As a woman, I am very proud of Senator Boxer

[marylanddem]

for calling that military guy on his "ma'am" bullshit. It has always made me cringe when hostile witnesses do that to women legislators & it's about time they got called on it.

[aikoaiko]

1. context please

I generally don't see anything wrong with people using sir and ma'am. Of course they can be used condescendingly, but so can Senator.

[Hekate]

9. Did you watch Professor Anita Hill testify to the Senate Committee about Clarence Thomas?

Arlen Specter and all the rest of those men called her "Miss Hill" like they were being extra-polite to their secretary or cleaning lady. Extra-polite.

"Miss Hill" this and "Miss Hill" that while behind her back they were accusing her of being a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.

Of course they gave future SCOTUS Justice Thomas every honorific to which he was then entitled.

I ended up screaming at the teevee: "That's Professor Hill to you!" and "Dr. Hill, dammit!"

Senator Barbara Boxer is a Senator, just like the men.

Hekate

[CTyankee]

14. Excellent point! I"m glad there are those here who have this thing figured out for what it is.

A whole bunch of stinking sexism, cloaked as pious regard for protocol, i.e. the frail, widdle male ego...

[bobbolink]

90. Sexism has alwasy been a staple here on DU. We're told to "deal with it"

:(

[CTyankee]

91. It's kind of everywhere, but surprising here at DU. I truly don't think some people here

recognize it as such. They are so used to it...

[bobbolink]

92. Yes, "progressives" are "used to it". How fucked up is that?

[omega minimo]

97. "How fucked up is that?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5854878

[EFerrari]

147. Bingo. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

213. Silliness.

So when my wife is referred to as Mrs. and not Dr. it is always sexism?

[Hekate]

300. If she's called before a public hearing it certainly is. As for Anita Hill, a lot was conveyed...

... by tone of voice and body language.

She was a black woman testifying to a bunch of arrogant white men who really did not want to hear what she had to say. She comported herself with dignity, while they treated her like -- oh, I don't know, the way the boss might talk to the department secretary if she was telling him things he didn't want to hear about a professional colleague. Condescending. Disbelieving. Irritated. "Who does she think she is, saying these things about a man we 'know' to be an upright character? She's not a professional like us, she can't be all that bright if she didn't put in the time/education to become a professional, she has no status here. Do I have to listen to this crap? Yes, I guess I do have to make a show of listening or there will be hell to pay later on. But jeez, who does she think she is? What a waste of time."

By the time Professor Hill came along and allowed herself to be humiliated on national television I had certainly put in enough years of office work to recognize condescension and intimidation when I heard it.

It was beyond outrageous to see her treated like that. Millions of other women had a similar reaction (see below).

As for women using their professional titles in public, Miss Manners (Judith Martin) is as good a guide as any. Your wife is Mrs to you and your mutual friends, because Mrs means "the wife of" in our common usage. On the job or in similar public capacities she should be introduced by her title, especially if she is an MD. In America we don't go for the PhD title the way the Germans do -- Herr Professor this and that. We tend to be informal and use people's first names readily after the initial introduction.

I earned my own PhD several years ago, but don't use the title much because I chose not to pursue a university career. However, when I take my seat on the Civil Service Commission next month, that information will be part of my intro to the group of male professionals who will become my colleagues. After that I'm sure we'll conduct business on a first-name basis.

Anita Hill was decidedly not among friends. They were dismissive and intimidating; the only thing worse would have been to strip her of all titles and call her Anita.

Hekate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/H/htmlH/hill-thomash/hill-thomas.htm
The visual imagery and political symbolism of the hearings may have been their most important legacy. In this regard the hearings take their place alongside other memorable television events, including The Army-McCarthy Hearings and the Watergate Proceedings. These events exemplify television's ability to galvanize a national audience around matters of crucial social significance and often they stand as historical markers of significant social and cultural shifts.

Indeed, many feminist groups refer to Anita Hill as the mother of a new wave of awareness of gender discrimination, particularly given the attacks on her credibility that she withstood from the white male senators. Such observers feel that the sight and sounds of a composed, articulate law professor being questioned about her mental state, (some senators and Thomas supporters had theorized that Hill was "delusional") were unconscionable to female viewers who themselves had experienced sexual harassment. Harriett Woods, then president of the National Women's Political Caucus, commented that "Anita Hill focused attention on the fact that there were no women in that Senate panel making decisions about people's lives."

