• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Entering Infanteer into our Lexicon

The proper term is:

  • Total voters
    54
Shamrock

Shamrock

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
430
As a side note; I recently saw a new DND video that used the term "warfighter".  Not sure if that covers Infanteer, all combat arms, or those who train and go to "war". 
:cdn:
 
We have proceded past the "i's" and are in the "m's" with Musketeer and Mouseketeer; so why not.
 
I'll work on tankiteer later.  My goal is to get "armoured crewman" replaced with "armoured operator."

I will not petition, however, artiliteer.  You guys can take care of that on your own.  Mortarteers, rifle-eers, same.
 
Google is my friend:

Military term. The ability to conduct warfare. Personnel which are capable of this are referred to as warfighters. Taken together, the two terms serve as a particularly good contemporary example of the manner in which new words are coined to supplant older (see also: neologism), equivalent terms which have been forgotten, shifted in meaning, or acquired archaic connotations. In this case, the equivalent, older terms are warring and warrior. The former has fallen out of common use, and the latter is somewhat archaic. However this is a term coined by the United States Marines and most people still use the terms like conduct warfare or combat ready, and soldier (or in the case of the Royal Marines commando and marine).


Courtesy Wikipedia
 
Languages evolve over time, so just because it's not in the dictionary doesn't mean that it can't be used.

In my opinion, using an non-gender specific term reflects how society is changing, where one's gender is not as important as it used to be. Today's army is not the same as the army in the Cold War or before then.

Now that the infantry is open to women as well, why not have a term that includes them as well? ("Infantrywoman"? I've never heard that before.) Plus "infanteers" is easier than "infantrymen/women" when referring to groups with both sexes. Like saying "troops" instead of "guys".

I think it's time to move into the 21st century with respect to equality, even if it does mean changing the English language.


PS - my next goal is to get Hockey Canada to refer to "linesmen" as "line officials" or something like that.
 
JDB said:
PS - my next goal is to get Hockey Canada to refer to "linesmen" as "line officials" or something like that.
Click to expand...

Following the line of thought in this topic, they would be "Lineteers" (Lin-ee-teers).  Don't want to be sexist and call them "Linesteers" (Lin-ee-steers).
 
Starting to sound like DisneyWorld here.  ;D
 
I hate to burst any bubbles, but "infantryman" is not gender specific. Like the brouhaha over "Alderman" in Calgary, the term can be used to apply equally to females and males, so what is the big deal?

Female infantrymen wear the kilt just like their male counterparts, so why can't they wear the same title as the men?

"Common usage" is what we make of it as a society.  "Infanteer" has little history as a Canadian military term and I think the presence of women in the combat arms is pretty much taken for granted by now, so "infantryman" need not be seen as "sexist". Those that are offended by the word are trying too hard to take offence, though I've never heard any female actually object to the term - unlike the silly people at Calgary city hall who feel the need to make mountains out of molehills.

On the other hand "policewoman" seems to have some historical precedent unlike "infantrywoman", and I'd daresay the police terms policeman and policewoman are gender specific.
 
"Infanteer" has been around since before WWII.

Lexicographers have been entering "police" as "a member of a police force" for years, also (vs. policeman/policewoman). Ref: OED.

 
On the other hand "policewoman" seems to have some historical precedent
Click to expand...

That is intersting, why?  My Best friends wife is a copper...and we have had this debate for many years...Mike you can help me win many a debate brother!

dileas

tess
 
George Wallace said:
Following the line of thought in this topic, they would be "Lineteers" (Lin-ee-teers).  Don't want to be sexist and call them "Linesteers" (Lin-ee-steers).
Click to expand...

As a linesman, if anyone called me that, I would be tempted to smack them over the head with a hockey stick! Really....
 
the 48th regulator said:
That is intersting, why?  My Best friends wife is a copper...and we have had this debate for many years...Mike you can help me win many a debate brother!

dileas

tess
Click to expand...

Two words. Angie Dickinson. ;)
 
Callsign Kenny said:
"Infanteer" has been around since before WWII.
Click to expand...

And WWII is correctly called "Second World War" in Canada. ;)

Regardless of what has or hasn't "been around", the salient point is that the poll has two answers, neither of which are "correct" (or both are, depending on your point of view).  Infantryman correctly applies to both genders, so the second option is not "correct". And Infanteer may be correct in that it is a word (though no source has been provided proving its age), it doesn't seem to have been commonly used until recently.
 
