Words have a utilitarian function in the uniformed world. We have checklists ringing with verbs, notes and warnings, and military evaluations are brimming with superlatives and exclamatory punctuation. Words are, as everywhere, formative of the culture: “lead,” “defend,” “fight,” “break things and kill people,” “take care of your wingman.”

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/04/3106346

Unbelievable drivel.

Apart from the fact that this article is the worst sort of self-aggrandizing, disloyal, divisive, rhetorically confused drivel, the main issue is that the editor of Army Forces Journal, Karen Walker, chose to print it. In an era where jointness needs additional attention to mutual appreciation and respect because we are actually fighting a war, here she chooses to run a piece that panders to the worst sorts of myths and caricatures held by the other three services, and yet even stoops to say it "wins the prize for straight talk." From an "opportunity cost" basis alone--the article about actual warfighting issues that WASN'T printed--I would call this a fatal editorial choice if I were the publisher. Ah, unless as an editor, you felt your job was to abandon all pretense of service neutrality (the "armed forces" in AFJ) and pander to the base myths of your main constituency, the Army. For a journal that published the ground-breaking Yuengling piece, this devolves to, as Rod Serling once quipped on "Night Gallery," to "the slime that coats the very walls of hell itself."

...has left Lt Col Disler disassociated from the AF. She has the luxury of taking up residence inside her academic bubble. Come out here Lt Col Disler with the rest of the AF, you know--the airmen carrying M-4s on perimeter patrol in the AOR, the AFSOF hammering the Taliban, the UAS crews terminating the Jihadist agendas, the JTACS calling in JDAMs on terrorist redoubts, tanker crews in the track, ICBMer's on watch...the list goes on.

Lt Col Disler, put your focus on crafting useful airpower strategy for this war and the next. Until then, you speak only for yourself...and not for the thousands of dead airmen (both genders) who have gone before us. I love the Airmen's Creed, do not lead an insurgency to dilute it.

Words don’t create our worlds Lt Col Disler. Men and Women, many very young and largely, to borrow a term from your narrative ‘unlearned’, who voluntarily become our nations’ sword and shield and fight to protect and avenge our way of life create our world.

In a manner which I doubt you will understand, respect, nor appreciate, nor with the ethos it is founded upon: I’ve got your six Lt Col Disler. For you are an Airman of the long blue line, and a fellow OFFICER, and I will never leave an Airman behind.

But you will of course understand that I will place my trust in my other Wingman and Airman, both male and female, who do understand, respect, and appreciate that ethos to cover my six and not you.

I am proud to be, an American AIRMAN.

I am sure this is a well intended commentary meant to move our Joint team forward (AFJ wants to move our Joint team forward, right?). Unfortunately, it does not deliver any recommendation or suggestion on a way ahead—it provides no alternate words (that the author accepts anyway) we all can use to replace Airman, Warrior or Wingman. In an effort to ensure something positive comes from all this, here is a shot at some gender neutral replacements. Perhaps we could adopt a functional schema. Airmen could be described as members of the technological service known as the Air Force (Motskafs). As we ready Motskafs to deploy, perhaps we could instill pride by describing them as people leaving often for months at a time and might be killed (Plomtimks). Wingman could be described instead as people who work in pairs to assure their safety (Wipats). As for the Creed, let’s use a simple slogan: “Moskafs Plomimtks defending the nation side by side with their Wipats.”

Or, on the other hand, we could throw out the premise that words equal culture (don’t deeds matter more?) understanding that our standards of professionalism and war fighting demand gender neutrality. Respect in a military organization must come from one’s professionalism, not from one’s gender! The inverse cannot be true if we are to leverage the full team and its capabilities. Therefore, our vernacular may not be gender neutral linguistically, but it must be absolutely gender neutral in practice. Instead of new words, we need conviction and buy in that we—men and women— are a team. Once we achieve this, the imagery associated with these words becomes gender neutral. In the meantime, you and I serve our country in the Air Force and we are called Airman! We serve side by side in a profession of arms—Warriors! There is power and safety in the pack (regardless of who is in the pack or what their AFSC is)—Wingmen!

For Lt Col Dishler: Regardless of how you feel about the words our Air Force uses to describe itself and its people, please remember the critical position (and responsibility) you hold—to educate our next generation of leaders at the Air Force Academy. They need leadership and vision that moves beyond gender. They need a balanced approach to gender relations (one that emphasizes professionalism regardless of gender) and an example to emulate. You haven’t given it here. Let’s teach our cadets to worry less about finding new gender neutral words and more about what a professional brings to the team to leverage the talents of every person in the organization regardless of gender (or race, or religion).

Lt Col Harry Foster
Maxwell AFB, AL

After reading the article and looking (in vain) for anything that couldn't be described as "whining psychobabble searching for self-undefined political correctness", I am still at a loss for a realistic solution to LtCol Dishler's problem.

Given the high proportion of non-flight personnel in the Airforce, "flyer" just doesn't do it.

Maybe the "correct" portmanteau term to use should be "airforceperson" and then the ranks (at the lowest level) could be "Airperson" (Ap) or "Maintenanceperson" (Mp) or "Staffperson" (Sp) or "Guidanceperson" (Gp) [after all we just can't have anyone 'controlling' others] or "Electronicsperson" (Ep) or "Logisticsperson" (Lp) and then we could work up through Ap1, Mp1, Sp1, Gp1, Ep1, and Lp1 to AirpersonSergeant (ApS), MaintenancepersonSergeant (MpS), StaffpersonSergeant (SpS), GuidancepersonSergeant (GpS) , ElectronicspersonSergeant (EpS), and LogisticspersonSergeant (LpS).

Of course since the word "person" is sexist - after all it does include the gender specific "son", maybe the only thing is to do is to substitute "being" for "person" so that we have "Airbeings", Maintenancebeings", "Staffbeings", "Guidancebeings", "Electronicsbeings" and "Logisticsbeings".

Mind you, since "colonel" derives from the Latin columnella (meaning "small column") and that has sexual connotations that make it inappropriate for a female in the military, some other rank name will simply have to be found for LtCol Dishler so that she doesn't feel slighted by being referred to as an assistant small dick.

UC seems to have picked up on an appropriate response to this sort of pretentious twaddle--a nuanced and appropriately silly reply! I can bemoan, but understand how someone like Lt Col Disler comes to this point in her misspent career with these sorts of confused thoughts. However, I cannot excuse the editor of AFJI for her extraordinarily poor judgment in printing it, nor can I excuse Ms Disler's supervisors, who undoubtedly approved this for release. There are Dislers everywhere (her ideas are banal in that little blind alley of academic BS) and there are other officers who never internalized their Oath of Office and its true meaning--but that's why we have editors and supervisors--to make judgments that balance her right to be ignorant and self-aggrandizing with the greater good of their institutions. In this case, they failed--and not in some excusable way, but failed in a way that reveals their own incompetence. Disler just needs to be driving lead convoy vehicles in Iraq where she can report on the degree of misogynism in the ranks--further her research, as it were. The others need to be fired.

I take it that you are a microscopically less than ragingly approvingly enthusiastic about her opinion and whatever "thought processes" went into forming it.

How did this get past the editors? Honestly, I wouldn't wrap fish with this article. Surely her chain of command would not have allowed this article to be published. It is a reflection of an officer who has lost respect for herself, our profession, and is probably in need of a life skills professional to help her deal her with her rage. Since her chain of command apparently missed the boat and allowed this hateful article to reach publication; hopefully they will take notice and get the Lt Colonel to Life Skills and or the Chaplains immediately.