Did you know that earlier this year, the Navy announced it was changing its centuries-old rating system for sailors, because gendered titles like “yeoman” were supposedly sexist? I couldn’t reach ISIS for comment, but I suspect they were giggling like schoolgirls at the priorities of America’s Armed Forces.

Luckily for us all, common sense and the fortitude of America’s sailors has trumped social justice. The Navy is scrapping the plan. This surely is another win for President-elect Trump a month before he takes the office. He just can’t stop winning!

In a country where the military is tasked with fighting climate change, it isn’t shocking to learn that political correctness was more important to the Navy than projecting America’s force across the world’s oceans in the defense of freedom. I was sure we’d soon hear about intensive 6AM microaggression training sessions for new recruits.

According to the PC mindset of the social justice warrior, which has now penetrated the Pentagon, women are shaking and crying at the thought of having a horrific rating of “legalman” or “airman.” Those of us who respect women believe that brave young lasses called to serve their country in the Navy are not such delicate flowers that they can’t handle the Navy’s version of a job title.

Listening to the Navy’s reasoning for this now-reversed decision, it is clear that the Pentagon cared less about blowing up bad guys than it did about destroying the mythical patriarchy. Admiral John Richardson described the question that was the genesis for the ratings change as “do [the ratings] capture that inclusivity with the respect to diversity.”

Your head may be hurting from that garbled syntax, but I will nonetheless add to your pain by pointing out similar actions have already taken place in the Marines.

Although the changes for the Marines are bad enough, the Navy changes would have stung more. One must consider that the Navy’s approach to ratings has been unchanged throughout the 241 year history of the service, and was adopted directly from the British Navy, the best on Earth (I’m biased, so what?).

The Navy’s proposed changes, driven by the politically correct idea of protecting poor defenseless women from the evils of men and patriarchy, would have had the lasting effect of destroying morale in the Navy, a dangerous proposition at a time when combat forces can be called into action practically anywhere in the world on a moment’s notice.

There are no doubt young boys who dream of becoming “airmen,” “yeomen” and until they develop adolescent humor, even “seamen.” “Airperson” and “yeoperson” just don’t have the same ring to them — and for an organization that relies heavily on an aesthetic sense of adventure to attract recruits, that’s important.

Political correctness never rears its ugly head independently. It always shows up as a series of actions designed, to this observer, to crush the souls of those blessed with common sense. The Navy is no exception.

Just consider a few of the examples I included on my recent (and stunning) treatise on women in combat.

There’s no limit to the number of human beings the Left will sacrifice on the altar of ideology. One of the first women to fly a fighter jet off an aircraft carrier was Kara Hultgreen, who died in a horrific crash. Hultgreen made multiple mistakes in training that should have washed her out, before she was sent to a carrier to kill herself. A man would have been sent home, and would have lived, but Hultgreen had a “right” to die for the sisterhood. She’d likely have been fine flying a cargo jet. But she got a body bag instead of a military pension. There’s no joke here because it’s not funny. In the service of ideology, a woman is now dead who ought not to be dead. If it weren’t for callous feminists and cowardly politicians, she could still be alive now, serving her country in a myriad of other roles — many of them in the military — better suited to her. Her death was preventable.

I also noted that the Navy has developed official guidelines for maternity uniforms. I wonder what the opportunity cost of maternity uniforms was. What could the Navy have done to improve the lives of sailors, and improve their chances of surviving combat, if they had not taken on the task of properly outfitting pregnant personnel?

You may find it surprising that I speak out on political correctness in the military, but I’ve got a lot of active duty and veteran fans, and they consistently tell me that no one is speaking up for them. It may be a little strange for a gay foreigner to be the champion of the American serviceman, but I am reporting for duty to fulfill the mission of getting men a fair shake in the military at the same time that I continue to speak for men in America’s universities.

Some of you may think I am overstating my importance. Why would anyone as handsome, intelligent, and witty as me need to do that? Regardless of whether or not you believe me, you should believe your own eyes. Just watch this touching gift from an active duty serviceman at my recent lecture at the University of Houston.



Now you may ask yourself, “What can Milo do to help sailors?” It is true, I will never be more than an honorary Rear Admiral at a gay Tailhook convention. But what I can do is be smarter than the PC police (not a huge effort) and list out the changes they’d likely consider in the future.

The idea is simple — if I propose an idea, the Pentagon PC patrol would sooner fall on their swords (figuratively, holding a sword would trigger them) than propose it themselves.

These ideas may seem crazy, but don’t think they haven’t crossed the minds (or dreams) of at least the most progressive Washington type. We can hope President-elect Trump continues to stop these negative changes to the military and restores honor and morale, but Trump has a long list of challenges ahead, they won’t all be fixed right away.

No more dropping anchor — Navy ships have heavy weights called anchors, and dropping that weight overboard is seen as a happy thing, like coming home or stopping in an exotic port of call. This is terrible for body positivity! Navy ships will henceforth never drop anchor because a vessel can be healthy at any weight.

Aircraft carrier choice — Navy culture has always relegated the aircraft carrier into a domestic role of caring for and housing Navy airplanes. We will destroy patriarchal gender roles in ships by granting aircraft carriers the right to decide if they will carry aircraft or not.

Rename battleships — No battleships are currently in service, but they once were the largest ships in the fleet besides aircraft carriers. Like large feminists, they are stigmatized and labeled based on their weight. Therefore future battleships will now be called warships of size, and if they want to dress and act like a cruiser, more power to them!

No more cruise missiles and torpedoes — Two of the primary weapons in the Navy arsenal, the torpedo and the cruise missile, aren’t what you think. The old Navy thinks of these as efficient weapons systems designed to destroy the enemy’s ability to wage war. The new Navy thinks of them as horrific phallic symbols, essentially self-propelled rape machines. We should immediately strip both types of weapons from Navy vessels until suitable replacements can be designed. I’m sure the Pentagon can jump on that after the F-35 fighter is finished.

Submarines to stay surfaced — Who wants to ‘run silent, run deep’? How can you let your freak flag fly when you are far beneath the icy depths to avoid enemy detection? We must demand that subs remain surfaced so they can have pride and a visible identity as Navy vessels. We can count on opposing militaries to respect their identity expression as a surface ship and not attack them.

New aircraft names — Nothing screams patriarchy in the Navy like the names of our current aircraft. I’m trembling as I list some — Hawkeye? Growler? The worst of all is the Hornet. What exactly do you think that stinger represents? All of these planes need to be renamed for the sake of diversity. Perhaps the F/A-18 Pumpkin Spice Latte.

No Marines allowed — The Marines and the Navy have always been closely connected. Every Navy vessel has some Marines on it, and the Marines count on the Navy for everything from transportation to medics in battle. This relationship is, in a word, problematic. Even the most feminine Marine is full of ‘gung ho’ and ‘semper fidelis’ and might trigger sensitive Navy souls. The Navy cannot be truly diverse until it is completely segregated from the toxic masculinity of the Marines and becomes the safe space of the Armed Forces.

No more than two weeks at sea — Navy ships often set sail for months on end. This isn’t inclusive of our at-risk sailor population, which may suddenly identify as landlubbers at any moment. By limiting deployments to not more than two weeks, we can make sure to return those triggered by waves to terra firma as soon as possible. Remember, the Navy has a responsibility to accommodate sailors that are afraid of the water and are scared of being on ships. You know, for diversity and so on.

Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Facebook. Hear him every Friday on The Milo Yiannopoulos Show. Write to Milo at milo@breitbart.com.