Should the Navy take "man" out of job titles?

PO1 Rick Serviss — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 05:20:21 -0500

Do you think the Navy is going overboard by reviewing all the Enlisted ratings (job titles) than end in man to come up with something gender-neutral? I think the military maybe just a little too sensitive. What would we call a Seaman or Yeoman? A Seaperson or YeoYeo?

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/01/07/navy-looks-remove-man-all-job-titles/78415190/

Navy looks to remove 'man' from all job titles

SECNAV has ordered the service to review and possibly rename all job titles that include "man," from airman to yeoman.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jan 9 at 2016 5:22 AM

PO3 David Fries — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 05:22:37 -0500

Corpsman!

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jan 9 at 2016 5:27 AM

PO3 David Fries — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 05:27:17 -0500

I suppose they could go back to Pharmacist Mate for Corpsman. I imagine Sailor instead of Seaman. Yeoman, Personelleman, and at least a few others; no idea. Not worth the time or money imho.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2016 7:22 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 07:22:34 -0500

I think it makes sense to have titles that were created when only men did those jobs reviewed to see if they can be updated to reflect today's situation. It just seems odd because the ear is used to a certain sound. But imagine that 200 years ago, all medics were women, and they were called Corpswoman for 200 years. Then men entered the field. Do you think those men would be fine with being called Corpswoman or would they want to find a more inclusive term?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jan 9 at 2016 9:45 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 09:45:08 -0500

I guess you really do need to look at things and see if the terms you are using are really dated and have well outlived their usefulness but as a Traditionalist and Romantic I will find it a little hard to comprehend and get used too.

Response by SSgt David Tedrow made Jan 9 at 2016 10:36 AM

SSgt David Tedrow — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 10:36:08 -0500

Man has been used as a so called neutral term in all sorts of jobs. I have rarely found that a female policeman, postman, corpsman, etc. has ever been offended by the term man.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2016 10:47 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 10:47:54 -0500

Here's a thought.
The word man may to some seemingly exclude women, however it is intended to carry the specific idea of humanity or people from the planet earth. This is reflected in the word human.

Further if a person's gender is important in the case you are trying to make then yes go ahead and make that a relevant statement. Such as: She's was the rifleman....The rifleman jumped over the rubble and took her position behind a large steel beam. To say, She is a riflewoman, to write The riflewoman jumped over the rubble and took up her position behind a large steel beam calls unnecessary attention to gender. In most cases we can tell by the name on the writing the gender of the person. Lisa Smith..... For you Sailor types, Should we change the words to Anchor's Away to make it gender neutral "Anchor's away my boy" to Anchor's away my Sailors .... ? Lose terms such as "Man the rails"? Most ships are referred to in a female context anyway thus the term "ship's husband" It is also reflected in many Naval songs and poems,

Take her down and softly glide,
Thru the deep blue underneath the ocean.
We'll control the ocean wide
From down, down underneath the sea.
Torpedoes crash and missiles roar,
that's the music underneath the ocean
From down below we'll up the score
Of the ships on the bottom of the sea.
Satan's hosts will pass the word,
in the future yet to be
That we're safe as long as there's
a submariner underneath the sea
So rig for dive and take her down
Go Down, Down Underneath the Ocean,
Fearless men will find renown
in the deep blue underneath the sea.

We still have the option to choose gender neutral language if we want. Examples of this are: No one instead of No man, Everyone for yourself instead of Everyone for himself....

Perhaps the problem over gender in the English language has something to do with the fact that it is without the concept of grammatical gender. Our culture now views gender as being something personal and not in the grammatical context it should be viewed. In Latin, the word for manliness is feminine in gender; in German, the word Mann means “a person, or a human male,” but man [lowercase] means “one” or “you.”. In French, the masculine gender supersedes the feminine; the phrase la femme et l'homme (the woman and the man) is replaced by the pronoun ils (they [masculine]). In some languages the male female connotation is changed by simply changing the suffix of the word for example in German Ingenieurin from Ingenieur, engineer or in Arabic Habibi changed to Habibti, the change is made depending on if you are speaking to a male or a female and sometimes is there because of the age of the person you are speaking to. We don't have these options in English.

The argument that job titles should be changed to having female variations does nothing more than draw attention to gender differences.

It does not focus on the truly important aspect of can or did the person accomplish whatever task was at hand instead of on was it a male or a female person who did it.
Edit

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Jan 9 at 2016 12:07 PM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:07:02 -0500

The word "man" can be defined as being gender specific (noun), or in the case of military job classifications, an exclamation used irrespective of the gender, as in a job classification. Its definition is determined in the context of how it is used. This is easy to understand when we consider the term mankind is inclusive to both genders within the human race; meaning, ALL of us. Yes, man can become way too sensitive, and occasionally reveal their ignorance of basic English. In this case I used the word man inclusively; ladies and gentlemen (gender specific).