As is true for so many cultural memories in the United States, the televised Hill-Thomas hearings etched some clear and unforgettable images into the minds of the American public. To those observers who did not believe Hill's claims, the hearings represented the gravity of such allegations in a society where gender politics can be divisive. To Hill's sympathizers, the memory of a lone women reluctantly speaking out about past painful experiences to a room full of bewildered and unsympathetic men may have been one reason why an unprecedented 29 women were elected in the subsequent congressional elections.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

336. I thought you said they talked respectfully during the hearing.

Then talked about her behind her back.

David

[Hekate]

362. Ah, no. That was what caused the outrage that I and millions of other women felt.

To her face they actually suggested she was delusional. They also talked behind her back.

Hekate

[xxqqqzme]

473. OMG yes, I remember those hearings

like it happened last week. I was furious at how condescending they were to her. Biden was the one that pissed me off the most though. None of those men on the committee got it. Not one.

[merh]

31. Here you go, a video of her simple and rather appropriate request

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHFPsiPYDA8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.tv%2Fhtml%2F362923.html&feature=player_embedded

[aikoaiko]

72. I agree, simple and appropriate, but I don't think the gen was being condescending either.

I don't think sir and ma'am are outside of protocol, but Senator is clearly appropriate.

[merh]

74. She didn't say he was - she asked him to refer to her as Senator

that she had worked hard for the title - that was her right.

He complied.

No big deal.

[aikoaiko]

76. Well, the OP sees this as some sort of victory for women

but because the General wasn't being condescending in the first place, I'm not so sure this was a gender victory.

Like you said, no big deal.

[omega minimo]

101. She handled it perfectly. Noone was condescended to. There was no victory, it's called COMMUNICATION

It's what happens when you have intelligent and gracious people and women in positions of power.

She needed to correct him, handled it perfectly and THAT is why it's notable. She didn't showboat or humiliate the general, as some people would have.

There doesn't have to be a fight or a war or a pissing contest or a victory or a peek over at the next urinal to COMMUNICATE.

[aikoaiko]

103. I agree.

:applause:

[omega minimo]

104. Cool.

:thumbsup:

[yodoobo]

193. strictly speaking "Senator" is not a title at all

Its a job

Article 1 of the Constitution:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state"

[Tangerine LaBamba]

232. Uh...

What?

You think "Senator" is a "title of nobility"?

Bet you think "President" is, too, huh?

Fail. Great big fail ..........................

[yodoobo]

271. They are both jobs

And I see that you agree, that it isn't a title.

but thank you for the straw,

[Obamanaut]

441. Odd. Bush was made fun of because he insisted on being called

Mr. President.

Calling a woman senator "ma'am" is equivalent to calling a male senator "sir." I think insisting on the title was a power play "I'm in charge here and you're not" sorta thing.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

135. That's military parlance, no?

I don't think the general was being insensitive or sexist, but if he was referring to the males as "Senator," then Boxer had to say what she said.

And she did it very gently. It was an excellent moment.

Of course, that fucking bag of organs, John McPOW had to denigrate her later.

Why isn't he dead yet? I thought he was dead during the campaign, and, after all, we do have him to thank for The Shrew Palin..............

[JDPriestly]

157. It's sexist. Male senators are simply referred to as "senator."

Had he addressed the male senators as "sir," she probably would not have said anything. He was calling her Ma'am because he was thinking about her gender. He thereby drew attention to her gender. It showed his bias, his gender consciousness. He did not view her as a senator first and a woman second. She was right.

I am a little older than Boxer but in her general generation. We struggled for equality in ways that younger men and women cannot imagine. The struggle for racial equality was more dramatic, but the struggle for gender equality was incredibly lonely and painful. Every young woman who had a chance to get an equal education, to enter any career other than nursing, teaching or clerical (the only choices generally available for women when I was growing up) and enjoys the personal rewards, income and the prestige of her career should stop every day to thank the heroic women who sacrificed for the freedom and equality that women now enjoy.

And I thank Senator Boxer for standing up for women. The word ma'am should go be Gone with the Wind like Scarlet O'Hara and slavery. Ma'am is actually a southern expression that I had to use in school when I lived in the south. It is demeaning. Thank you Senator Boxer.

[marshall]

168. Isn't it military protocol to refer to female officers as "Sir"?

I would have loved to hear her lecture had he called her that.

