occupations is evidenced by a June 2002 lawsuit initiated by the National Women's Law Center. They petitioned the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights for an immediate review of vocational education programs at high schools in 12 states. The charge claimed students were being funneled into sex-role stereotypical careers and, in fact, found that females made up 96 percent of those enrolled in cosmetology courses, 87 percent in child-care courses, and 86 percent in medical assistant courses. In contrast, males composed 94 percent of the plumbing classes, 93 percent of welding, and 92 percent of automotive collision programs (Cavanagh, 2002).
The Report Card on Gender Equity published by the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (2002) has compared the progress of educational opportunities for girls since the implementation of Title IX. The report discovered that the least amount of gains accomplished were in the area of career and vocational education. Nontraditional careers were the most promising source of a living wage for women, but there were subtle barriers firmly in place that prevented this from becoming a realization. These sociological impediments were even more damaging to young boys. Culture typically portrayed men in atypical careers as weak, gay, or not intelligent enough to secure a masculine-identified job. Research showed that the employment rate for men as librarians in 1975 was 34,000 but decreased to 32,000 in 1990 (Williams, 1995). In her research on males in librarianship, Gordon (2004) found that 82 percent of librarians were female. She also revealed that men comprised 21 percent of those who graduated with a degree in library information systems. The statistics were more encouraging for men in the nursing profession with numbers having tripled over the past two decades but employment rates have remained static in the area of elementary teaching (Williams, 1995). Sargent (2001) discovered that men make up only 15 percent of personnel in an elementary school. This includes support staff, teachers and administration.
For subbaccalaureate vocational programs, women composed the largest percentage of students in the fields of health-services, dental/medical technology, and business and legal assistant. Men dominated programs in trade and industry, computers, data processing, and engineering/science technologies (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000; American Association of University Women, 2004).
The problem exists that occupational education has not been successful in the elimination of sexism, either for women or men, and has not actively sought to reduce stereotyping.
Philosophies and Social Factors
Traditionally, progressivism has been influential in the development of vocational education programs in America. Pragmatism is the philosophical foundation for progressivism and John Dewey was instrumental in the formation of the progressive movement for education. He stressed that schools are to be practical in allowing the student to learn skills that are applicable to the real world of work (Elias & Merriam, 1995). Progressive education was solidly based on a contextual, student-lead environment that envisioned the teacher as a facilitator or guide. There was much focus placed on experience in education and the school as the place to provide "an active environment for learning" (Howard & Scheffler, 1995, p. 31).
The term "progressive" was coined during the period of 1890-1920 as Americans became concerned with the growing influence of corporations and the growth of private wealth and its effect on social and political structures. Dewey saw the school as a venue to unite the community and enlighten citizens to democratic values that would increase their occupational skills and help them become more aware of social needs (University of Vermont, 2003).
Elias & Merriam (1995) listed specific basic principles of the progressive adult education theory that included an expanded view of education that engaged the individual, the school, and the entire community. Education was conceived as being a lifelong process for the person and would affect every aspect of their life. The student, as opposed to the curriculum or the teacher, then became the focal point of the educational process. Dewey emphasized personal freedom in education that would allow the development of skills necessary to become an integral part of society and equip the person to bring about changes that were needed in their community.
Teaching methods were dramatically different in a progressive classroom compared to the liberal education of the period. Collaborative or participatory learning was a vital characteristic of progressive adult education. Collaborative learning allowed the student and the teacher to work together as partners. The traditional role of the teacher being the leader was diminished as the educator took on a role of facilitator. They become co-learners in the instructional process (Imel, 1991). The student also shared more responsibility for their education by becoming proactive in the establishment of goals, constructing learning content and team building. Progressive education focused on real world applications and the learning environment provided opportunities for contextual workplace situations.
Inadequacies of Progressive Education
The problem with progressive vocational education was that while it allowed for a democratic approach that gave equal rights to women and minorities, the pedagological methods and curriculum did not address power relationships that these individuals experienced both in school and in the community (Luke & Gore, 1992). Students did not learn how to challenge existing ideologies or even to recognize that these dichotomies existed. Gradually, Americans did not view themselves as being a part of a class but through more specific identifications such as minority labels, religious affiliation, or sexual preferences. These identities no longer contained an economic or material association. This lack of identification with class blurred the lines for Americans within a capitalistic society in which economic social inequalities were becoming more augmented. Kincheloe (1999) argued that when vocational educators ignored issues regarding wealth distribution and poverty they "failed to confront reality" (p. 238).