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2016 2:11 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 14:11:09 -0500

Personally, I've never had an issue with being a constructionman and I think we need to focus on more important shit. Just my two cents.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jan 9 at 2016 2:40 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 14:40:49 -0500

USNA will have to change Midshipman to Midshipperson

Response by SSG Delanda Hunt made Jan 9 at 2016 3:24 PM

SSG Delanda Hunt — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 15:24:17 -0500

Hell no, I'm sick and tired of all this PC crap. Soon you are going to have a Military that no one want to join. This is madness, the Military is starting to look more like one of those Progressive Liberal Colleges that everyone attending needs a safe place. The leadership in this Country is a bunch of idiots. If I was President the First day on the job I would fire every four star General and all the Civil Leadership. I would fire all the General because they allowed the civilian leadership to cut off their balls, freeze dry them and smashed with a hammer.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 9 at 2016 3:41 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 15:41:45 -0500

Absolutely! Just to get even with all those neanderthals for the overuse of the word man. Now lets call every one (for example, Radiowoman, Enginewomen, personnelwoman) after all the word man is still included.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2016 10:47 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 22:47:57 -0500

Oh for the love of Christ!
Don't we have better things to worry about?

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jan 9 at 2016 10:55 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 22:55:18 -0500

This sound more like a commercial for the Virginia Slim cigarettes of the 1970's that foretold this. Things change with time and people adapt and change too like sails vs engines. How about submarines vs U Boats?

Response by Sgt Joe LaBranche made Jan 9 at 2016 10:57 PM

Sgt Joe LaBranche — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 22:57:51 -0500

Should we delete the men from women and just call them wom? I think we are getting carried away with all this PC stuff! Happy New Year!

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 10 at 2016 2:45 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:45:52 -0500

I'm trying to figure out how to replace "mankind". Probably the PC way would be "Postapedom". I remember when women were being brought into the Seabees. The only gender thing that came up in the thick report was a conclusion that "Seabee" was gender neutral so no change was needed. This was in the day when Flag staff wrote comments in different colored ink in the margins. Black/white copies were made and provided to a review panel which had several female CEC officers. Connie immediately picked up on the comment "Why don't we call them SeaBitches?" Needless to say there was a much larger dinosaur factor in the late '80s vs. today. Whenever these topics come up it truly is deja vu all over again. Stay tuned to see "tech" and "specialist" get used on the global find/replace edit. "Seaman" might well have to give way to "Shiptech" as a generic. Funny thing, I don't recall a female SM being offended with the terminology but perhaps times are changing.

Response by CDR Mike Kovack made Jan 12 at 2016 5:31 AM

CDR Mike Kovack — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 05:31:59 -0500

The real question - how would you feel working as a Seawoman or Yeowoman? Every single man would object. I would. It always feels a little different in reverse! These titles were put into effect when the Navy was 100% male. Make the change. No one will even notice it in 3 years........

Response by PO3 Lesley Goddard made Jan 12 at 2016 7:50 AM

PO3 Lesley Goddard — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:50:15 -0500

Mankind

Response by SCPO Joe Faietta Usn Ret made Jan 12 at 2016 8:28 AM

SCPO Joe Faietta Usn Ret — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:28:27 -0500

How about deleting the petty from petrified. And delete man from woman

Response by MCPO Linda Schwind made Jan 12 at 2016 8:41 AM

MCPO Linda Schwind — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:41:01 -0500

Good god...can we stop with the stupid already. In my 31 years in the Navy, this was the last thing on my mind. I was always more concerned about learning my job and being the best Sailor that I could be. Political Correctness run amuck.

Response by CPO Norman Mauldin made Jan 12 at 2016 8:44 AM

CPO Norman Mauldin — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:44:14 -0500

I think we have more important things to occupy our time and to worry about, as if Korea, China, and the Middle East aren't enough. Tell the pansies pushing this crap to knock it off and suck it up. Doesn't tradition mean a damn thing anymore, if not change our captains to colonel.

Response by PO2 Mark Lucier made Jan 12 at 2016 8:57 AM

PO2 Mark Lucier — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:57:42 -0500

No I believe the word "man" is a generic term and not referring to the sex. The females just got to get over it, accept the position you want to be there accept it.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 9:08 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:08:07 -0500

No-this is a ridiculous waster of time and resources. Frankly, if anyone is "offended" by the -man being added to the end of ratings and titles...they probably aren't focused on the right issues of that job to begin with.

