Political Correctness gone too far?

[S McKee]

PUBLICATION:  Calgary Herald
DATE:  2005.11.14
EDITION:  Final
SECTION:  The Editorial Page
PAGE:  A12
SOURCE:  Calgary Herald

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forces drone on

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of pilotless drones, it is an irritating reminder of what Ottawa thinks is a military priority that gender-neutral language has been inflicted on ordinary soldiers who should have more pressing things to be thinking about.

In military shorthand, these drones are referred to as UAVs -- Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Or they were.

Now, thanks to super-sensibilities, they are Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles. As though anybody ever "inhabited" an aircraft.

It is about what one would expect from a <DND> which has replaced the time-honoured term "infantryman" with infanteer (rhymes with mouseketeer), and serving personnel are referred to as members.

In a naturally irreverent bunch, this has led to informal references to "members with members," and "members without members."

Perhaps a better solution to this linguistic awkwardness would be to forget the silliness about keeping the letter U in the UAV, and call these vehicles what they really are -- dismembered.

There's no life like it.

Please tell me this is a joke.....

 

[George Wallace]

PUBLICATION:   Calgary Herald
DATE:   2005.11.14
In a naturally irreverent bunch, this has led to informal references to "members with members," and "members without members."

I find this amusing, and think it will now become a target of the PC crowd.  The "members without members" must obviously refer to our Members of Parliament who condon such practices.

It sure doesn't feel like the 1st of April yet, but I could be wrong.....  :

 

[midgetcop]

Coming from a female, I'd say this sounds pretty superfluous.

I'd hate to think that there are people out there sensitive enough to be offended by the word "unmanned".

:

 

[Sig_Des]

This is getting ridiculous...

Anyone see the latest Gene Hack-Person movie?

 

[George Wallace]

This is getting ridiculous...

Anyone see the latest Gene Hack-Person movie?

Shame on you...Person......Gene Hack-uninhabitable!

 

[career_radio-checker]

From now on the 522 radio will be known as the "Person-pack"

 

[George Wallace]

From now on the 522 radio will be known as the "Person-pack"

Once agin, you can't call it that......it has "son" in it....  :

 

[Sig_Des]

Once agin, you can't call it that......it has "son" in it....   :

Individual-Pack?

 

[George Wallace]

Non-Gender Specific Pack.......an NGSP!



The 522 NGSP has a bit of a ring to it, no?

 

[big_castor]

Perhaps it's only a case of overly precise semantics : a UAV is "unhabited" but "manned" from the ground....

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps it's only a case of overly precise semantics : a UAV is "unhabited" but "manned" from the ground....

I suppose now, we can change all our technical manuals and add in another line to replace a single word "UAV" with a long sentence stating it to be an "Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Crewed From the Ground".   Now we will have to figure out if that translates well into French.    :

How thick are these manuals going to get?    :

 

[career_radio-checker]

Non-Gender Specific Pack.......an NGSP!



The 522 NGSP has a bit of a ring to it, no?

:-\ (siiiiiiiigh) Another tooth is pulled from the Canadian Armed..... wooops, I mean the Canadian Forces.

 

[George Wallace]

And some have asked why Canada doesn't have Marines.  Can you see it now;  "We Need A Few Good Men Non-Gender Specific People"?

 

[Baloo]

And some have asked why Canada doesn't have Marines.  Can you see it now;  "We Need A Few Good Men Non-Gender Specific People"?

Not so fast, you!

By asking for a "few good" people, you are discriminating against the majority of people who aren't as fit or able!

"We Request a Respectable Number of Non-Gender Specific People"

 

[pbi]

But, wait! Horrors! How can we impose our demands upon others by so forcefully stating "we need"? This could cause all sorts of unknown stresses and conflicting dynamic tensions in the interpersonal space of others exposed to the negative impact of that dialoguing!

Can't we say "we respectfully request that you consider, in view of all your life priorities and self-imaging, and with due respect for any cultural differences, different-ablement,   or feng shui, all of which make you the unique person you are; the possibility of an alternate military lifestyle". (No.....wait a minute....that's not what I meant....) The possibility of accompanying other like-minded individuals on a journey of discovery in the CF? In a totally constructive, non-violent and all-embracing way, I mean?"

Just think of the cool posters and movie ads. Or don't. Or whatever you prefer. It's your choice.


Cheers (or not....)

 

[George Wallace]

Let's see ?

We respectfully request that you consider, in view of all your life priorities and self-imaging, and with due respect for any cultural differences, different-ablement,  or feng shui, all of which make you the unique person gender non-specific individual that you are; the possibility of accompanying other like-minded individuals on a journey of discovery in the Canadian Forces in a totally constructive, non-violent and all-embracing way, in acordance with Canada's Charter of HumanGender Non-Specific Rights and Freedoms, Table X to Annex XX, Para XXX, Sub-para XXX, to Chapter XXX, Para XXX, Sub-para XXX, Sub-sub-para XXXX........

to replace:

We need a few Good Men.

 

[GO!!!]

...journey of discovery...like minded individuals...

Sounds like a navy thing to me... (cue "in the navy" - the village people) 

 

[midgetcop]

Sounds like a navy thing to me... (cue "in the navy" - the village people)  

::looks for the boogie-down smilie::

:rofl:

Close enough. 

 

[Glorified Ape]

Jesus christ... thanks, feminists! Should the government find its testes, radical feminists should be the first ones under the CF boot. Time for a pogrom, methinks.  :threat:

 

[The_Falcon]

Coming from a female, I'd say this sounds pretty superfluous.

I'd hate to think that there are people out there sensitive enough to be offended by the word "unmanned".

:

There are, trust me.  When I was in elemantary school, my grade 6/7 teacher was an ultra-hardcore feminist hippy (not a pseudo hippy, but real friggen hippy who never left the 60s/70s).  We had to refer to a snowman as a snowperson, policeman as police officer etc. The kicker was when my class went on a weeklong trip to an outdoor education centre (basically camping) we had to refer to the Coleman stoves and lanterns as ColePERSON.  For our school christmas open house for parents my class (both years I was in her class) acted out "The Night Before Christmas" (at the time the school and neighbourhood were quite WASPy so there was no need to accomadate other religions), both years she only let a girl play Santa.  Why? Well from what my parents told me in conversation years later, they asked my teacher and she had told the parents that Santa and Mrs Claus were negative gender stereotypes, and to make things more equal a female was going to be Santa.

So yeah there are people who are that uptight about trivial little things.