US Marines denounce 'crazy political correctness' after order to remove the word 'man

[Exocet]

lmao.

US Marines denounce 'crazy political correctness' after order to remove the word 'man' from job titles


US Marines have been told the word "man" will be removed from their job titles in an effort to make the service more gender-neutral.

The move sparked a row with some Marines taking to social media to denounce "crazy and idiotic political correctness".

A total of 19 of the 33 titles used in the Marines Corps will be renamed, the majority of those having the word "man" replaced by "Marine".

So a "basic infantryman" will now become a "basic infantry Marine", and an "amphibious assault vehicle crewman" will soon be called an "amphibious assault vehicle Marine".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/us-marines-denounce-crazy-political-correctness-after-order-to-r2/

[Bull]

They have a problem with "Marine"? There are male and female members of the corps. They are all Marines. I do not see the problem.

[Professional Russian]

oh jesus christ next they're gonna take man out of woman and men our of women...fuck this political correctness shit. I'm going still say what I say and of it offends people fuck it.

[Hollywood]

They're not wrong.

[StoppingTom]

I think it's pretty stupid honestly, and as a very liberal person, I think this is going too far, but they're also very, very proud of the title Marine so the tradeoff is really negligible in the grand scheme of things. It shouldn't have been changed, but it's not the most horrifying change ever.

[Stronk Serb]

Meh, that's what you get when you let overzealous liberals in power. It was all fine before, but now they will edit the fabric of creation if possible to make it gender neutral.

[Judean Zealot]

I have come to welcome this sort of absurdity from the currently dominant leftist scolds. One hopes that the almost cartoonish banality of the left will lead to a more general revival of the dignity and virtue we so sorely lack today.

[Sailor Mars]

It is kind of stupid but like Tom said, the trade off is the word Marine... So it doesn't really matter much?

[Living For Love]

We've had a similar proposal here in my country, fortunately it didn't pass. It's just ridiculous, honestly, people can't understand it's not about offending women or anyone else, it's just the way languages work.

[SethfromMI]

while I can understand being hurt over tradition and I think political correctness does go too far at times, changing man to Marine is not the end of the world for me. I can see why one would be worried about how far it might go, but is replacing man for Marine (a title which Marines hold so sacredly to begin with) really a big deal?

[Vilnius]

I think it's kind of ridiculous to change it. It's the name of a job title, changing it won't make any difference.

On another note, this kind of reminds me of something George Carlin said.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246642/quotes (at the top)

[Flapjack]

I used to think duh of course we should remove the word men from stuff and be inclusive but apparently I learned in English class last year that 'men' can be used to describe a group of people, not just men. I think infantrymen is a title, yes it had sexist origins but it is just a word.

At the end of the day, if changing the wording encourages more women to join then I see it as a good thing.

[Vlerchan]

One hopes that the almost cartoonish banality of the left will lead to a more general revival of the dignity and virtue we so sorely lack today.
Though it seems to have rather instead led to the crudest of reactions amongst the right (Trumpism etc.).

---

Yous can all have your kulturkampf anyways: whatever the outcome it doesn't bother me.

Bigger things are around right now.

[ClaraWho]

I had to check this wasn't the boys forum. Interesting how it's all guys commenting on how 'stupid' a decision this is. I don't get it. Why are you getting so upset over a change that doesn't even affect you? 'The world's gone mad, boohoo'.

Look at it this way, how many of these same men would be passing these comments if the original title they'd been called was 'crewwomen' or 'infantrywoman'. Oh, what you don't like being referred to as the other gender either? It's always interesting how upset the none aggrieved party gets their emotions so bent out of shape.

What's wrong with equality? Why does it get you so worked up as to pass comments branding it 'stupid' and 'madness'?

Dare I say, could it be you are just scared of change?

~ Clara

[Judean Zealot]

Though it seems to have rather instead led to the crudest of reactions amongst the right (Trumpism etc.).

For now, but we can hope that that as well is discredited and replaced by moderation and civility.


Yous can all have your kulturkampf anyways: whatever the outcome it doesn't bother me.

Bigger things are around right now.

With all due respect, I cannot think of anything bigger than the moral fibre of a nation.

[Vlerchan]

With all due respect, I cannot think of anything bigger than the moral fibre of a nation.
I'm of the opinion that out values and opinions are informed and guided by the need of geo-politics and out techno-economic state [primarily the latter]. It's specifics will be laid in these squabbles about the appropriate suffix of some semi-important social object but it's broadest terms will be founded elsewhere. Whilst people defend their social position with hot furore, most of them are profoundly slavish in the construction these.

In other words, I'm still a social-marxist.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm of the opinion that out values and opinions are informed and guided by the need of geo-politics and out techno-economic state [primarily the latter]. It's specifics will be laid in these squabbles about the appropriate suffix of some semi-important social object but it's broadest terms will be founded elsewhere. Whilst people defend their social position with hot furore, most of them are profoundly slavish in the construction these.

In other words, I'm still a social-marxist.