Response by CPO Stephen McGovern made Jan 12 at 2016 9:17 AM

CPO Stephen McGovern — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:17:26 -0500

Glad I retired when I did. Way too much PC crap today. My feeling? If womrn want to do what has been historically since time began, man's job, then she should be proud to wear the moniker. If not then they don't have to volunteer. Thank Bill "go my dk skd in the Oval Office" Clinton for this PC quagmire.

Response by CPO Robin Beres made Jan 12 at 2016 9:29 AM

CPO Robin Beres — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:29:55 -0500

NO. Following is SECNAV's job description. Do you see anything about social engineering or gender-sterilizing in it? :"To conduct all the affairs of the Department of the Navy, including: recruiting, organizing, supplying, equipping, training, mobilizing, and demobilizing. SECNAV oversees the construction, outfitting, and repair of naval ships, equipment and facilities. SECNAV is responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies and programs that are consistent with the national security policies and objectives established by the President and the Secretary of Defense.:

Response by SR Terrilynne Porst made Jan 12 at 2016 9:32 AM

SR Terrilynne Porst — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:32:16 -0500

As a Navy veteran, I think it would be stupid to change the names. After all, there us 'man' in woman.

Response by LT Bill Kunkle made Jan 12 at 2016 9:33 AM

LT Bill Kunkle — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:33:35 -0500

how about "sailor"??

Response by CN Kristen Ruder made Jan 12 at 2016 9:48 AM

CN Kristen Ruder — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:48:48 -0500

NO, I was a Constructionman and I earned the title because I proved myself amongst the men. I'm not a man but I worked my arse off like one and the title is mine. I'm no sensitive sally like the kids now days.

Response by PO1 Michael Garrett made Jan 12 at 2016 10:01 AM

PO1 Michael Garrett — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:01:07 -0500

When is the social reengineering of our military going to end? When will political correctness stop infecting our ranks? Are we becoming the like the Red Army, where they had to think of history in terms of the "historical dialectic", and its' inevitable truths? This is just another "symbolism over substance," attempt to force mass conformity. It will not improve the Navy in any way.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 12 at 2016 10:43 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:43:46 -0500

This has been fun, but it would be a great idea to actually read what was said by SecNav. It's really innocuous and has little real effect on our Navy and historic naming of ratings. Really a yawner, but as I ask one Commander, why? This is another instance of the a tail wagging the dog. Unless more efficiency or cost cutting results, its is for show.

Response by PO2 John Crutchfield made Jan 12 at 2016 10:51 AM

PO2 John Crutchfield — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:51:17 -0500

You gotta be kidding me. Who comes up with this crap? tens of thousands of females have been in the Navy and in rates where man is being used. Next, we'll be hearing how the powers are considering changing the Marines Rifleman. WTF!

Response by PO1 Kaytee S made Jan 12 at 2016 10:55 AM

PO1 Kaytee S — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:55:31 -0500

Stupid idea.... Taking it to the "logical" conclusion, it would mean they would need to change the word "woman".

Response by CDR Thomas Gatliffe made Jan 12 at 2016 11:01 AM

CDR Thomas Gatliffe — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:01:42 -0500

Geese! The next target for the PC crown will be to remove "mate" from ratings since "mate" might imply some kind of sexual relationship. This kind of "thinking" is typical of the over-the-top analysis symptomatic of folks with too much time on their hands at the "Arlington five-sided puzzle palace."

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Jan 12 at 2016 11:07 AM

SSgt Terry P. — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:07:36 -0500

PO1 Rick Serviss Let's just go to 'Hey You". NO No can't do that either--the sheep would be offended.

Response by LCDR Robert Lewis made Jan 12 at 2016 11:18 AM

LCDR Robert Lewis — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:18:49 -0500

It is uncomfortable to change names/titles of jobs, and "man" has become the default for all genders due to a long history of male-centric services. On the other hand, all the Secretary is doing is asking for possible suggestions for changes within the services (Navy and USMC), from which he'll decide. Some of these are pretty painless - replacing "man" with "technician" or "specialist" is easy for most of these, and I doubt there's going to be a change to "seaman", however ("mate?!?!"), it makes sense for the outdated term "fireman" to become "engineer". There will be change, and some of it will actually be good.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 11:39 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:39:06 -0500

Just my opinion and we all know about opinions, but, attempting to satisfy EVERY POTENTIAL problem by stepping outside what is commonly known as CONDUCIVE to GOOD ORDER, only opens us up for a never ending parade of dissatisfied ENLISTEES. Last time I checked we are still an All-Volunteer force and serving notice to all future military personnel that if the least little whim or discomfort is TOO MUCH of an adjustment. DO NOT enlist This request from the SecNav or the CNO to investigate the possibility of such a change is similar to the breakdown of discipline in a combat unit. Taking a TIME OUT during combat to address a complaint about the violation of Political Correctness is not the way to go. I know that sounds like I've blown this all out of proportion but 99% of the problems caused by being or not being Politically Correct are preventable. BITE THE BULLET still applies......or does it?

