Note how self-restrained I am. I held myself back from using as my headline, “I got your ‘member’ right here!” Even though that would have better expressed my exasperation.
Clint Eastwood and Rene Russo as Secret Service 'members' in 'In the Line of Fire.'
We used to have “servicemen” in our armed forces. Or, more broadly, military personnel. Now, we have this horrendous construction that drives me nuts every time I hear it: “military members.” That’s the best we seem to be able to come up with as a way of referring generically to soldiers, sailors, marines, and that least ideologically correct of all designations, airmen.
What are we saying? That the military is a club? Like belonging to Rotary, or the Elks? To me, it sounds vaguely insulting to those who serve us in uniform, to refer to them as “members.” Like fingers or toes, or perhaps some even less presentable member.
With the scandal over the weekend involving both Secret Service and military personnel, this linguistic absurdity has been taken to new depths.
To begin with, one assumes that all the agents sent home for consorting with prostitutes were male. And if you read non-American news sources such as Agence France-Presse or the Daily Mail, they go ahead and refer to them as male. That’s because in those countries, the fact that men tend to do certain things that women tend not to do (such as, bring hookers to their rooms) is confronted somewhat more directly, and not treated like a secret of which we must not speak. (Someone is inevitably going to contradict me by pointing to U.S. sources that do mention gender. But the fact remains that, after having read U.S. sources that did not mention gender, the first ones I found that did were foreign. It’s a tendency thing, not an absolute rule.)
I haven’t yet found any stories that tell the gender of the five “military personnel” who were also implicated, but not sent home, supposedly because their skills were too much in demand in protecting the president (rooftop snipers, perhaps?). If anyone has seen such a reference, please share it, if only to satisfy my morbid curiosity.
But whether they are male or (against the odds) female, there are better ways to refer to them than as “military service members,” as the NYT does here in its own stilted fashion:
Five United States military service members who were working with the Secret Service and staying in the same hotel are also facing an investigation because they violated a curfew and may have participated in the misconduct.
The use of such a slightly off-sounding construction has a bad effect on journalists. They become jaded to awkwardness, and therefore their radar doesn’t go off when they inadvertently type something that is not just awkward, but downright nonsensical:
Mr. Obama’s comments came several hours after Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, suggested that more Secret Service personnel members may have been involved in the incident.
Did you catch that? “Secret Service personnel members”? Really? Not “Secret Service members,” which would sound awkward enough, or “Secret Service personnel,” which would have been fine, but the entirely redundant “Secret Service personnel members”!
Why not take it to another level, or two? Why not “Secret Service personnel members people employees,” while you’re at it?
Or… and excuse me for getting radical here… how about if the reporter covering this for you just went ahead and asked the question, “Are any of these people female?” Because if not, you don’t have to perform any of these acrobatics, and can just go ahead and refer to the “men.” And if they are, even an awkward construction like “servicemen and -women” would be less jarring than referring to them as “personnel members.”
Or how about just scraping your fingernails on a blackboard? That would probably get on my nerves less…
Related Posts
Can we still call them G-Men or G-Women?
I’m a “Straight-G” myself, that is “Straight up Gangsta” for the uninitiated.
Have you ever noticed how society has gone to hell ever since June Cleaver and the girls decided they needed to go to work? Now we have to hire someone to clean the house, raise the kids, etc…
Well, back in the day you could make it pretty nicely on one income, now it really take two incomes to maintain the same standard of living. We do have a lot more stuff to pay for now though.
“What are we saying? That the military is a club? Like belonging to Rotary, or the Elks? To me, it sounds vaguely insulting to those who serve us in uniform, to refer to them as “members.” Like fingers or toes, or perhaps some even less presentable member.”
As a Navy veteran of 9 1/2 years and I never even noticed anyone turning me androgynous. Maybe it was because I was a submariner and in a boys “club”.
I know it annoys you Brad but if 2001 me read that I wouldn’t even blink an eye. The navy was a job and something that i had to endure. 95% of a deployment was mind numbing boredom with a dash of sleep deprivation.
It was great seeing new places (Singapore, Philippines, Korea, Japan etc….) and learning a trade that will pay the bills for the rest of my life. Most of all it was a job though.
So they can call me whatever they wanted. We didnt get the news anyways underwater.
