In light of DoD’s decision to open every career field to women, how will we transform former male-only jobs like Infantryman into gender neutral titles? Canada has had female Combat Arms personnel for years. They refer to theirs as Infantry Soldiers. On the other hand, the Australian Army still refers to their Infantry as Riflemen despite the integration of a handful of females. In both cases, females have preferred Armor, Artillery and Engineer fields over the Infantry.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Rifle Killers from Hell.
Gender neutral and gets the point across.
Come up with an acronym
POG works for both genders
Except it’s spelled pogue?!?! That way of using it is a long o sound. Also it is the game that kids used to or still play.
tons of scope
Infanteer
Yup
POP: Person Other than Pogue.
FETT: Forward Echelon Tactical Troops.
Boobs Or Balls Allowed Forward Echelon Tactical Troops.
For all you Star Wars nerds
Yeah. This is the number one issue to deal with about bringing women into the infantry.
/Thread
Haha, I’m sure it’s someone’s priority, chasing the elusive OER bullet!
mmmmm tasty sarcasm
Nothing needs to change. The entire AF is referred to as Airmen, regardless of gender. The rest of the DoD can quit racking their brains on this one.
Touché!!!
I would hope since we’re all equal and everyone is the same now that we wouldn’t worry about things such as “gender neutral” titles….
Unfortunately that is not the way of American society today, and a lot of people are going to aim to make the military an inclusive environment and completely miss the point that the military doesn’t exist to make people feel good…. It exists to win our nation’s wars and protect our way of life.
Its good to periodically ask, “Is there a particularly good reason we do it like that?”
If the answer is, “In addition to anecdotal data, we have studies from multiple parties going back decades showing this is about as optimal as it gets.” Great!
If the answer is, “We’ve always done it like that, and any time someone thinks about changing it we pitch a fit until they go away.” You’re probably going to end up listening to powerpoint karaoke on Thursday afternoon.
I recall reading that GEN Marshall proposed creating new ranks for Infantry privates, in order to increase the prestige of the position, back around the beginning of WWII. I remember the proposal as being “Fighter”, “Fighter First Class”, and something else. Can’t find a good citation for this, at all, but I remember it clearly. In the end, they didn’t do it.
Being as the root of the term “Infantry” is itself somewhat derogatory, in that it comes from the same roots as “infant”, and came into use because the nobility of the middle ages held the mass levies they were composed of in contempt, maybe we could come up with a better term, overall? Tradition has its benefits, I grant, but also its limits.
No clue what they’re going to do, but I can see the idiots trying to come up with some gender-neutral BS to substitute for “Infantryman”. Probably best to get out in front of them and come up with something tolerable before they do it… And, I loathe the construction “Infantrywoman”, as does my spell-checker.
The EIB and CIB came out of that, plus back then you got extra pay if you had either, I think it was $5/ month for EIB, $10/ month for CIB, don’t recall specifics and honestly don’t give enough fucks to google before posting.
Guards. Guardians. As in “101st Guards Airborne Division”.
No way would the Regular Army associate with us ARNG “Nasty Girls” like that…
“The Mobile Infantry made me the gender-neutral less-able humanoid I am today!”
epic….
Fluffers.
Watch less porn, bro’mine.
Just Infantry, short, sweet ,to the point.
+1
Never heard a grunt say “i’m an infantryman.”
Heard many say “I’m infantry.”
In Australia the maintenance personnel are called Craftsmen, this is despite there being women in the Corps for many years now. It is a title/rank not a gender indicator. Or to quote the ADF website:
“On completion of basic training, all new soldiers start as Privates although the title may be Gunner, Trooper, Craftsman, Signalman, Patrolman, Sapper or Musician depending on their Corps or Regiment.”
Congratulations to Anne on making it to SSD! She’s awesome to work with
To second what was said above:
INFANTEER
For some reason this was a term I heard fairly regularly in HM Forces, and fits the gender neutral requirement.
Also guardsman, kingsman, rifleman, trooper, ranger, private, why should it change for any title or rank? It’s voluntary if you don’t like it get promoted or get a new job, or rank
Just to add females in the reme don’t complain about being craftsmen
“reme” – is that REME (Royal Engineers Maintenance Establishment”)? I think I read that somewhere in a Brit book (no, I didn’t Google, honest!)
Electrical and Mechanical Engineers actually
I completely agree. I think the name is irrelevant, but I think the topic was asking for suggestions.
Just let all DoD personnel select the title they self-identify as.
Death dealing war machine. Duh
The Navy never really wen’t away from what are considered ‘male’ job titles. Corpsman, Seaman, etc. With many of the jobs being ‘mate’ which I guess is fairly neutral, Gunner’s Mate, Machinist Mate, etc.
…and shipmate.
Grunt?
I mean really, why is this an issue? I have no insight into what it’s like to serve with women in a “battle” situation but I have worked with plenty of women, even been the “lone male” in some situations and just the gossip alone wanted me to run and hide and I was there only 6 to 8 hours!