Response by MCPO Tom Miller made Jan 12 at 2016 11:51 AM

MCPO Tom Miller — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:51:55 -0500

With PC overtaking common sense and changing leadership styles, why not use the words neutered? Instead of Seamen Jones, nuutered Jones ect? With neutering it would solve the transgender problems too! Obama's Flag Officers and these new accepted regulations could ease the defiance of many who think we are destroying any traditional form of leadership that served us well in the past! Now when we think of leadership, we must by all means be politically correct!

Response by PO2 Jeff S. made Jan 12 at 2016 12:31 PM

PO2 Jeff S. — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:31:18 -0500

Simply put ------- NO

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 12:31 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:31:53 -0500

I read another article that said the goal wasn't to replace every instance of man. Instead, a position like Field Artillery Fire Control Man would have Man removed from the position title. I mean this in the most polite way possible but some of you come off as Chicken Little crying about the sky falling with your knee jerk responses.

Response by PO2 Jeff Stitt made Jan 12 at 2016 12:36 PM

PO2 Jeff Stitt — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:36:59 -0500

Last i checked, woman has man in it. Female has male in it. This political correctness is gone overboard,no pun intended!!!

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 12:53 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:53:13 -0500

I was all for the uniform change, but this?!? This is just petty. Can we move onto more serious issues?

Response by PO1 Aaron Baltosser made Jan 12 at 2016 12:55 PM

PO1 Aaron Baltosser — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:55:27 -0500

Absolutely not! There is a seagoing tradition in the Navy and some of the greatest traditions are in the naming of things. Renaming them now to appease a miniscule percentage of people who have no understanding of military service and tradition, and have never served only degrades the Navy further than civilian 'leadership' has already. Some things are far too important to allow terrible ideas to take hold and destroy. This is high on that list of things.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 1:05 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:05:14 -0500

You can see where this administrations values are. Transgender, gays. politically correct gender terms. At least with President Clinton, he was chasing skirts to care about or DADT. PO1 Rick Serviss

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 12 at 2016 1:52 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:52:06 -0500

Infantryperson??? Corpsperson???

Response by PO3 Chelsea Rodrigues made Jan 12 at 2016 2:01 PM

PO3 Chelsea Rodrigues — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:01:38 -0500

Leave it the way it is. It has been that way for over 200 years.

Response by PO3 Timothy "Tim" Dzurnak made Jan 12 at 2016 2:02 PM

PO3 Timothy "Tim" Dzurnak — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:02:08 -0500

Nothin better to do than fix somethin that ain't broken,,,there's been more bull shit with politics where it doesn't belong in the past 6 years or so then there was in the previous 40..leave it the hell alone..

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Jan 12 at 2016 2:02 PM

SSG Audwin Scott — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:02:44 -0500

Let it go!!! Let it go!!!!

Response by PO2 Paula Shimnoski made Jan 12 at 2016 2:07 PM

PO2 Paula Shimnoski — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:07:37 -0500

I cannot believe the amount of time, effort and money we waste on this sort of B. S. Leave the jobs titles alone!

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Jan 12 at 2016 2:20 PM

MAJ Bill Darling — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:20:34 -0500

Right after we take "man" out of the word "woman".

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 2:32 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:32:54 -0500

"YeoYeo." I love it. I agree with you, this is extremely absurd and should absolutely not have been brought up. As it was with the PRT being renamed to the PFA, I will still use "man" in job titles. I feel like we should be looking at facial hair regs before we look at the word, "man."

Response by PO1 Bill Adams made Jan 12 at 2016 2:38 PM

PO1 Bill Adams — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:38:56 -0500

Bridge, Main Engine Room, personed and ready to answer all bells.

Hell, even my spell checker says that's wrong.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 3:14 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:14:30 -0500

You can't even say "make a hole" anymore without offending someone.

Response by PO1 Gregg Mundy made Jan 12 at 2016 3:47 PM

PO1 Gregg Mundy — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:47:48 -0500

To answer your question, "Do I think they are going overboard by reviewing all the Enlisted ratings (job titles) than end in man to come up with something gender-neutral"? "Absolutely", by doing this you would be changing the whole concept of the language of U.S. Navy. I was taught the language itself was gender neutral. Military personnel Don't salute (or have respect for) the person but do salute the rank.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Jan 12 at 2016 4:35 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:35:12 -0500

Just go back to Squid, Grunt, Jarhead, and Airdale and I guess we will be ok...there is no gender names in those......Seriously...PC is getting out of hand and we are too worried about peoples feelings versus whether they can tactically maneuver and shoot.