[hack89]

222. No - women officers are addresses as "Ma'am"

What he called her was in keeping with military protocol.

[JDPriestly]

331. That's the problem. She is not in the military. She is in the Senate.

It is not appropriate to call senators, "Ma'am." The poor man may have been nervous, but he may have just been condescending.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

337. So he might have nervously called an African American "boy" and that would be okay?

That was your assertion earlier that the two were equally offensive.

David

[JDPriestly]

343. No, it's no more OK than calling a senator, "Ma'am." And if it happened,

I am pretty sure the person using that term would be admonished for the language. I would expect someone to say something. The strange thing here is that so many people on DU think I'm wrong on this. I lived in the South. I know that these terms are related in their social function -- which is to separate out and subjugate groups of people. Calling a woman "Ma'am" is like saying that a woman is one of the "weaker sex." I used to hear that expression all the time. It is viewed as rather offensive any more. You just don't hear it. "Ma'am" reflects the same condescension pretending to be protective but actually putting women down.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

349. I hear it about 60 times a day, I probably use it at least 20 times a day.

When I conduct any business with a woman who is married and I don't know their name I call them Ma'am. If they aren't married I refer to them as Miss. It is a term of respect. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was offensive.

David

[omega minimo]

390. Perhaps if you were female, with experience, you would know that it can also be used

condescendingly or that some women prefer not to be called that and are annoyed when someone ignores that request.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

416. Any title can be used condescendingly, all you have to do is roll your eyes.

I've never had anyone asked me not to call them Ma'am. Sometimes it is difficult to change what you call someone in midstream. Did the General refuse her request? I have known a transgender individual for years and if I'm not careful it is still my tendency to call them by their former name.

David

[polmaven]

419. I have many times

asked men to not call me Ma'am...I cringe every time I hear it. And PARTICULARLY if they DO know my name, and STILL call me Ma'am. It is condescending, and, to my ears, is ageist as well as sexist.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

422. Wikipedia has a different take.

Madam, Madame, ma'am, or Mme is a title for a woman. It is derived from the French madame (see different meanings of madame here), the equivalent of Mrs. or Ms., and literally signifying "my lady." The plural of madam in this sense is mesdames. The French madame is in turn derived from the Latin mea domina meaning 'my mistress' of the home (domus).<1> "Madam" may also refer to a woman who runs a brothel<2><3>.
Contents

Madam is used in direct address, without the woman's name, for example when addressed by a stranger: May I help you, madam? In the United States and in Canada, "Ma'am" is usually used. The male equivalent is sir. Spelling of the word is often quarreled; some argue it is spelled "M'am" while it is widely accepted the correct form is "Ma'am". When addressing a letter to the holder of a particular position (for example, the editor of the Letters to the Editor column in a newspaper) without knowing the name of the addressee and if it is a man or a woman, it is common to address the letter with "Dear Sir or Madam".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madam

As I have said Ma'am is widely accepted and what I use to refer to a married woman who's name I don't know regardless of age. No sexism or ageism is considered or intended, if asked to call someone something other than that which is widely accepted, I will do my best to comply with their wishes.

David

[omega minimo]

432. FWIW. That would have been a perfect opportunity

to indicate that you were listening to the poster and respond directly to her experience and POV.

Coming back with a widipedia entry as authoritative -- rather than, say, the experience of women who actually experience this -- to support YOUR use and as an afterthought add that you will "do my best to comply with their wishes......"

Do your best to comply? Is that supposed to sound passive/aggressive or just aggressive?

Maybe wiki has an answer to why the "typical" male point of view is that it's all about them, individually, everything is in reference to them.

That male center-of-the-universe has been historically true, up until very recently in this country, of women's social status, including titles. That history of servitude and ownership is also reflected in the language.

Attitudes that are holdovers from earlier eras are also embedded and transmitted by the language.

Including the use of ma'am, which it may continue to surprise you, no matter how many solid sources like wikipedia you depend on, is not as welcomed by many women as you may assume.

In case that is of any interest to you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

434. Yes, do my best to comply. Isn't that better than ignoring the request.

What about that comment sounds passive/aggressive or aggressive? Maybe this will enlighten you on my point of view, in case that is of any interest to you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5880701&mesg_id=5894152

[omega minimo]

436. Every little bit helps

:thumbsup:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

435. I'll ask you again did the General refuse the Senator's request?

[polmaven]

440. Oh, well!!!!

If Wikipedia says so, then I guess that is the last word!!!! The feelings and experiences of many women fenimists of my generation mean NOTHING compared to Wiki!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

442. I'm not going to stop using the counterpart of sir because a few people find it offensive.

[omega minimo]

445. You are simply more aware that they may not appreciate you calling them that and may not tell you

Look what happened when a U.S. Senator did it. There's hell to pay.

