"I mentioned pencilhead and there are apparently many worse terms."
There are - I've never heard my husband use anything other than civvy (sometimes accomapnied by a few choice adjectives, depending on the the situation). Mind you, I don't know what terms he uses when he's bantering with other soldiers and officers.
The Forces have a peculiar type of balck humour that doesn't always translate well when relayed to civvies - there is a very distinct military culture that is part historical, part personal and bred into those that join during training. I've seen my parents frown in misunderstanding when my husband tells a story he thinks is funny but which (clearly) doesn't strike a similar chord in his listeners.
There is also a culture, especially in the Army, of nicknames and slang being used for everyday things. Some of that language may not be complimentary but it always (IMO) used with a affection or a certain type of bemused respect.
I don't know that I'm explaining myself well here.
I think the term "cannon fodder" is not, in itself, offensive. As pointydoug says, it applies perhaps more to the governement's attitude towards the average squaddy rather than the public's attitude. However, I think where it makes me uncomfortable is not that the government doesn't particuloarly care about the Forces - frankly, I don't think they do, for all sorts of reasons.
It makes me uncomfortable in the context of this debate - that people here think that the Forces (not the government) regard their recruits as "cannon fodder"; that they don't give full disclosure during the recruitment process; that they somehow disguise the nature of the job in their hurry to boost numbers.
That article I posted makes it pretty clear that those going through training are fully aware of the job they will be called upon to do and that they are happy with that. We've said several time that the Forces invest in their personnel and the idea that ordinary people think the Forces are an uncaring employer goes directly against our personal experience.
So, in summary, I think that the problem is twofold and perfectly understandable.
1 - People are deeply uncomfortable with the job that the Forces do - even when they recognise the very real neccessity of that job - and they can't understand why any sane person would join up. Therefore, they're honestly and sincerely concerned at the thought of their children joining up - and that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold.
2 - As adults and parents who are very aware fo the Forces in the news (Afghanistan, Iraq, deaths and woundings) they assume that anyone who joined up must have been, somehow, duped into by a glamourous recruitment process and, therefore, are worried by the presence of the Forces in schools.
So, it can be hard for those with little connection to the military to understand that there are people who actively seek out a career in the Forces and who enjoy that career and all it offers - including the chance to prove themselves on the field of battle. Certainly my husband is one of those people.
Honestly, I can see the views of parents on this thread and I can understand why they would worry about their child - I worry about my husband every day he's out there and I'll continue to worry about him until he comes home. I can also see how a lack of experience of the military would feed the legitmate concerns of parents and magnify their worries.
My sole purpsoe in this thread has not been to antagonise or to upset anyone but simply to try and explain the nature of military life as I understand it - as a wife and mother - and to try and make it clear that there is more to the Forces than the popular stereotype.