Response by PO3 Jimmy Buchanan made Jan 12 at 2016 5:58 PM

PO3 Jimmy Buchanan — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:58:41 -0500

What a freking joke!!! Get a real America

Response by PO3 Rod Arnold made Jan 12 at 2016 6:00 PM

PO3 Rod Arnold — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:00:48 -0500

No way no now. We have had enough of the Political Correctness crap!!! "Man" at the end of a rate, isn't describing the sex of that person.

Response by PO1 Billy Williams made Jan 12 at 2016 6:48 PM

PO1 Billy Williams — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:48:36 -0500

This PC Garbage has to stop. It wasn't broke so quit trying to fix it. Trying to blow away over 200 years of tradition overnight. STUPID.

Response by PO3 Rod Arnold made Jan 12 at 2016 7:12 PM

PO3 Rod Arnold — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:12:14 -0500

When will we no longer refer to our ships as She or Her, will they become just an IT?

Response by PO2 Weaver Brian made Jan 12 at 2016 7:47 PM

PO2 Weaver Brian — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:47:28 -0500

No! The job of the military is not to try to be as politically correct as possible. The very existence of a standing military is diametrically opposed to the entire idea of political correctness. Let the military do the job they exist to do, protect our nation. If there are people in the service that have a hard time with the word "man" in their job title, perhaps they are in the wrong organization. Maybe they can cross-deck into the Peace Corps. This political correctness is getting people killed.

Response by PO2 M Miller made Jan 12 at 2016 8:51 PM

PO2 M Miller — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:51:07 -0500

No, just because it has "man" at the end does not mean that it is gender specific. This country has become too sensitive. We bend over backwards to be "politically correct". All that means is that we have become pansies. This country needs to find its backbone. I think it should start with its military. Stop being so accommodating and stick to the regulations. It is the military and not a social club! I was a Yeoman and I was not offended by the job title. Nor was I ever mistaken for a man. I did my job to the best of my abilities and followed the regulations. I did not look for ways to complain or try to change the military to suit my personal preferences.

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made Jan 12 at 2016 9:02 PM

PO2 Nick Burke — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:02:09 -0500

LOL...Yoyo sounds about right. It's been their nickname for decades!

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made Jan 12 at 2016 9:07 PM

PO2 Nick Burke — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:07:47 -0500

"Sweepers sweepers person your brooms. Sweepdown all......

Response by SCPO Penny Douphinett made Jan 12 at 2016 9:42 PM

SCPO Penny Douphinett — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:42:27 -0500

Waaaaaaayyyyy back when I was a PNSN my friends and I use to get a kick out of being Personnelman Seaman. There was talk back then about using "man" and we laughed even harder about becoming "Personnelperson Seaperson". What goes around comes around. The Navy has more important things to spend time and energy on than this nonsense. A Sailor is a Sailor and I never heard a female Sailor complain about what their title was; except to say they sure wanted to be called the next higher one.

Response by MCPO Kurt Stauff made Jan 12 at 2016 10:34 PM

MCPO Kurt Stauff — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:34:31 -0500

I certainly agree with you, but you seem to be a reasonable person; we are not discussing reasonable people here. I am a retired Mineman Master Chief, and the "man" part of that will never be removed, regardless of whatever kind of soft and dim paste they try to put on it--my Meritorious Service Medal says, "Mineman Master Chief (SW/SS)" and was a presidential award--so they can suck their own candy cane on that. Sorry, I'm a bit drunk.

Response by LCDR Bruce Sheppard made Jan 12 at 2016 11:26 PM

LCDR Bruce Sheppard — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:26:11 -0500

are you serious Mr Mabus? it's nonsense like this that proves how worthless the policy of appointing clueless politicians to important posts has become. i am offended that the sacrifice of so many men in protecting this country and maintaining freedom in our world is being looked upon as frivolous. please rethink this ridiculous notion and apologize for your mistake

Response by PO2 Michael Henry made Jan 13 at 2016 12:48 AM

PO2 Michael Henry — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:48:36 -0500

The only "man" that should go in this situation is the one posing as SECNAV. PC has no place in the military under any circumstances. Including "man" in rate titles has nothing to do with gender. It is a rule in the English language. If this is changed, what next will female and woman have to be changed as well since they include male and man? I was rated a Fire Controlman and will never adopt a different title. I got out as the PC craze started running amuck. I can't imagine how many wars we will lose because our enemies will take full advantage of our current and future situation.

