Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Avangelice t1_j12aco9 wrote

Sigh... Tell me its not click bait... Lemme dive into the article... Brb

Okay I'm back. Original piece posted by op is a click bait meant to get you pissed. Had to go into the marine article and first para said this.

A new academic report on efforts to integrate Marine Corps boot camp recommends dropping gender-specific salutations for drill instructors, but service leaders are not convinced they want to take that step.

Study says this but high ups say we are considering but nope.

164

Jub_Jub710 t1_j12ahtd wrote

....but you can address women as "Sir".

1

TurningTwo t1_j12akpv wrote

Yes boss. No boss. I don’t know boss.

37

DefiantDonut7 t1_j12apq7 wrote

Clickbait

“But service leaders are not convinced they want to take that step”

28

CinderPetrichor t1_j12bjjr wrote

>“Instead of saying ‘ma’am’ or ‘sir,’ recruits in these Services refer to their drill instructors using their ranks or roles followed by their last names. Gendered identifiers prime recruits to think about or visually search for a drill instructor’s gender first, before their rank or role.”

Seems reasonable. Sucks having to remember names, don't they wear name tags?

23

ogromnyy-konchil t1_j12bwje wrote

Well don't just plan it, fucking do it. For fucks sakes.

−14

FixBayonetsLads t1_j12c416 wrote

Shouldn’t be calling them sir anyway, they work for a living.

−6

Rare-Notice7417 t1_j12czzp wrote

Whatever nothing will ever be as controversial as when they briefly decided to stop rolling up sleeves. Some people I worked with based their entire personality off of that shit.

31

TopDeckHero420 t1_j12d5nu wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#991,238)

Yeah, what good is desegregation? Why should women vote?

This is just the natural evolution of having women in the military.

I honestly though Yes/no "rank" was the default these days. Maybe that's just too much TV.

5

AwfulUsername123 t1_j12eas8 wrote

If they want to treat men and women equally, why must only men register for the draft?

1

NPVT t1_j12egre wrote

Sir is British anyway. It shouldn't be used. Sir Johnson.

−4

coneofpine2 t1_j12ek7s wrote

I don’t know nothing but I thought sir was a gender neutral form if used in this context

4

quesarah t1_j12f39d wrote

Ridiculous. Just use "Sir" regardless of gender, or "rank" "last name".

Who cares. It's only small mouth noises, let's just get on with it.

−10

OhNoMyLands t1_j12f6p5 wrote

Replying to Avangelice (#991,068)

There’s this science fiction series called “the expanse” and it delves into this in an indirect way. Instead of “yes sir” and “yes ma’am” they just say “yes sir” to both genders.

68

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_j12fv0s wrote

Replying to Informal-Suit9126 (#991,078)

  1. It's a WordPress blog with no About section or ownership statement and a Twitter feed that hypes up The Crazy Pillow Guy.

  2. The much better source it references does not say anyone "is planning" on doing anything: It says USMC commissioned a study, and the brass was looking at it, but they had reservations. And that's all.

Edit:

Wait a minute.

You spend a lot of time submitting that shitty WordPress blog to various subs around this site.

Is it...your shitty WordPress blog, by chance?

68

belmoria t1_j12gbya wrote

Tbh I think sir should just be used gender neutrally, it works fine.

8

frankofantasma t1_j12idvh wrote

Kind of pointless, since marine corps women are already indistinguishable from marine corps men :P

−2

Mr_Metrazol t1_j12iqm2 wrote

Replying to quesarah (#991,441)

>Who cares. It's only small mouth noises, let's just get on with it.

Political appointees looking for the next promotion in a social climate that revolves around promoting racial and sexual minorities over practical ability.

The word 'sir' in a gender-neutral world is a slur.

−13

cast-away-ramadi06 t1_j12msfq wrote

Replying to Avangelice (#991,068)

Too lazy to read the article, but I'm betting this is just for Bootcamp. What they're probably looking at is what I think the Army does, which is to address Drill Sgts as "Drill Sgt".

In the Corps, it's "Aye aye Sir". They'd probably replace it with "Aye Aye Drill Instructor". There's no way they're going to expect recruits to know ranks during the first couple of days.

5

Sanpaku t1_j12pmlw wrote

If I recall correctly from service in the US Army Reserve decades ago, every officer is a sir, whether male or female.

NCOs are addressed by rank. After all, unlike the 'sirs', they work for a living.

Make the terms gender neutral. Be the change.

1

FrostyAcanthocephala t1_j130q74 wrote

Never heard of the Triune Times, and have no reason to trust this.

11

bananafobe t1_j131g6o wrote

I don't usually buy into the military hype, but I'm confident they'll find a way to survive this.

1

AlphusUltimus t1_j137ix3 wrote

"Affirmative"

Done. Cancel the woke drama.

−5

Jeep_Girl_2000 t1_j13ecc3 wrote

Ace Levy : Sir, I don't understand. Who needs a knife in a nuke fight anyway? All you gotta do is push a button, sir.

Career Sergeant Zim : Cease fire.

−4

spoonard t1_j13owo6 wrote

They are worried about feelings when they are trained to kill??? That seems weird.