SSN 763 Santa Fe 1997-2001
Navy Nuke Prototypes 2001-2005
More power to you, Tavis. If I were in the Navy, it would have to be Surface. There’s just something plumb unnatural about either flying or living underwater.
Any female Secret Service agent assigned to the president’s armed security detail would have to:
1) be large enough and run long enough and fast enough for her body to intercept some bullets intended for the president; 2) trustworthy enough to keep details of the itinerary to herself;
3) reliable enough to maintain 24-7 rigor regardless of typical female health cycles and yeast infections.
No female fitting all the above requirements is young and vigorous enough to fulfill those requirements.
Female S/S agents attending the president’s personal security detail may certainly be armed, but my pedestrian guess is that they probably perform administrative and logistics functions only. By the way, administrative functions are exactly what women currently assigned to submarines are assigned to perform.
The rate of females assigned to naval vessels being medically unfit to deploy is excessive well beyond their numbers. For surface vessels that has usually been manageable. For submarines, however, sacrificing stealthly deployments of national security significance for female health issues requiring at-sea medevacs (including any pregnancy onset) is quite another matter.
Well, bottom line, the story revolves around the “members of Secret Service personnel.”
And what’s wrong with using gender-neutral terms like “agent”?
Burl, I suspect the problem with “agent” was that some were supervisory people. I imagine they are ALSO “agents,” but I don’t know that.
“The rate of females assigned to naval vessels being medically unfit to deploy is excessive well beyond their numbers. For surface vessels that has usually been manageable.” – Juan
Actually the rate of females in the military in general who are unfit to deploy is excessive.
Women can’t be deployed while pregnant and can’t be deployed shortly after they give birth (4 months for the AF, 6 for Marines and Army, 12 for Navy).
How a mom with a 4-6 month old would deploy is beyond me.
Government employees.
“More power to you, Tavis. If I were in the Navy, it would have to be Surface. There’s just something plumb unnatural about either flying or living underwater.”
The entire military expierence is unnatural. It a good living though.
“The rate of females assigned to naval vessels being medically unfit to deploy is excessive well beyond their numbers. For surface vessels that has usually been manageable. For submarines, however, sacrificing stealthly deployments of national security significance for female health issues requiring at-sea medevacs (including any pregnancy onset) is quite another matter.”
Carriers have had women for about 20 years I wanna say. Pregnancy prior to deployments skyrocket. Some ships over 75% of the women get pregnant. You cant get a good shore duty in some fields because the pregnant ladies are hogging all the billets.
I did meet a few ladies there that were good workers. We had a Snr Chief in charleston who was a leftover from the 80s who had been on tenders her entire career. Noticed disquested her more than women giving BS lines to try to get out of work.
And I counter your picture of Secret Service agents Eastwood and Russo with something a little more apropos these days …
http://djstorm.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/the_hangover1.jpg
Burl is right, even the senior field managers are agents – Special Agents In Charge. They are that. What is disturbing about this story is how divergent it is with the absolute professionalism and seriousness of the SS that I knew. Had this been about something other than the Presidential detail it might be more understandable. But heads should roll over this. These agents and soldiers failed in the worst way; they failed as representatives of our country.
As to Juan’s comments: I find the spirit of them offensive. Women may have a lower fit for service rate, that may be true, but your tone discredits the hard work, dedication and commitment of many.
Silence’s are a bit more insideous; he has said he is a defense contractor who provides services more efficiently than military service members can in soft roles. Then he criticizes new mothers for filling the remaining “easy” billets. Hmmm.
@Mark S – I didn’t say anything about easy billets. I said that preganant women and new mothers cannot be deployed. That’s a fact.
Yes, Juan, those yeast infections are problematic, unlike the STD infections the men get. Wow.
I find it hard to imagine why ANY PARENT of a young child would deploy, but then I’m not in dire financial straits….
@’Kathryn – You aren’t in dire financial straits and you also haven’t received deployment orders..
Silence, as long as she stays married she’ll not have to face either.
Silence,
I responded on my phone and didn’t see that part was in response to Tavis’, and not your, comments. Didn’t mean to imply more than you were stating.
and I do not have children….but why mothers of young children are vilified for being willing to be deployed while fathers are lauded, beats me, and why someone would volunteer for military service is something I have to use my empathy muscles to understand…ditto having children, so there you have it.