[omega minimo]

444. Wiki trumps women in the pecking order -- not quite as high an authority as God...

:wow:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

447. That's a strange belief you have there.

[omega minimo]

448. That's what YOU said!

:wow: :think:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

449. And you have a quote of me saying that right? I thought not. No need to apologize, it's okay.

[omega minimo]

452. It's okay

:hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

454. Cya.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

450. I'll ask you again did the General refuse the Senator's request?

[omega minimo]

430. If that was your attempt to look at it from a female point of view, thank you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

431. You're welcome, ma'am.

Just kidding. I'm receptive to the idea that certain people don't like being called ma'am and will try and honor request not to use it. I could see it more in middle aged women who think its is indicative of some imaginary line of looking old. I answered every female teacher I had in school with yes or no, ma'am. Hard for me to imagine it as an insult and not a contraction of Madam, but I will consider that thought from here on out.

David

[Abq_Sarah]

364. Oh, please.

I'm a 46 year old woman who has no problem being addressed as Ma'am. It's not condescending any more than when I address a man as "Sir".

Frankly, I'm sick and damned tired of our "Imperial Congress". They work for US. They are not royalty and they do not deserve any special respect for having raised a ton of money and convinced people to vote them into a cushy job with the best benefits our tax dollars can buy. I get peeved particularly when they call citizens in for hearings, sit above them in leather chairs and proceed to hector them. This is bullshit.

[omega minimo]

391. "Ma'am" reflects the same condescension pretending to be protective but actually putting women down"

That seems to be a good way to state the point you have tried to make.

The difference with "boy" in terms of "these terms are related in their social function -- which is to separate out and subjugate groups of people," is that women were chattel with that history and African Americans were slaves, with a different history, different resonance of "boy." The terms reflect differences in social standing between the two.

[JDPriestly]

414. But, both were terms that separated. Gender discrimination has a

different form than racial discrimination. And age discrimination can be clad in a still more protective mantel than even gender discrimination. Racial discrimination doesn't bother with the phony protective bit. That is why racial discrimination is so easily discerned while gender and age discrimination can seem almost "kind," chivalrous even at first sight. Then you realize that what appeared to be deference actually deprives the person being discriminated against of respect.

[Name removed]

478. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xenotime]

389. He was insulting to her and she put him in his place.

Good for her I say. The military needs to remember who holds the purse strings.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

177. Thank you very much ..........

You said it so much better than I ever could.

I'm of that same generation, and, yes, the discrimination is something younger people might read about, but will never understand.

Your first paragraph is so dead-on brilliant, I am in awe.

Thank you, and didn't we do a pretty good job of it?

Here's to us..................

:toast:

[JDPriestly]

335. We did do a good job of it. I have two daughters who prove it.

(No sons or I would brag about them just as much.) I'm for equality.

[omega minimo]

185. +1 Excellent post

[Pool Hall Ace]

277. "fucking bag of organs"

:spray:

I love it! I've never heard that one.

As far as the topic goes, I think it's hard to determine whether or not the General was being condescending. However, I saw Senator Boxer's request as very simple and matter-of-fact. I don't know why some people see it as bitchy. :shrug:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

282. That's why I get the big bucks........

I have an unfair advantage, Ace - I'm a writer.

But, no, there was nothing "condescending" or "bitchy." People are making that up to support their own discomfort with a woman in a position of power asserting herself in ways that make them uncomfortable or frightened.

It's really primal, the blowback here over something that didn't even happen.

Sexism is alive and well, even at DU..........

[Pool Hall Ace]

309. Was the General upset about the Senator's request?

I think of myself as a somewhat sensitive person (although I'm getting tougher as I age), but if it had been me testifying and I was asked to refer to her as Senator, I would have honored her request without giving it a second thought. I wouldn't even have recalled the incident later.

If the General is expressing as much poutrage as some of the posters, then maybe he does not belong in the armed forces.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

310. Naw, he just assented, and went on .....

If a simple and courteous request such as Senator Boxer's had thrown a military officer off his game, I daresay he wouldn't have been much of an officer.