Class issues concerned the distribution of wealth in a culture and how this was reflected through avenues of power and knowledge. Class identities were constructed through occupations. For example, a career in law was viewed as being more powerful and influential than a career as a sanitation worker. Class status was strongly reproduced in the curriculum, through teacher interaction with students, and societal expectations in the vocational education classroom (Apple, 2004; Kincheloe, 1999; Willis, 1977). Education assisted in defining class for young people as schools reproduced class relations through unequal distribution of knowledge; some students had access to specific kinds of knowledge while others did not. This equated to an implied understanding of knowledge and power in relation to a particular class level.
Class divisions solidified and perpetuated a traditional, conservative concept of masculinity and femininity that strongly determined a person's occupational choice. Enormous pressure was placed on men to be the predominant wage earner and head of a household. Through the use of concepts of masculinity and ideals of success, constructions of class were used as gender organizing values in vocational education (Cheng, 1999). This maintained sex bias and stereotyping in job selection for vocational education students. Class formation does not just appear within a culture; it is formed and cultivated by incisive ideological constructs. Sadly, most vocational and regular education teachers were unaware of this problem and their ignorance only perpetuated and reinforced the dilemma (Apple, 2004).
Intrinsically bound within issues of class, race played an important role in occupational choice for young boys. Historically, racial segregation in vocational education had mirrored gender discrimination in society. Reasons to justify excluding young men of color were based on the pretense of biological differences such as; being innately lazy, or having different aptitudes or interests levels (Kimmel, 2000). Conceptions of masculinity were defined by the dominant racial group in a particular culture. In America, white middle-class ideals of what it meant to be a man were thought to be superior compared to constructs of masculinity formed by other races (Cheng, 1999; Connell, 1987; Williams, 1995). This was strong motivation for a young man of color not to enter a nontraditional, female-dominated occupation for fear of being labeled as less than masculine.
In her research on occupations and sex roles, Williams (1995) discovered that racial issues were integral to fully understand why young men of color chose a nontraditional occupation. She discovered that in 1980 African-American men and women constituted only seven percent of all nurses and librarians, 11 percent of all elementary teachers, and 19 percent of all social workers. These findings implied that even for minority women, entrance into a particular occupation was efficiently blocked through tacit issues of race and class. Some researchers concluded that a study in the racial dimensions of gendered work needed to be a priority for educators (Cheng, 1999; Evans & Frank, 2003).
Due to the high percentage of minority student enrollment, vocational education has been particularly vulnerable to the ramifications of racism and gender in nontraditional career choice. Educators needed to recognize these dimensions in order to guide their students into an understanding of how race and gender are constructed and ways to overcome the disparity. Vocational educators needed to "prepare minority students to understand the workings of power and power inequalities so that they can gain power in its political, economic and educational guises" (Kincheloe, 1999, p. 309).
When women chose to enter a nontraditional occupation they were generally viewed as making a positive career decision. This was not true for men who made the same decision. Men faced lowered social status, decreased financial rewards, and, in some cases, found their sexual orientation called into question. In light of abundant feminist research and understanding, it was difficult to view aspects of masculinity as being marginalized, but there existed a very definite group of men who found themselves relegated to a lower perception of what it meant to be masculine. These groups included minorities, the poor, gays, and non-Christians (Cheng, 1999; Lease, 2003).
In an effort to better understand social constructs of gender, Connell (1987) developed a theory called "hegemonic masculinity" (p. 184). This idea proposed that the dominant group of a culture determined and prescribed standards of conduct for men along with values that must be embraced for desired sex role character. This construct was promoted through the media, schools, churches, and occupations. Euro-American males in our culture have dictated the current model of perfection for men that included specific traits such as domination, aggressiveness, competitiveness, athletic prowess, and control (Cheng, 1999; Lease, 2003; Williams, 1995).
Hegemonic masculinity created a dichotomy through emphasized femininity that functioned to enforce the masculine ideal. This scenario was promoted through all avenues of society, but particularly in occupations. The consequence for men who entered a female-identified career was stigmatization from other males and, surprisingly, from women as well. Along with denigration, men encountered lack of support and a devalued sense of importance in their occupation (Evans & Frank, 2003). More disturbing was the discovery that some men in nontraditional occupations began to question their sexual orientation due to negative labeling. In research that focused on males in the nursing profession, for instance, it was discovered that some men were called derogatory names or asked why they were not training to become a doctor (Evans & Frank). Some of the men studied were too embarrassed to admit in what profession they worked.
Sargent (2004) posited that men who work in a nontraditional occupation utilize "compensatory strategies" (p. 174) in order to present themselves as acceptable to others and to ameliorate stereotypes that may exist for them in their chosen field. However, these strategies are often a source of stress and tension for men that may lead to dissatisfaction with their occupations.