I've always understood social Marxism as entailing the rather bizarre assertion that one's material conditions must compel one towards some ideology or another, ultimately aimed at the amelioration of their position. I find that to be a most uncharitable interpretation of the human spirit. Do we not have many instances of political, social, or religious martyrdom? Do we not ourselves often put morals ahead of material interests? Are the monied classes unable to act in solidarity with others even where it may hurt their finances? Do you really think we are so perverse as to entirely discard morality as an incentive towards a political ideal? Marx was as obsessed with money as Freud was with penises - and that's not a compliment.

[Vlerchan]

I've always understood social Marxism as entailing the rather bizarre assertion that one's material conditions must compel one towards some ideology or another, ultimately aimed at the amelioration of their position.
I'm most beholden to the Gramscian interpretation of Marxism which does not necessitate that ones material conditions determines their social conduct at an individual level; and, is open to considerable amounts of factionalism.

There were peasants that rose up with their Lords during the French revolution: entire regions of them, in fact, a phenomenon wholly irreconcilable with any purists interpretation of Marx.

Do we not ourselves often put morals ahead of material interests?
The whole point of Marxism was to question where this high-minded morality emerged from in the first place.

It is also no denial that the monied-classes can act with benevolence and solidarity towards the masses, though is sceptical of actual motivations. I, myself, though, abandoned a lot of the class-warfare logic long ago, and my focus is more on the how out material conditions interact with, and determine, out social stances.

[Judean Zealot]

It is also no denial that the monied-classes can act with benevolence and solidarity towards the masses, though is sceptical of actual motivations.

Which, of course, wholly ignores the wealthy who have willingly risked torture and death for popular causes with no hope of recompense - I can't think of any motive but selflessness. The Lady Markievicz (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Markievicz) is a wonderful example of this.

[M]y focus is more on the how out material conditions interact with, and determine, out social stances.

And why, pray tell, should we rule out actual belief?

[Vlerchan]

The Lady Markievicz is a wonderful example of this.
Or Che Guevara, famously. Lenin, Castro, Engels, were all middle-class, too.

Like I said, I'm more beholden of a Gramscian interpretation of Marxism, where ones materiel conditions don't necessarily determine the position of the specific individual but do still guide affairs at the aggregate.

And why, pray tell, should we rule out actual belief?
I'm sure people believe in their convictions. I'm not claiming they don't.

But beliefs don't emerge spontaneously from within.

[Judean Zealot]

Or Che Guevara, famously. Lenin, Castro, Engels, were all middle-class, too.

I was providing an Irish example :).


I'm sure people believe in their convictions. I'm not claiming they don't.

But beliefs don't emerge spontaneously from within.

But what I'm asking is why not? We firmly believe many things by our logic alone, such as mathematical propositions; why shouldn't a philosophical premise be based in the same?

[ethan-s]

screw political correctness.

[Matryoshkasystem]

-.- Gotta love liberals fight for females equality...yet completely forget about men needing help too. One reason why I'm annoyed at this world. One part CAN NOT get equality without the other part getting it. Honestly focus less on stupid stuff like this, and more on stuff like stereotypes of ALL races, sexes, genders, neurotypicalites, sexualities, etc. I may be a liberal, but not this. This reaks of crazy feminist-not all but ones that go...enslave men to men don't deserve to work,go home, etc-. Honestly, I know there are always gonna be crazy people, always have been, but we need a required mental health check like we do physical. I think there main offense to it, though is the fact its coming from people not in the military, sorta like if everyone stopped using he/she and names and only called each other it. Also mainly men join the army, and the women who do join haven't taken offense yet.

[lliam]

total of 19 of the 33 titles used in the Marines Corps will be renamed, the majority of those having the word "man" replaced by "Marine".

So a "basic infantryman" will now become a "basic infantry Marine",
and an "amphibious assault vehicle crewman" will soon be called an "amphibious assault vehicle Marine".


Although I consider this news as absolutely ridiculous, I think that these aren't good examples against the disappearance of the suffix "man".

But I admit, political correctness is an ulcer that can stifle all fun of everyone's life.

[Porpoise101]

screw political correctness.

I like to call it: "being polite at a systematic level"

[Judean Zealot]

I like to call it: "being polite at a systematic level"

I think there is a clear line between politeness and political correctness. It is entirely politically correct to make a vulgarity laced comment against a perceived racist, and is indeed frequently done; whilst it is considered politically incorrect to be chivalrous.

[Porpoise101]

I think there is a clear line between politeness and political correctness. It is entirely politically correct to make a vulgarity laced comment against a perceived racist, and is indeed frequently done; whilst it is considered politically incorrect to be chivalrous.
Ahh, but among the left if you are a racist you are evil and you are the instigator. In other words, "it was his fault for starting it."

Chivalry is considered to be demeaning by some, which isn't very polite if you believe in that interpretation. But many leftists even disavow this interpretation of chivalry going for the traditional interpretation of "a good guy is doing a good thing."