It was nothing.

This trainwreck - and I've contributed to it, to my regret - isn't about Senator Boxer's request. Not at all...............................

[Greyhound]

160. Dead link. n/t

[question everything]

195. "Video no longer available"

Wish I saw it.

Still, yes, she should be addressed "Senator" but there is nothing wrong with ma'am. Our own dear Magistrate once (or perhaps more than once) got into heated debate here because he would address every single DUer as either Sir or Ma'am. This shows a sine of respect. Certainly better than names others use.

[omega minimo]

267. It is disrespect when the recipient

requests that he discontinue and he doesn't. He knows that it rankles some. Has refused to honor those requests.

Good example of how the behavior can be obsequious and tiresome. Perhaps that's how the Senator felt.

[cap]

479. except that her title is Senator and all Senators both male and female are addressed as such

sir or ma'am is not used. Just Senator. The military does use the word ma'am as the female counterpart of sir to address superiors respectfully.

[cap]

482. you know... at the end of the day, a Senator outranks a General

eom

[Obamanaut]

502. So it was a power play to put the upstart in his place. nt

[grandpappy]

2. Me too!!

I applaud her also. I wonder if he would have liked it if she called him Mr. He earn his rank and she earned her title of Senator. Give the respect where it is do.

[CTyankee]

3. Uppity women. It's even going on here on this board.

They're so hung up with this "Ma'am" is equal to "Sir" or "Senator" nonsense that they don't see how foolish they look...or how transparent. Oh, they'll protest loudly that they are just reciting protocol, but it's really the same old tune: women shouldn't be uppity to men, no matter how far they've gone to reach high office.

[MADem]

6. That's because "they" are correct, and you are wrong. NT

[Ilsa]

51. Ever watch the courtroom scene from A Few Good Men? The judge

also told the Colonel that he was sure he had earned his title, too.

The use of "ma'am" and "Miss Hill" instead of their best professional titles is a put-down. It is a way to diminish the accomplishments of those people so others won't take them seriously.

If I am talking to my son's doctor about his health, I call him Dr. X. If I see that same person out in public and we are speaking to one another as friends, I use his first name, and he does the same. If I introduce him to another person, I use the term "Dr." It is appropriate manners and protocol. It shows respect.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

136. Some men don't get it,

because it's perceived as a kind of honorific, singling out the "gentler sex" for the gentler appellation.

"Senator" has such a masculine ring to it, but "Ma'am" is a gentle little word that's soft and comfy and smacks of deep bows and coats thrown over puddles.

I honestly don't think some men understand how offensive that is to women....................

[omega minimo]

186. Good points. They may also not understand how intimidated they are to do it!!

Their discomfort with using the correct honorific, ("Senator" has such a masculine ring to it) leads to the mistaken impression on this board that she was rude or out of line. It's a projection.

She said it perfectly. I credit her for not only saying it but she DID do so kindly!! With respect. And he got the point. He didn't seem offended and had no reason to be.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he did not misappropriate her title intentionally or call her Ma'am and the men "Senator." That doesn't seem to be clear in the video or the thread.

[MADem]

4. You shouldn't be. She made an ass of herself.

Female generals have no problem with "Ma'am." Neither do female second lieutenants. It's the standard term for respect, from a SUBORDINATE to a SENIOR, without having to repeat the rank of the officer or civilian dignitary incessantly. It is the exact opposite of "sir."

When MSNBC says she was dead wrong, she was dead wrong.

I like Boxer, but she was a total jerk in that exchange, and she made Democrats look bad.

I imagine "Madame Secretary" Clinton or "Madame Speaker" Pelosi would see it the same way.

Sometimes, that card gets played too hard--and this is one of those times.

[xultar]

8. Was he calling the males Sir or Senator?

[MADem]

21. I don't know.

I would think, though, if Boxer had a problem with his form of address on THAT level, she's say, "If you can manage to call (fill in name of male senator) Senator, then you can do it for me, too." Not "I" worked hard for this....hell, we all work hard.

I also think that would have been the first line of defense for her remarks, but I haven't heard a soul say that the males got "Senator" treatment and she didn't.

She called Condi "Madam Secretary" without any problem. By her standards, she should have addressed Condi only as "The Honorable Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State."

If Boxer was pissed at what that guy was saying in his testimony, she should have engaged him on the merits of his testimony, not played that game.