Sex discrimination is a two-edged sword and how these labels affected men also impacted women and perpetuated stereotypes. As difficult as it was for a woman to register for an auto body repair program in a vocational school, it was even more difficult for a man to register for a childcare program.
When a young man became marginalized it was often accomplished through stereotyping. A "nerd" may be marginalized because he does not possess athletic prowess or he may be socially inept (Cheng, 1999). Most cultures had a definition of performance that is expected for each sex. Men who worked in atypical careers had to grapple with these expectations and still maintain a positive masculine identity (Evans & Frank, 2003; Lease, 2003). Men in nursing found themselves avoiding situations that would label them as sexually aggressive such as not touching patients or rejecting to comfort someone who was hurting for fear of being misunderstood. Male nurses were locked in a contradictory situation that denied the intrinsic reasons why they entered that field; being a caring comforter (Evans & Frank). This is also true for men who work in an elementary school. Men who violate prescribed views of masculinity by hugging or having a child sit on their lap are often viewed with deep suspicion (Sargent, 2001)
In the occupational schools where men received their nursing training, very little was discussed about dynamics that could lead to misunderstanding and frustration in their future careers. As a result of insufficient support and communication dropout rates from the nursing profession were higher for men than for women. This was disturbing due to projections by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics that posited that of the 30 fastest growing jobs by the year 2010, 17 are in the health-care and health-care support industry (Hecker, 2001).
Critical theory concerns itself with issues of power, oppression, and domination. Critical theorists seek to expose how power relationships work in all aspects of culture and encourage people to become aware of that oppression. Modern critical theory focuses on social action along with recognition of the hegemonic issuance of oppression. This perspective seeks to reveal true social relationships and expose false consciousness with an aspiration for change. Critical theory is a demystification of reality (Crotty, 1998).
Critical pedagogy occurs when "critical theory encounters education" (Kincheloe, 1999, p. 198). Progressive educational reform did not integrate a critical pedagogy that would equip students to recognize dominant perspectives in society and seek to find truth and break through constructs of gender. Critical teaching methods and curriculum would enhance the student's consciousness of human relationships and empower them to make changes in their own lives.
No reformation of education will ever be successful unless there is a clear perception in the way that society is reproduced and constructed through schools. Understanding how class relationships develop and are generalized is crucial to bring about actual reform. The basic philosophies of education need a new paradigm of action. This necessitates an examination of how capitalism creates ideologies that affect the labor process. The first practice for change is with a drastic modification in curriculum that includes a learner-centered foundation that emphasizes critical thinking skills (Kincheloe, 1999).
The same progressive teaching methodology that existed a hundred years ago is still in use today. Teaching methods developed by Dewey and his contemporaries dominate instruction in our nation's classrooms. The curriculum and core philosophy of education are still founded upon progressivism. However, we are living in a vastly different world. Gardner (2000) predicted that unless public educators made a radical and revolutionary change in their teaching methods, curriculum, and philosophy, they are likely to be replaced by other institutions. Gardner accurately observed that, "with the possible exception of the church, few institutions have changed as little in fundamental ways as those charged with the formal education of the next generation" (p. 30).
Teachers need to encourage students to challenge traditional notions of masculinity and femininity. Teacher education is the focal area where change must occur. Teacher expectations and teaching styles should guide students to recognize the importance of nontraditional career choices for both sexes.
Obstructions to equitable enrollment in vocational schools included traditional education practices, curriculum, and teacher expectations that are dominated by a strong patriarchal view of women. These expectations also encompassed a tacit expectation for men to follow hegemonic masculinity. Hoffman & Hoffman (1998) identified an equitable teaching environment that integrated a critical feminist pedagogy as comprised of these components: creation of participatory learning, validation of personal experience, encouragement of social understanding, and development of critical thinking skills. Bauer (2000) had proposed certain general practices that were similar to feminist pedagogical dynamics and allowed for students to become "active and responsible learners" (p. 267). Kincheloe (1999) posited a critical vocational education that incorporated: etymology, pattern, process, and contextualization. These practices are vital in order for students to become empowered in the workplace, the voting booth, and society.
As Sadker and Sadker (1994) stated, "Until gender equity becomes a value promoted in every aspect of school ... boys will grow up troubled men; they will be saddened by unmet expectations, unable to communicate with women as equals and unprepared for modern life" (p. 225).