Response by CPO David Sharp made Jan 13 at 2016 4:59 AM

CPO David Sharp — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 04:59:25 -0500

Man is the Masculine version. This is pervasive in all plural or broad descriptions in the Romance Languages. It has no gender specific reference but is meant as a description overall and in general. Let's not get sensitive on these meaningless arguments. This is a War Fighting Organization and there is no time or place for P.C. B.S. here. As the saying goes "suck it up cupcake" there is more important issues at hand.

Response by MCPO Dennis Didier made Jan 13 at 2016 8:21 AM

MCPO Dennis Didier — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:21:00 -0500

No. Good God Gertie, hasn't this administration done enough damage to the Navy, and all the armed forces. Among the many things that has made our military, and our Navy in particular, great, is tradition. I'm and old sailor, but I look at today's Navy and think the sailors in it are missing something. We worked hard, bitched a lot, but I relished every minute of it. Crossing the equator: initiation. Making rate: tacking on the crow. Aircrew: tacking on the wings. Making CPO: well, you know. Leave the Navy alone.

Response by PO1 Kenneth Cardwell made Jan 13 at 2016 9:14 AM

PO1 Kenneth Cardwell — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:14:09 -0500

I like President Obama, but I really think he puts too many Liberals in his cabinet! They want all uniform changes to make men and women look the same. Dixie cups on women! Looks too boyish.
Hard to say. man overboard would be replaced by....what? Person overboard. Corpsman could be Medics. Hard to say what Seaman Fireman, Airman could be. maybe Recruit 1,2,3. Yeoman could be replaced by?? Secretary? Tough call to say how they will make these changes!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 11:55 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:55:08 -0500

As far as I know, it is mankind after all, not womankind...

Response by PO3 Peter Lothrop made Jan 13 at 2016 1:20 PM

PO3 Peter Lothrop — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:20:15 -0500

This shit needs to stop and stop now!! The Navy is a military outfit not a sissified lets not but hurt anyone's feelings preschool!! If someone has a problem with being called a seaman or yeoman or any other rate ending in the word man then DON'T JOIN THE SERVICE!!!!!! Last time I checked it is an all voluntary service right??

This is the military and as such it requires people who have the drive, self fortitude, THICK skin, and guts to handle any situation a person may experience!! We do NOT need a bunch of pantywaist you hurt my feeling Boo Who Boo Who babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by CAPT John Harman made Jan 13 at 2016 2:06 PM

CAPT John Harman — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:06:43 -0500

It really doesn't make any difference at this point whether it "should" take the words out of the names...they have been "ordered" to do so. The Navy, as it always has, necessarily responds to orders form the civilian leadership with "Aye, aye, sir"....

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 3:51 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:51:27 -0500

You joined the Navy to be apart of something big; to be involved with a group of people that have the same mission and capability. Being apart of this was an eye-opening change for me and I wouldn't change it for the world. The tradition of "seamen" "corpsman" "midshipmen" has been apart of the Navy for over 200 years. Why now does it seem an issue? If you have a problem being called an "airman", "seaman", "constructionman", "corpsman", "fireman", get out of my Navy. Stay in Mom and Dad's basement because you sure as hell will not survive in the real world.

Response by LCDR Halinganji Kanani made Jan 13 at 2016 8:10 PM

LCDR Halinganji Kanani — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:10:03 -0500

It looks like a lot of people don't understand what is going on here, but that's nothing new. There was a time when service members considered it unthinkable to include minorities, and in their minds they were absolutely certain they were right. But that changed, and it wasn't because the "PC police" ran amuck; it was because the status quo was wrong. It was controversial at the time, but I don't see anybody questioning integration now.
That's too far back for any of us to remember, but the majority of Sailors serving today remember just a couple years ago when "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was the status quo. By the end of that era, a lot of Sailors had begun to realize that banning people for their sexual preference was wrong, but there were still many who just knew for sure that allowing homosexuals to serve openly was nothing but a plot by those evil PC nazis trying to destroy the Navy. Well, guess what? They ended the DADT policy and everything is just fine. Some folks are still sore about that one, but within a decade, you'll be hard pressed to find a service member who thinks gay people are a problem.
Now we're seeing a show we've seen many times before. Society is continually maturing. As we do so, we recognize mistakes we've been making all along but didn't notice before. In this case, people are waking up to the fact that after thousands of years of women being second-class citizens, gender bias is ingrained in our very language. That's not an easy thing to fix, and it certainly won't happen over night, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take whatever little steps we can. So why now? Well, it's not because "social justice warriors" are inventing problems just to get attention. The problem was always there, but in the past we genuinely didn't know better. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and throughout the history of the women's equality movement there have always been squeakier wheels than gender biased job titles, so it's no surprise few people have paid any attention to this issue until now.
That said, if you've read this far, you read the word "service member" twice without skipping a beat. I bet you can't name the year when they dropped "man" from "serviceman."

