ISIS is on our doorstep as we speak, and has committed unspeakable acts of terrorism within our borders. It is not pretty, and to crush this threat we need all the force of our marvelous uniformed military serving in the Army. And in our Air Force and Marines. And most certainly the brave men and women of the proud United States Navy.
So we would really like to know that the leaders of the armed forces, including the politically-appointed civilian leaders who served in the role of 'Secretary" of the respective service, share that laser focus and commitment to crushing ISIS and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Laser focus indeed.
All of that made us a bit antsy when we found that while the past Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who was, naturally, an appointee of that old warhawk, Barack H. Obama, showed his laser focus in the waning days of that contemptible administration by trying to solve the biggest issue they saw as facing today's Navy. Yes, that would be ... oh, wait ... it is not ISIS, or China or North Korea.
Nope, our now-replaced Secretary of the Navy ordered the uniformed leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps to come up with gender-neutral versions of enlisted positions with titles ending in "man". No more "rifleman" or "mineman." You are now a "specialist" or "technician" or something else reflecting the fact that there are now females serving in those roles.
This all would be laughable if (A) it weren't actually true, and (B) we weren't facing an enemy who has already penetrated our defenses and ought to be occupying our full attention. But it is true. Mabus, who, one could concede, understood poor treatment of women from having been ambassador to Saudi Arabia, determined this to be a priority before he was canned. Why that should be true is a mystery, but he has.
The linked article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/yeo-person-one-title-vexes-navys-push-for-gender-neutrality.html?_r=0) points to a particularly thorny outcome of this effort of vital national interest, wherein the term "yeoman" (someone with a principally clerical function) has run into the etymological buzz-saw as having no feminized version. Let's face it -- and, unfortunately, countless hours of senior naval officer time have apparently been spent facing it -- there is no good option, neither producing a feminine version or a neutral one.
"Yeowoman", as your spell-check will tell you when you forward a link to this piece, is simply not a word, and is stupid even for Ray Mabus. I can't even think of a gender-neutral form of "yeoman" that doesn't strain the credulity of the person speaking. And yet Mabus and the admirals were, at the time of the departure of that abysmal administration, still working on that challenging task.
I have offered on many occasions in this column to advise various government officials on easy solutions to problems that appear to them to be too thorny to solve. Each time, I've said that I would come up with something at my normal consulting rate, which is not all that high such that it shouldn't be looked at. I really do see things in their basic, elementary way, to where the fix appears obvious.
So if Ray Mabus, the former Secretary of the Navy, is reading this and wants to poke this with the new Secretary, I offer an even better package for you. I will solve your naming problem for gender-neutralizing the term "yeoman" in Navy job-speak, and you can have the answer for free. Yep, you and the admirals can install my nomenclature solution tomorrow and go right back to fighting ISIS and keeping the oceans safe for American interests everywhere.
Call the enlisted personnel doing clerical duties what they should be called -- "clerks." Nice, gender-neutral, accurate. It's even one fewer syllable, which gives the sailors and marines who have to use the term even more time to fight ISIS and Islamic terrorism everywhere.
Yeo, Mr. Mabus -- how does that work for you? Want to recommend that to the current leadership?
Copyright 2017, 2016 by Robert Sutton