What this country needs is catchall term for those in military uniform: Any ideas?

STLtoday.com ^ | 12-27-03 | Harry Levins

[FairWitness]

Each year, Time magazine picks the "Person of the Year" (formerly known, in less sensitive times, as the "Man of the Year"). This year, that person is "the American soldier," and the magazine's cover shows three of them, all from the Army's 1st Armored Division.

[Az Joe]

Shit floats

[AngrySpud]

G.I.

[FairWitness]

Why are we even engaging in this politically correct nonsense????? - - - - There is nothing wrong with servicemen.

I agree with you, but the gender police have made it difficult if not impossible to maintain generic use of perfectly good words like "servicemen".

[68skylark]

(I can't help smiling at the thought of what would happen should a Time magazine reporter tap a Marine on the shoulder and say, "Hey, soldier.")

This sort of thing happens all the time, only in reverse. Let the Army do something good, and reporters will often report "American Marines scored another important victory today when they. . . ." I shouldn't be too sensitive about that, but as a soldier it always bugged me. Fortunately the press is getting better -- the "embed" program helped a lot.

And when a Marine (unfortunately) screws up badly, it happens the other way. A few Marines were implicated in a rape in Okinawa a few years ago, and press reports wouldn't often call them Marines. They were "service men" -- or even "soldiers"!

[fnord]

Military Members

even if all in the military don't have members ???

Seriously, serviceman is very acceptable. Only a very few clintonistic women in the military object to it. Whatever, never call a Marine a soldier ...

[68skylark]

"Whoop-assers" isn't bad.

"Fighters" also sounds pretty good.

[Steel Wolf]

Now that we're all here voluntarily, I'd suggest the word 'Volunteers' or something similar. It would help break the connotation of war and the draft, for one thing, and it sounds more positive.

I'm also partial to the word 'Guardians'. It's slightly more formal than 'Defenders' even though they both imply that they are protectors 'of freedom', and it doesn't sound like it's short for 'Department of Defense employee'.

I really dig the word 'Crusaders' as well, if nothing else because of the ire it would generate from all over the world. Not enough euphemism for common use, though.

Old school works for me too, especially if you dig into our own heritage. I'd be happy with 'Gunslingers', 'Cowboys' or 'the Posse'. Simple, and to the point.

If you really wanted to dig deep you could go with 'Legionaries', 'Cohorts' or 'Hoplites'. I think these have a good ring to them, but I doubt they would catch on.

[Prodigal Son]

I'd go with warrior myself.

[gcruse]

"Troops" works for me. Sailors are trained on the firing range and strap on leggings to do guard duty.

[FairWitness]

I'm also partial to the word 'Guardians'. It's slightly more formal than 'Defenders' even though they both imply that they are protectors 'of freedom', - - "

"Guardians" does have a nice ring to it. I think either term (and lots of others mentioned) would drive some of the libs "over the edge" if they were widely accepted.

[Lazamataz]

Troops.

[gcruse]

'Guardians' strikes me as too wussy. Same for Department of Defense. War is what it's about, and sugarcoating it implies we're ashamed of what the troops do. I don't think guarding really applies to fighting wars on other people's turf.

[Lazamataz]

Seriously, serviceman is very acceptable. Only a very few clintonistic women in the military object to it. Whatever, never call a Marine a soldier ...

Service-people-without-regard-to-sex-race-age-religion-sexualorientation-or-any-of-the-other-discriminatory-disclaimers-such-term-as-to-apply-to-any-member-of-the-military-without-any-consideration-of-pay-grade-or-rank-such-consideration-exclusion-void-in-vermont-and-massachussettes.

Or SPWRTSRARSOOAOTODDSTATATAMOTMWACOPGORSCEVIVAM for short.

[deroberst]

I like "GI" too. One great thing about it is that it can only refer to US military personnel. Lots of other countries have soldiers, Marines, etc., but GIs are always Americans and it translates easily into every language in the world. ("US has 130,000 GIs is Iraq"). I was in the Air Force and I and all my fellow members considered ourselves GIs, along with all the members of the other services.

[basil]

What's wrong with Armed Forces? It worked for many years.

[Lazamataz]

The problem is, Armed Forces is an entity as a whole. Troops has traditionally referred to individual but multiple soldiers/sailors/airmen, and Troop -- at first a strange term, but you get used to it -- has traditionally referred to a single soldier/sailor/airman.

[Senormechanico]

If politically correct gets any worse, we won't be able to say

"human race",

it'll have to be

"huperson race".

SM

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Our Military.

Seconded. Covers everyone. Even the little clerks who punch buttons all day so those on the front line have ammunition rather then having to hunt for rocks to throw.

[Sir Charles]

***There is nothing wrong with servicemen***

My thoughts exactly. While I was sitting here trying to come up with examples where in the past age of sanity both men and women were included in the term "man" or "men", you beat me to it. The real world does not need to change on someones' whim. The more we lose sight of the anchors of this republic, the farther astray we go into meaninglessness.