In a battle situation would not men want to protect women just naturally?
Will there be a need for special training to overcome that desire? I am asking seriously here? I know soldiers look out one for another but it would seem a female is going to throw in a whole new uncharted, untested element into that mix?
Those who have first-hand account knowledge of this may correct me though.
I am not scared. I am terrified of this. I went into the Army believing that everyone could do the same job, but after watching a female’s femur snap in two, while carrying a 90 lbs. rescue dummy, my belief changed.
I’ve been to rifle quals where not only did some, some mind you, flat out fail, but they refused to fire. If you think its even acceptable for that to occur then what is the point of even having a military when you allow a person to dictate thier job just because of thier gender?
Sounding stupid yet? It gets worse. Like former SOF quoting PC propaganda worse. Look fellas, I get that that the Soviets had women in World War 2, but they also had no choice. They had lost 2 million men, and the entire country was on the verge of collapse. There was no choice for them, as there is for us.
So, in short, whenever I see often quoted PC one liners I see both failure and an ignorance in not only history but evolution as well, and it was a female soldier who did a combat tour with a Army SFG who burst my own little PC, sunshine and unicorn farts, bubble.
Now who’s willing to take credit for helping to kill the first female SOF with this PC drivel? Too harsh for you? Your ignorance comes with consequences. The reality is much clearer and worse when you’re getting shot at.
Thanks for that read, very interesting
What part of “standards will not change” do you not get? The average woman will not come close to qualifying for infantry and SOF. That was the whole Marine argument that got thrown out, because their dumbass study said the “average” female would not cut it. That is freaking obvious.
The ones that do qualify will perform WELL above the average female. So don’t get your panties in a bunch.
Standards will change. When they don’t get the desired effect, they’ll change standards.
SSD, so let’s say there is a need to fill 10 positions within a unit. 20 men and 20 women seek one of those 10 positions.
If the PC “equalizers” have their way, and from what I gather you mean, they will say, “No matter what, we need 4 women on board” Would you say that’s a likely scenario?
If so I am rather shocked and disappointed because that would mean even if NONE of the women who applied are remotely qualified they will still be placed to fulfill some feminist agenda.
Perhaps 40 push ups becomes 15?
Carrying 80lb pack becomes a 35lb pack?
Who is that helping?
Right now they are saying there won’t be quotas, but there will be quotas, eventually.
LOL this is so true.
I mean, look around if you think SSD is fulluvit.
Fire departments, lowered standards. While we’re on the subject, naval firefighters, lowered standards.
Law enforcement agencies, lowered standards.
Naval Aviation, lowered standards. Something paid for in blood was well, disgracefully.
The unnamed certain female captain that ‘passed’ (using that word very lightly) SF selection, who was later rightfully blackballed. I thousand karmic curses on her.
Standards will change to fulfill preconceived agendas. Count on it.
Its a force more powerful than gravity and the motion of the planet.
What part of, “men and women have physical attributes no amount of PC fluff and wishful thinking will refute’, do you not understand?
You are literally arguing against scientific fact.
That is the most contemptable part about this entire debate. It has been proven that men and women aren’t constructed equally, and the physiological differences are most stark, yet the inclusion side wants you to ignore that because ‘diversity’ and whatnot.
The military’s role isn’t being a model for the sociological agenda of the decade/year/month. Its role is to repel foreign invasions and act as the sword for US foreign policy, which involves destroying some nasty adversaries that have no interest in first world problems like experimental agendas, but rather, survival and establishing themselves on regional/global preeminence. Goals that lead them to having no compunction against killing and destroying.
Reality bites. Its time to acknowledge that.
“In a battle situation would not men want to protect women just naturally?”
In a battle situation would you not want to protect your fellow soldiers just naturally?
Or do you just leave them to die?
How would any of the following images change if you swapped out a women for the men being saved?
https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=699&q=leave+no+soldier+behind&oq=leave+no+soldier+behind
Of course one wants to protect another, I did not mean a man ignores another man being under fire or wounded but rather the gut instinct when in a situation would be to shelter or protect a women more so than another man. If that makes any sense.
Again I only speak from a “What if?” scenario and from how I see the need to protect my wife and daughter.
I would stick with Infantrymen. Why? The Infantry will be a mix of different sexes with the majority being men. My stance is coming from how we say “how are you GUYS doing?”. We use that saying to either refer to a group of men or a group of both sexes. Now if we take it another way using french (I know it’s different then english), but if we refer to that language. The masculine term supersedes the feminist term even if the group for example consists of 49 guys and 1 woman.
Another way to look at this is from the gender role. Let’s be real, the female soldiers who join the infantry are a special bunch. They are going to act much more masculine then feminine in many cases. So in other words, the infantry will consist of only masculine soldiers.
Whatever the powers that be select, will be the term. At the Maneuver Center it’s understood if you question policy, you’re done.
FWIW the female MP who graduated Ranger School is attending the Maneuver Captains Career Course (the old Infantry and Armor Officer Advanced Course).