[merh]

33. There was no "pissed" to it.

She simply asked that he address her as a senator. Please try to keep things in their proper context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHFPsiPYDA8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.tv%2Fhtml%2F362923.html&feature=player_embedded

[MADem]

41. I heard what I heard--she was putting the guy down, putting him in his place,

talking to him like a naughty primary schooler. She wasn't "simply asking"--she was slamming. You'd have to be relying on subtitles not to perceive that.

She did not acquit herself well in that exchange. And my context is just fine, thanks anyway.

[merh]

45. LOL - that military man should have known better

And she didn't slam him - how funny it is that you depict her response as you do. Guess you don't like uppity women who speak up, they are so "school marmish".

:eyes:

Just curious though, is there some military regulation about addressing others, you know the thing about respecting rank and office?

[MADem]

49. This isn't an "uppity woman" thing, so stop shopping that tired meme.

She was unhappy with what he was saying, and she wanted to discombobulate him, and she used that "Call me Senator" schtick to do it.

I quoted the TRADOC manual downthread. The guy's use of "ma'am" was entirely appropriate. If Boxer has a longstanding problem with it, her staff should do the right thing and call or advise anyone testifying before a committee she serves on and tell them that she doesn't like the "ma'am" form, and to either call her Senator or nothing at all.

Otherwise, she's just expecting this guy to magically understand that she wants to be treated to be treated differently from, say, Senator Landrieu, who serves on that same committee and did not have a problem with the guy calling her "ma'am."

[merh]

53. And it was within her right to ask him to address her as Senator

and she wasn't behaving as you describe.

I sure would hate for you to have to make such an appearance, you have such easy buttons to push.

[MADem]

59. Hey, who do I believe--you or my own lying eyes?

She was slamming the guy. She was power-playing him. And she "won"--short term. Long term, maybe not so much.

I don't understand your last sentence. Appearance, where? On the Hill? You don't know me, and I'm not the one with the "buttons" here--I'm simply expressing my firm opinion, which is shared by most people who saw the testimony.

[merh]

61. If you think she "won" then you were not paying attention

She asked, as was her right, he respected her request and continued. There was no "win" - there was no power play.

So given your interpretation of the brief exchange I'd say my conclusion about your buttons is right on the money.

[MADem]

67. See for yourself. She jumped in and STEPPED on his answer, to make her point.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Choose&Hearing_id=c7026be1-802a-23ad-4fa3-4c8ed0b6d074.

About an hour in, he calls Vitter sir about four or five times--he also calls Landrieu "Sir/Ma'am."

And then, in concluding the guy's testimony, Boxer ADMITS that she is ticked off at the ACOE--but not him, personally--because of stuff that happened before Walsh was ever a damn brigadier, never mind responsible for the Katrina mess.

He probably would have been better off giving her the full bore "Madame Chairwoman" for all the good it did him.

[merh]

69. Was she the Chair of the committee?

Does not that little handout/booklet the military created to give to people that are to appear before congress warn that they should refer to the chair as "chair" during the proceedings?

And it didn't rattle him at all, he respected her request and continued. It would have rattled you though, your posts prove that.

[MADem]

71. She was "Madame Chairwoman." That said, "Sir or Ma'am" are supposed to be ALWAYS OK.

He very well could have also called her Senator or Madame Chairwoman.

It did rattle him--he called Senator Landrieu "Sir-Ma'am" later in the testimony. And later, Madame Chairwoman as much as admitted that her annoyance wasn't with Walsh, it was with the ACOE.

I don't understand why, when you want to argue a point, that you feel a childish--and it is childish--need to talk about ME, and how I "might" feel (in your little imagination)?

You may not realize it, but when you get personal, and start talking about others in a way that suggests that you "know" them (when you do not) it diminishes your arguments and makes you look petty, small, and incapable of adult discussion. See, 'merh'--you don't know me. Don't pretend that you do. If you can't stick to the subject matter, and not get personal and immature (which one could say is evidenced that you are "rattled" by my arguments) then just don't bother.

I've seen the testimony, all of it. "Senator" Boxer, who is a senator I like 99 percent of the time, stepped in it big time with this guy. And it doesn't "rattle" me at all to say that.

[omega minimo]

108. She had the right make the request, handled it graciously, nuff said.

[MADem]

131. No, not "nuff" said. She did have the right to make the request, yes.

And people--and many have--have the right to say she was a complete and total boorish asshole to the guy. Which she was.