I think the bigger problem isn't political correctness, I think the larger issue is that people on the left, especially minorities, have different standards of conduct and social interaction (even amongst themselves!!). This causes discord within the society.

[Flapjack]

Ahh, but among the left if you are a racist you are evil and you are the instigator. In other words, "it was his fault for starting it."

Chivalry is considered to be demeaning by some, which isn't very polite if you believe in that interpretation. But many leftists even disavow this interpretation of chivalry going for the traditional interpretation of "a good guy is doing a good thing."

I think the bigger problem isn't political correctness, I think the larger issue is that people on the left, especially minorities, have different standards of conduct and social interaction (even amongst themselves!!). This causes discord within the society.
Yes how dare them leftists try to be inclusive!!

[Porpoise101]

Yes how dare them leftists try to be inclusive!!
It's an issue if we can't get ease the general population into it. It makes the majority groups pissed off over time if it is too much enforced.

[Flapjack]

It's an issue if we can't get ease the general population into it. It makes the majority groups pissed off over time if it is too much enforced.
When what is enforced?

[Judean Zealot]

I think the bigger problem isn't political correctness, I think the larger issue is that people on the left, especially minorities, have different standards of conduct and social interaction

In other words - political correctness.

[Porpoise101]

In other words - political correctness.
I mis-wrote, I meant that these different systems are too separate. Minority groups aren't exposed enough to the majority group (and vice versa) and it is very segregated. This means that it is very hard for the society to have one united system and merge all of the smaller ones. If everyone was exposed to these things in practice and in real life more than in Internet videos and Internet articles I believe that there would be less issues long term.

[Judean Zealot]

I mis-wrote, I meant that these different systems are too separate. Minority groups aren't exposed enough to the majority group (and vice versa) and it is very segregated. This means that it is very hard for the society to have one united system and merge all of the smaller ones. If everyone was exposed to these things in practice and in real life more than in Internet videos and Internet articles I believe that there would be less issues long term.

Do you think that this accounts for the identitarian divides between desegregated groups, such as men and women, Jews and gentiles, or other such groups? We see political correctness creating division there as well.

[Porpoise101]

Do you think that this accounts for the identitarian divides between desegregated groups, such as men and women, Jews and gentiles, or other such groups? We see political correctness creating division there as well.
Well for men and women, I would say that it is not a segregation between sexes, but a segregation of the whole population. The thing is that men often adopt the PC rules if they are directly exposed to the PC women. But the non PC women stay non PC and the non PC men stay non PC. So the country is divided between PC and non PC populations with little exchange between. There are only a few places where everyone intermingles in real life, usually it is university or the military. But both of these institutions have a bias toward one faction. So yes, I do thing that segregation is the cause for most of this at least.

I didn't know that Jews were becoming more PC. Interesting to know.

[Stronk Serb]

It's so annoying. The funny thing you can do with politically correct people is go and tell them a bunch of racist jokes and watch them laugh/fume. I do it all the time, even for whites. The flak I get from them...

This whole problem is unexistent here because we have this wonderful thing called grammatical cases, for example:

Пешадинац infantry
Пешадинка infantry
Поручник liutenant
Поручница liutenant
Радник worker
Радница worker

The first one to guess which sex is described by each word gets a treat :D

[Porpoise101]

Пешадинац infantry
Пешадинка infantry
Поручник liutenant
Поручница liutenant
Радник worker
Радница worker
The ones ending in 'a' are feminine. the others are masculine or neuter then.

[Microcosm]

I feel like the biggest problem with this is just annoyance. The word "man" doesn't necessarily mean that the job involves only men. It's sort of like saying "We have men on the ground" when referring to having soldiers on the ground.

It's just sad that someone would get bothered by such a petty thing.

[Stronk Serb]

The ones ending in 'a' are feminine. the others are masculine or neuter then.

In this case all not ending with an 'a' are masculine. Neuter ones usually (or always, will have to check up un that) end with an 'e' or an'o'. You earned Stronk Serb's Internet Slav Award. I will get to painting in in Paint when I wake up.

[Judean Zealot]

In this case all not ending with an 'a' are masculine. Neuter ones usually (or always, will have to check up un that) end with an 'e' or an'o'. You earned Stronk Serb's Internet Slav Award. I will get to painting in in Paint when I wake up.

That's more or less the same as Latin then.

[sqishy]

It is not necessary, but it isn't worth this level of negative reaction...

[Vlerchan]

Sorry, been very busy.

I was providing an Irish example .
Oh yes. Though I thought I would add some more familiar Marxists to the list so that our readership might get a better idea of the self-evident role for those that aren't members of the proletariat in class struggle.

But what I'm asking is why not? We firmly believe many things by our logic alone, such as mathematical propositions; why shouldn't a philosophical premise be based in the same?
I'm not making claims about whether objective philosophical truth is attainable - though I remain unconvinced, as you are aware. I'm claiming that beliefs with regards to social and cultural issues are broadly determined by social background, and these, furthermore, reflect in themselves the believed self-interest of social actors (though, this reflection is in no imagining perfect).