Which one? There’s one in Knox, Benning and SOFCCC at Bragg. All count for the same CCC. I’m pretty sure it’s not Bragg (I’m on staff in that unit), just curious.
No problem.
There’s only one Maneuver Captain’s Career Course and it’s conducted at Benning. The old Infantry and Armor Advanced Courses have been held at Benning for about a decade.
They were combined into the same course around ’08. A Captain’s course at Knox hasn’t been taught in almost a decade.
The Armor school also moved to Benning about a decade ago with all the armor courses. No basic or advanced training happens at Knox. Knox is a shell of what it used to be. They even closed the Armor Museum. It’s been renamed the Patton Museum and has significantly less holdings.
Following on majrod – Yes, at Ft. Know they have have absolutely gutted and destroyed the Patton Museum. It used to be one of (perhaps THE best) museums in the Army system. Until a few years ago, it had outstanding newly-constructed displays of it’s many holdings (such as a WWI tank set in a highly realistic life-size combat diarama). The Army gutted the museum, sending all the stuff off to storage who-knows-where. Now the “museum” has been re-purposed into an incredibly lame “Leadership Museum” dedicated to the “heritage” of the US Army Cadet Command (or whatever it’s called this week), and a few giant-sized copies of those laminated cards about “Leadership Traits”. The only remaining General Patton stuff are things like a pistol, his childhood stuffed animals, and the freakin’ shipping crate in which his personal effects were sent home after the war. “Big Army” totally destroyed an excellent museum, painstakingly built up over years with a lot of volunteer work and donations, and created a true Piece of $#!# which reflects extremely poorly on the Army.
A lot of the Armor Museum stuff is in storage at Benning. They have the ground identified where the new Armor Museum will go and the displays will go in.
I don’t know about best museum. I’ve been to the old Armor museum a couple of times. It was cool with the acres of armor vehicles really setting it apart but the museums at the West Point and the Old Infantry museums were as good if not better. The new Infantry Museum is a world class destination easily outclassing all Army Museums.
Knox never had the throughput that Benning did and does. There will be many more visitors there exposed to the Armor history at the place where it actually started. It doesn’t make much sense to have the Armor museum at a different place than the Armor School.
Makes sense, shows how long it’s been since I gave an inkling of a fuck about CCCs. The one on Bragg (at Bank Hall) is for SF, CA, PO, types and was stood up to stop excessive ping-pong PCSing for SOF Captains. It falls under SWEG, which is one of the sub-Groups of USAJFKSWCS. Females do attend the course (CA, PO types, and eventually SF I’m sure).
Carbineer?
Starship Trooper
What if Im a woman that self identifies as a man? Can I still be called an Infantryman then?
You should play it to your advantage…. When details come to clean female locker rooms and latrines; identify as a man. When it’s time to take a PT test you may be feeling like a woman who hasn’t transitioned. Remember the Military is your safe space free of micro aggressions and bigotry…. Because it will work.
Gender neutral, adaptable, and generic enough? Here’s one that might get the PC set to shut their pie hole, out of confusion, if nothing else:
Fusiliers.
thats a good one, although a bit too ‘european’ if you ask me 😉
We DID just jump ship from the beret fiasco.
Killers. Seriously, just call Combat Arms personnel Killers. Eff that “Warrior” BS.
The real HOPE (that’s a strategy, dontchaknow?) for that term will be that the innocuous-sounding gender/species neutral term “boots on the ground” will go the way of Netscape, and we can be appropriately cautious about the application of military force.
The Sunday morning suckpumper who says, “We need Killers on the ground, and we need them NOW! We might kill some bad guys, we might kill some of the innocents they like to hide among” gets my vote. And however many votes I can arrange in Chicago.
BTW, one term needing no tune-up? RANGER. Then, now and always.
Ahem.
Some time, oh, a bit more than a decade ago, a very competent and articulate Canadian officer named Andrew Leslie came up with the perfect title for the Canadian infantry soldier – while filming a TV documentary about a major combined arms exercise.
Close Quarters Death Technicians. “Death Techs,” for short.
For something related, there is an article on military.com that is reporting on a survey of over 7600 SOF by the RAND Corporation, saying a collective ‘NO.’ to women in frontline SOF units.
Infantryman/Infantrymen
“men/man” meaning “human” regardless of sex (going back to the Germanic roots of English).
Why should we dilute our own language in order to suit an agenda of revisionism and political correctness? (isn’t it frightening that I had to say that? does newspeak ring a bell?)
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”
“Wook” is the preferred term for females in the ground combat element. I’m not going to surmise as to the correct term for females in the Infantry or Special Warfare, because by the time they are slated to enter the force, we’ll have a President Cruz or a President Trump, who will then begin the discarding of the insanity that has been life under the occupation of the Commie/Muslim Sleeper Agent, Barack Hussein Obama.
I wouldn’t get too comfortable in that fighting-hole, sweetheart.