I don't have access to any notes right now; though I'm not an etymologist nor am I a lexicographer, I am a linguist.  I think (subject to confirmation, ridicule, and  opinion) "police" was the original term with the -man suffix being added to differentiate the comman policeman from a police officer.  It's not unlikely Infantry underwent similar treatment with infanteer being the original term but having -eer replaced with -man (as infanteer officer may have been cumbersome or just contrary to word-formation rules and/or social norm).

I'd love historical input on this, too.  Somebody gotta have an old book or document or even a manual somewhere.

The Poll... well, that's because I couldn't work it properly.
 
To me, the "-man" suffix is gender specific. I'm not going to try to quote historical precedent or whatever, that's just the way I see it. And not just me, as I have known others, including females, who have objected to the term "infantryman."

And what kind of effect does the use of term "infantryman" have on recruiting? For a while, my unit had a sign on the street saying that it was recruiting "infantrymen." How many women who saw that sign instead decided not to join the CF or decided to join another unit? For a trade in which females are underrepresented, one might think it would take greater steps to attract more of them.

Edit:
condor888000 said:
As a linesman, if anyone called me that, I would be tempted to smack them over the head with a hockey stick! Really....
Click to expand...

So you're not going to be changing your display name to "Lineteer"?
 
JDB said:
How many women who saw that sign instead decided not to join the CF or decided to join another unit? For a trade in which females are underrepresented, one might think it would take greater steps to attract more of them.
Click to expand...

That's crap, frankly.  Women are not "under-represented".  We may not have enough "good soldiers" but I was not aware that there was a requirement to have "x" number of females in the infantry. What exactly is the quota, then?

I think any woman too stupid to realize that "infantryman" was a trade open to her was probably not cut out for the CF to begin with. Given the level of challenge in becoming an infantryman, why pander to the casually interested?
 
What percentage of infanteers are women, and how does this compare to other trades in the army?

Women make up 50% of the Canadian population, 15% of CF personnel, 6.7% of PRes combat arms personnel, and 1.9% of reg force combat arms personnel.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/women-cdnmilitary.html

No quota, just my opinion.

While air force, LGen Steve Lucas also noted that the CF "falls short when it comes to recruiting women..." (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/06/30/1662478-cp.html). I'm sure this applies to the infantry as well.
The auditor general also recognizes problems with the number of females being recruited. See http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/00nd_e.html, 2006 Status Report Chapter 2, pp 55-56.

While these do not specifically focus on the infantry, it shows a general problem of recruiting females. Their representation in the combat arms is well below the CF average. Anything to help deal with this should be welcomed.

Michael Dorosh said:
I think any woman too stupid to realize that "infantryman" was a trade open to her was probably not cut out for the CF to begin with. Given the level of challenge in becoming an infantryman, why pander to the casually interested?
Click to expand...

Maybe not too stupid to realize that infantry is open to females, but maybe turned off by the fact that it is so dominated by males that even the term for a soldier in the infantry reflects that fact. And what about first impressions? Just because someone doesn't know that females can join the infantry doesn't make them "stupid." Maybe they'll see a sign recruiting "infanteers" and then investigate it, and be less likely to if it said "infantrymen."
 
Kenny asked for my opinion (in chat), so here it is.

First of all, I don't believe the CF should feel like it "needs" to attract women for the sake of having women in the CF, let alone in the combat arms. Targetting women as well, however, does (kind of) double the potential recruiting pool.

Secondly, I think that anyone who is too worried about terms like this probably needs something better to do. I'm not going to get offended if I end up in an occupation where I get called Something-man. Words are just words. What's next, do we have to have Ordinary, Able, Leading, and Master Seapeople?

I tthink it was Navymich who put it very well on another thread when she said "you're a soldier first, tradesman second, woman last".
 
As per Kenny's request:

As a recruit joining the infantry, if someone were to ask me "what do you do in the army?" I would most likely respond with either "I'm in the infantry" or "I am an infanteer". I don't think I'd ever respond with "I'm an infantryman" (or infantrywoman had I been female). For these reasons:
- "Infanteer" is gender-neutral. This way you can refer to both male and female members of the infantry with one term.
- Infantryman/Infantrywoman is rather cumbersome to say.
- Why use two slightly-different words to refer to the same thing?

That's my two cents, anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top