Elimination of sex bias and stereotyping is not being adequately promoted in occupational education. In the area of secondary vocational education programs more awareness must be made of the factors that keep occupations gendered. Practices must be implemented that remove barriers that advocate stereotypes in occupations. Students need to become critical thinkers who examine the dynamics of power in society and in the workforce. A "simple enumeration of equality is not the answer" (Kimmel, 2000, p. 165). Vocational educators need to provide support for men in atypical careers through mentoring and by creating an open, honest dialogue about realistic situations that may occur in the workplace.
Occupational educators must be aware of the factors that promote sex-role specific occupations and must be more diligent to change stereotypes that will truly eliminate bias in vocational education. Recognition of the factors that place barriers for men entering a nontraditional career is the first step in bringing about equitable pay and advancement opportunities for both men and women.
American Association of University Women (2004, June). Vocational education and the Perkins Act. Retrieved October 25,2006, from http://www.aauw.org/issue_advocacy/actionpages/positionpapers/PDFs/Perkins_ june04.pdf
Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Bauer, M. (2000). An essay review: Implementing a liberatory feminist pedagogy: bell hook's strategies for transforming the classroom. MELUS, 25(3/4), 265-276.
Bostic, M. (1998-1999). Unsuitable job for a woman? Women at work, status and issues. Journal of Industrial Technology, 15(1), 1-6.
Cavanagh, S. (2002). Advocates call for breakdown of gender barriers in vocational education. Washington Week, 21(40), 9-14.
Cheng, C. (1999). Marginalized masculinities and hegemonic masculinity: An introduction. The Journal of Men's Studies, 7(3), 295-312.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage.
Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. B. (1995). Philosophical foundations of adult education (2nd ed.). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Evans, J., & Frank, B. (2003). Contradictions and tensions: Exploring relations of masculinities in the numerically female-dominated nursing profession. The Journal of Men's Studies, 11(3), 277-288.
Gardner, H. (2000). Technology remakes the schools. The Futurist, 34(2), 30-33.
Gehring, J. (2001). New York City vocational programs shortchange girls, women's group says. Education Week, 21(1), 18-19.
Gordon, R. (2004, June 15). The men among us. Library Journal.com. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA423789.html
Hecker, D. E. (2001). Occupational employment projections to 2010. Monthly Labor Review, 124(11), 57-85.
Hoffmann, F. L., & Hoffmann, J. E. (1998). Feminist pedagogy in theory and practice: An empirical investigation. NWSA Journal, 10(1), 79-98.
Howard, V. A., & Scheffler, I. (1995). Work, education & leadership: Essays in the philosophy of education. New York: Peter Lang.
Imel, S. (1991). Collaborative learning in adult education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED334469).
Kimmel, M. (2000). The gendered society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kincheloe, J. (1999). How do we tell the workers? The socioeconomic foundations of work and vocational education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
Lease, Z. H. (2003). Testing a model of men's nontraditional occupational choices. The Career Development Quarterly, 51(3), 244-254.
Luke, C., & Gore, J. (Eds.). (1992). Feminisms and critical pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Mies, M. (1998). Patriarchy and accumulation on a worm scale: Women in the international division of labour. New York: St. Martin's Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Vocational education in the United States: Toward the year 2000. (Publication No. NCES 2000-029). Retrieved April 3, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000029.pdf
National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. (2002). Title IX at 30: A report card on gender equity. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 30, 2004 from http://www.ncwge.org Reese, S. (2002). Breaking the stereotype. Techniques, 77(1), 24-26.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Touchstone.
Sargent, P. (2001). Real men or real teachers? Contradictions in the lives of men elementary school teachers. Harriman, TN: Men's Studies Press.
Sargent, P. (2004). Between a rock and a hard place: Men caught in the gender bind of early childhood education. The Journal of Men's Studies, 12(3), 173-187.
Trusty, J. (2002). Effects of high school course-taking and other variables on choice of science and mathematics college majors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80(4), 464-474.
University of Hawaii. (2003). Nontraditional training and employment. Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://www.hawaii.edu/cte/98_PDF/tools for teaming/ nontrad3.pdf
University of Vermont. (2003). A brief overview of progressive education. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/articles/proged.html
Williams, C. L. (1995). Still a man's world: Men who do women's work. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.
Donna M. Sayman, Department of Occupational Education, Oklahoma State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Donna M. Sayman, 36904 West 45th Street, Shawnee, OK 74804. Electronic mail: email@example.com
DONNA M. SAYMAN
Oklahoma State University…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: The Elimination of Sexism and Stereotyping in Occupational Education. Contributors: Sayman, Donna M. - Author. Journal title: The Journal of Men's Studies. Volume: 15. Issue: 1 Publication date: Winter 2007. Page number: 19+. © 1999 Men's Studies Press. COPYRIGHT 2007 Gale Group.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.