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2016 8:33 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:33:42 -0500

This is retarded. If this is the case we would need a new word for 'Mankind" or "Human". Lets get real people.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Jan 13 at 2016 9:46 PM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:46:11 -0500

They can when men is removed from the term Women.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jan 14 at 2016 12:53 AM

CSM Charles Hayden — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:53:27 -0500

PO1 Rick Serviss Were you asked? Just suck it up!

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 6:13 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:13:35 -0500

One change MANDATES all changes:

Person = Per
Human = Hu
Woman = Wo
Female = Fe
She = S
Her = R

Girl, Lady, and Ma'am are still good to go!!!

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Jan 15 at 2016 2:30 AM

PO1 Kerry French — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 02:30:33 -0500

Only if we can change it to "goddess"! BAHAHAHAHA This kind of stuff is so silly... who cares? We have a brutal, ruthless, woman beating, child molesting, minority killing enemy to decimate. Can we get to the more important things?

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 15 at 2016 6:23 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 06:23:43 -0500

Are we to change mankind to humankind? < Dohhh, man is still buried in there. It's generic. "Man" can be gender specific or it can be non gender specific depending on how it's used. If this is what consumes people's energy and time, they really should think about getting a life.

Response by SGT Andrew Goetsch made Jan 21 at 2016 1:57 PM

SGT Andrew Goetsch — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:57:14 -0500

Sure. And they should mandate 12 weeks a year sensitivity training, require uppers to say "please and thank you" ban any term that could possibly be offensive to anyone and offer counseling and hugs to anybody whose feelings are hurt in any way.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jan 21 at 2016 9:51 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:51:18 -0500

I'm really liking the female sailors we have today, they have "balls". Not one feminist pushing the agenda. I would welcome them to any group. I'm impressed ladies.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 3:17 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:17:00 -0500

This article from Marine Corps Times quotes a Navy official as saying that the intent of this review isn't to change names like rifleman but rather look at titles where man is a separate word. Here's the quote:

"A Navy official said that the service received a similar memo pertaining to its MOS titles and descriptions. Mabus doesn't intend to require iconic titles like "infantryman," "rifleman" or "midshipman" to be changed, however, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
"The idea is not to go in there and change the name when 'man' is incorporated as part of the term," the official said. "... But when the word 'man' appears as a separate word ... they want that name to be changed."
Examples of some of those titles in the Marine Corps include reconnaissance man, fire support man and field artillery sensor support man. In those cases, the official said it's possible the "man" could just be dropped from the names."

Response by PO3 Gregory Lay made Jan 27 at 2016 12:17 PM

PO3 Gregory Lay — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:17:26 -0500

Let me ask you a few questions. What does the last three letters of the word woman spell? What does the last three letters of the word human spell? That is right, the answer to both questions is man. Now let us take a look at how the word man is defined in the dictionary.
1
a (1) : an individual human; especially : an adult male human (2) : a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination (3) : husband (4) : lover
b : the human race : humankind
c : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family; broadly : any living or extinct hominid
d (1) : one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (2) obsolete : the quality or state of being manly : manliness e : fellow, chap —used as mode of familiar address f —used interjectionally to express intensity of feeling

2
a : individual, person b : the individual who can fulfill or who has been chosen to fulfill one's requirements

Notice that the word man does NOT just mean a male human, but can also refer to ALL humans. This replacing the man at the end of a title with person is just plain silly. Anyone who has a problem with words like councilman, or fireman, or seaman is just too sensitive.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 5:35 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:35:25 -0500

Should they take MAN out of WOMAN?

Response by PO3 Jonathan Cooper made Jan 29 at 2016 11:56 AM

PO3 Jonathan Cooper — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:56:51 -0500

I think I found both the SECNAV's inspiration for this idea, AND my personal feelings about it!

Response by PO2 Paula Shimnoski made Apr 14 at 2016 1:23 PM

PO2 Paula Shimnoski — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:23:48 -0400

No, they shouldn't. The military and people, in general, are way too sensitive.

Response by MCPO Dennis Didier made Apr 15 at 2016 8:25 AM

MCPO Dennis Didier — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:25:53 -0400

I think we should take Obama and Mabus out of the Navy.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2016 10:10 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:10:01 -0400