[omega minimo]

344. "have the right to say she was a complete and total boorish asshole to the guy. Which she was."

"And people--and many have--have the right to say she was a complete and total boorish asshole to the guy. Which she was."


VILE :puke:

[MADem]

380. Yes, it most certainly was vile, her attitude. And unnecessary, too. NT

[omega minimo]

107. She interjected when he paused. That's what happens in politics.

[MADem]

133. No she did not. She stepped on his answer and he, courteously, stopped speaking.

Don't make shit up. It doesn't help your credibility.

[omega minimo]

187. You asked why someone was making this discussion personal. That's exactly what you are doing.

You just did it to me. You did it from the start with your accusations and personal affront at what happened, your crack about "you'd have to have subtitles," your claim "most" people agree with your POV (would that be "most" insecure men and Right Wingers?)

You have made yourself at the very center of this somehow. Instead of simply accepting what happened, the gracious way it was handled and the acceptance by the general. If he was "upset" as you say, he apparently needed that reality check about women in postilions of power in the 21sst Century. He'll recover. And he will know better next time. Unless he -- like some people do -- chose to intentionally call her ma'am, knowing that it was unwelcome and incorrect.

You are projecting all the emotion onto the scene. She spoke clearly, calmly and directly. That's how Senators and women speak. Not in in a Paris Hilton gurgle.

Consider this: If she had spoken any differently or more "feminine" or "cute" as the detractors probably would have liked, THAT wold have been condescending to him. And that's not who she is. Ever think about how all the other VIPs at Congress talk to people testifying before them?

She was very gracious. Anyone who is upset needs to grasp the same reality check as the general did, also graciously

[MADem]

297. It's not about me. It's about Boxer asking the guy a question, and

interrupting him to lecture him after he starts talking. She couldn't even wait to let him finish his answer. She should have advised his aide as to her preferred form of address beforehand, too. But that's a separate issue.

You keep trying to make this about me--it's not about me. It's about Boxer and Walsh.

How "condescending" of you to keep excoriating me because you can't make your points about the issue here.

You don't know how she was--gracious or otherwise. You have only seen a clip, you haven't seen the full hearing

[omega minimo]

345. She was very gracious. Anyone who is upset needs to grasp the same reality check as the general did,

She was very gracious. Anyone who is upset needs to grasp the same reality check as the general did, also graciously

[MADem]

379. No, she was not. And your obsessive repitition isn't going to change that. NT

[omega minimo]

388. Your obsessive repetition and ill logic don't make it so. You're wrong.

[MADem]

394. Oh boy, now the "copycatting!" Such fun....nt

[JDPriestly]

161. His use of "Ma'am" was a device to put her in her place. She was right

to call him on it. As a woman who grew up before women's lib, I know whereof I speak. "Ma'am" should go the way of "boy" in so far as its use in addressing people. The officer would not have called an African-American senator "boy," not in his wildest dreams. But "Ma'am" is the female equivalent of "boy." It is a pejorative, limiting form of addressing a woman. It is no longer acceptable because of its cultural and historical implications.

[MADem]

163. You obviously did not watch the testimony, otherwise you wouldn't shop that Big Lie.

The man was ENTIRELY respectful to Boxer, Landrieu, and Vitter, who got SIR'd to death.

So cut the crap. Stop slandering this man. He did nothing wrong.

You don't "know of what you speak" until you sit yourself down and watch the full hour and a half of testimony.

And while you're at it, thumb through the TRADOC guidance on testifying before Congress. You "know" nothing on this subject. You simply have incomplete opinions that are inaccurate in the extreme.

And Ma'am, to anyone with a BRAIN and who has served in the military, is NOT the equivalent of "boy." Don't even pull that shit.

[omega minimo]

189. You are exhibiting the macho tendency to totally disregard and disrespect another POV

that was expressed clearly and fairly. Including background on why it is so. That behavior and assumption it's okay to do to other people, is exactly why Senator Boxer is appropriately correcting those not giving her due respect.


If you are this emotionally hopped up and abusive on a permanent basis, you are certainly going to project that on what Senator Boxer said.

Would you mind providing a link to the full testimony?

Thanks

[MADem]

276. >>>>>>>

:rofl:

One more time: You OBVIOUSLY did not watch the testimony.