2

I8wFu t1_j13wsek wrote

Even when I was in the military we knew 'madam' was f-up and weird and one day everyone would be Sir

1

Pobbes t1_j1422fr wrote

Somewhere in here is a military joke about marines being too dumb to know who is giving them orders, and officers being too anal to let it go. I can't quite figure it out, though. Feel free to give it a go. Bonus points if you can figure out how to get the marines to mix up ma'am and sir into 'Yes, massah' for maximum offensiveness.

1

Metachamp- t1_j14bfqi wrote

What in the f*** is going on with our military. That is an institution where we do not want to carry out social experiments. Strict discipline is needed. I cannot believe the corp is thinking about getting rid of the term, "yes, sir". Are you freaking kidding me?

−2

the_Q_spice t1_j14nx1z wrote

Replying to Cherubtabs (#995,336)

They still use it, it is just that it is not rotated as the required summer uniform.

This is to better align with the reality that most of the world isn't a desert, it was only really a thing because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Once we got out, we realized how ridiculous wearing desert camo around in summer in most places actually is.

The background on this is that the vast majority of landmass in the world is temperate forests to grasslands where woodland MARPAT works best. This is especially true in littoral zones where the USMC is refocusing its operational envelope to right now.

That aside, the USMC's approach to having desert on in the summer and woodland on in the winter was more than a bit backwards. Lets put it this way: they had green on when everything was white or brown, and tan/brown on when everything was green. No matter the season, they never blended in with anything.

The new directive matches better with the US environment, and explicitly allows for commanders of overseas bases to make their own determination based on the local environment.

It makes a ton more sense than just arbitrarily wearing desert in the summer and woodland in the winter. The biggest controversy I have heard of is why didn't we do this sooner.

4

Cherubtabs t1_j14pqzg wrote

Replying to the_Q_spice (#996,774)

I appreciate the practical side of this but I was just speaking to the dismay of Marines who really liked rolled up sleeves with desert MARPAT.

And I do have to admit, it is very aesthetic

0

the_Q_spice t1_j14t9j4 wrote

Replying to Cherubtabs (#996,925)

Honestly, the USMC should switch to the Army method of camo out rolling.

It makes the roll look better (eliminating your concern) and has been proven to be superior in case of CRBN attack (you can roll down the sleeves much faster).

The Army's timing of reintroducing camo out rolling is also quite interesting as it coincides with several ISIL chemical attacks, specifically with blister agents like sulfur-mustard in what at the time was not considered a chemical warfare environment .

Gen. Mark Milley approved "camo out roll" Sep. 27, 2016

Mustard Gas attack on USMC near Mosul Sep. 23, 2016

The timing is either one hell of a coincidence or directly related. My guess is the latter, especially given that Milley's memo had significant portions redacted, which is odd for something so seemingly benign as saying "you can roll your sleeves differently".

2

bluecollardeplorable t1_j14u8s7 wrote

This is why the United States can only have a proxy war. Soldiers still are not pronoun ready to go overseas

0

i8thepickles t1_j14ucu8 wrote

The rest of the world is laughing at us

1

Many-Salad2603 t1_j14vhhm wrote

MARINES say AYE Sir. Not yes. And its one of the only branches where you can call a superior "DevilDog" instead of Sir and not get your head chewed off.

1

TheOccultist t1_j153hxt wrote

Replying to Electrical_Tip352 (#997,908)

Words mean something for a reason. If you change the meaning of words then they don't really mean anything. How about we change go f*** yourself to actually mean you look great today? Do you think this could cause any confusion and problems? What about racial slurs? Can we say that they mean flowers and bunny rabbits now and that's okay? What if we change the word stupid to actually mean smart? Words mean something for a reason. And by switching them around at whim all you're doing is degrading human language and what it means.

−14

Noman800 t1_j154mr2 wrote

Replying to TheOccultist (#998,052)

Words are just sounds coming out of your mouth. We arbitrarily decided what they meant to start with, they aren't imbued with meaning. Words and their meaning are malleable and change all the damn time.

3

TheOccultist t1_j1562gj wrote

Replying to Electrical_Tip352 (#998,109)

Yes, obviously I realized there's a precedence. And that has often gone on to lead to more stupidity and ambiguity. Look at the word literally. It literally does not mean literally anymore and this literally is a sentence that doesn't make sense.

−8

Yankas t1_j17lhe7 wrote

Replying to tuccified (#994,640)

No, it causes confusion because of limits.

So the limit of √x as x becomes bigger (approaches infinity) is equal to infinity. However, while it can approach infinity, it can never actually be infinity. It's not an actual, number it's just an idea of numbers growing forever (infinitely).

An easier to understand example is y = 1 / x, if we look at what happens, as x becomes smaller, the result will become bigger.
1 / 1 = 1
1 / 0.1 = 10
1 / 0.01 = 100
1 / 0.00001 = 100000
etc ...

Theoretically, as x becomes closer and closer to 0, the result (y) will just keep becoming bigger and bigger infinitely. And, so it is said that the limit is equal infinity.But, it will never actually be infinity, because dividing by zero is undefined.

1