#1. There will be 26 committees impanelled to research the various implications if the Sec of Defense, Joint Chiefs, DA, CNO, Sec of AF, Marine Corp Commandant, Commandant of the Coast Guard, CINCLANTFLT, NAVAIR, finally decide to go ahead and issue the order.
#2. OMB will estimate the time needed to query all committees as to time needed to poll the troops. The time estimate will take 6 months according OMB if all respondents act in a timely manner. The office that is requesting the change will demand more time to make sure all eyes have been dotted and tease crossed.
#3. The Gov. Printing office estimates that the cost for reprinting all official documents reflecting the change desired would cost $14Billion and take 4 years.
#4. The office requesting the change will challenge the gov. printing office estimates.
#5. All JAG offices will be overloaded with complaints of slow policy change and all scheduled court martials and military judicial decisions will be delayed.
#6. All Field Training exercises will be postponed until the change has been accommodated.
#7.Defense preparedness is estimated to add an additional Defense Condition 6 to current conditions.
#8. Intel released an intercepted visual conference call between the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, N.Korea, and ISIS, ISIL, Al Quieda, The Taliban and all the Drug Cartels in the world. Between fits of laughter and off the cuff Jack Daniels inspired comments regarding other jokes to be played on the U.S., all conferees agreed to meet again in 6 months.
#9. Troop recruitment and retention has hit an all time low.
#10. Somewhere Nero's ghost is applying resin to his bow strings.

Response by TSgt Grigsby, Bob made Apr 28 at 2016 9:28 PM

TSgt Grigsby, Bob — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 21:28:55 -0400

I'm not a not Navy person, but lets stop trying to being politically correct. Call the position what it's always been called. I'm retired Air Force, and there are four ranks that end in "Man".

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Apr 29 at 2016 10:38 AM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:38:31 -0400

I found it necessary to post again on this subject. So, please bare with me.

I’m not surprised that in today’s world we have a plethora of thin-skinned weenies who are so self absorbed in their own inadequacies that they must focus and criticizes established norms. Nothing is sacred any more. What has traditionally been wrong is now right, and what is right is now wrong. The irony is the time and resources these people dedicate to justify change is overwhelming, and production seems to cease. Changing certain Navy military job titles is only one in a long list of things these sensitive minded thin-skinned champions of human rights target as unacceptable in today’s society.

The Navy has 21 rating designations that could get changed as a result of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ mandated review of job descriptions. One of those job descriptions is Corpsman. I’m going to guess that gets changed because President Obama couldn’t correctly read the word in a televised speech, and instead pronounced it as corpus-man. Instead of concentrating on change, maybe we should concentrate on improving our reading skills!

Every job description in the Navy today has available to both genders since the Women's Armed Services Integration Act was enacted in 1948. I for one am weary of the campaign to establishing “gender neutral” titles, descriptions, and facilities, simply to appease those who’s sole purpose in life is to establish “social justice”.

I actually believe there are some Navy job descriptions that should be changed; not because it might appear to be gender specific, but with the passing of time we have seen much in the way of technical advancements.

Note: all the above is actually a result of my frustration having to put-up with years of thin-skinned whining weenies we constantly find ourselves having to babysit as they struggle through the labyrinth of life. For me this has become more of an exercise in writing expression than an in-depth critique of Navy policy. It is my way of contributing to society. If I’m force to listen to whiners, then they should be forced to listen to my criticism of their quest for social justice. And now, I feel so much better. After all, isn’t that what it’s all about? On second thought, maybe I should have been a Yeoman or a Legalman instead of an Aviation Electrician's Mate. Mate? Where the heck did that come from mate?

PS: As an AE, I was so fortunate to be in the Navy at a time when they changed my flight crew description from Radioman to "Flight Communications Operator". This changed my whole perspective on life. So now when someone asked me what an FCO does, I simply tell them I was a radioman, and they get it. :-)

Response by LCpl Scott Ueberroth made May 5 at 2016 8:49 PM

LCpl Scott Ueberroth — Thu, 05 May 2016 20:49:21 -0400

if you have to ask you are part of the problem!!! sounds simple and it is, either you are weak and give in to pc bullcrap or you make the ladies who want to compete actually compete without changing the standards. I'll welcome all that do, or should say did, cause it's past tense now. Any that can't without reducing the standards are sucking the strength and power out of our very existence.

Response by LCpl Scott Ueberroth made May 5 at 2016 9:02 PM

LCpl Scott Ueberroth — Thu, 05 May 2016 21:02:39 -0400

if you have to ask "you" are part of the problem!

Response by Sgt John Steinmeier made Jan 12 at 2017 10:41 AM

Sgt John Steinmeier — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:41:14 -0500

No, and neither should any other branch with regards to their job titles.

Response by SCPO Henry Malone made May 27 at 2017 5:38 PM

SCPO Henry Malone — Sat, 27 May 2017 17:38:42 -0400

No if it's not broke don't try and fix it.

Response by PO1 Kenneth Cardwell made Jun 1 at 2017 4:11 PM

PO1 Kenneth Cardwell — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 16:11:53 -0400

Man is also in Woman! Serious some titles might work. Medic, admin but Seaman, Fireman Airman Midshipman! Not many to use!