There's no "POV" to it. Watch it, why don't you, instead of shooting off your mouth about things that you know nothing about? Don't watch one sixty second clip and issue repeated pronouncements, watch the hour and a half of detailed, often boring testimony, punctuated with Ma'ams and Sirs, offered in a measured and respectful manner by a polite, earnest one star who has done NOTHING wrong yet is being trashed unfairly in this thread by people like you who shoot first, and ask questions later.

The one who's "abusive" and "hopped up" isn't me--it's you. And your posts throughout this thread--commenting assertively and ENDLESSLY on something you have not even seen-- prove it. You've given us your "POV" on the matter in post after post--but you haven't even watched the TESTIMONY.

I've provided the link to the full testimony IN THIS THREAD. More than ONCE. Giving everyone an opportunity to review it.

Reading the full thread ain't a bad idea, either. You should try it sometime.

But hey, I am a nice person, here ya go: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Choose&Hearing_id=c7026be1-802a-23ad-4fa3-4c8ed0b6d074.

Take a little over an hour (and watch the entire first portion of the tape, at least). Watch BG Walsh call Landrieu Ma'am and Vitter Sir. Watch Walsh open his testimony with Madame Chair--as Boxer IS the chair of the committee. Review the TRADOC guidance I provided downthread.

Make sure you also watch the part at the very beginning where Madame Chair gives "Madame Senator" Landrieu the business, tells her where to sit, and doesn't want her up on the dais until AFTER she testifiies.

And have one of those nice days.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

291. Nope,

not worth it ...............

[MADem]

304. Watch the hearing. NT

[omega minimo]

346. So sick of the BS, don't even want to read the post and there FINALLY is the link

the ____ is accusing us of not watching........... after asking for the link.......... :boring:

[MADem]

395. I've posted the link in several places throughout this thread.

The thread that you didn't bother to read before you shot your mouth off.

:rofl:

Facts are stubborn things. So are timestamps!

[omega minimo]

405. I asked you for it directly and politely. Apparently you didn't want to provide it.

[MADem]

408. I provided it to you. Why don't you read the replies to your own incessant posts? nt

[omega minimo]

426. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5880701&mesg_id=5891180

[MADem]

457. Don't blame me because YOU shoot off your mouth without reading the full thread.

You get a lot of target practice shooting messengers.

How sad you are.

[JDPriestly]

330. I lived in the south. Younger women and African-American women

called older white women "Ma'am." White men called men of color, "Boy." That is why they are equivalents in my experience. They are both words that are used to suggest subservience, not necessarily genuine respect. It is that sort of sense of meek subservience as opposed to genuine respect for accomplishment that may have motivated Barbara Boxer's reaction. If I were a senator and a general appeared before him, I would call him General. Sir is a term that is properly used for a superior military officer. Senator Boxer is a senator, not a superior military officer.

[MADem]

415. I got bad news for you. I lived in the south, too. I remember "Colored" drinking fountains.

I remember the back of the bus. I remember segregated waiting rooms and movie theaters, too. Stop trying to suggest that your experience is somehow special or even apropos to this discussion.

Your arguments are disgusting, offensive and completely invalid. And your effort to turn Boxer into a "boy" and Walsh into Simon Legree are offensive in the extreme. As well as totally false.

You've lost it. You're resorting to outright prevarication to try to "win" your point.

Watch the full hearing, and unless you're completely obtuse, you'll feel a sense of shame. Barbara Boxer was plainly having a bad day, and taking it out on "Madame Senator" Landrieu as well as the Brigadier testifying.

[Jim Sagle]

465. Psssttt...your eyes ARE lying. Time for a checkup.

[MADem]

471. Just had one.

And I watched the entire hearing. Twice.

Not just a little clip.

But you have a nice day now, "Jim."

[Tangerine LaBamba]

138. His use of "Ma'am" was appropriate, yes,

but his use of "Senator" was equally appropriate, and Senator Boxer had a preference. Obviously, Senator Landrieu didn't.

Isn't it interesting that women Senators have to make a choice, but male Senators don't?

Do you see the inherent unfairness and separation in that situation? And why women don't like it?

He referred to the male Senators as "Senator." I suspect that kind of language gets tiresome for the women in the Senate..................

[MADem]

144. No, I do not. He started out calling her, appropriately "Madame Chair"

as protocol requires, and then called her Ma'am until she stepped on him, and then he switched. He called Vitter "sir" a half dozen times, and he called Landrieu "Ma'am" several times as well.

I didn't hear Diaper Boy saying "Call me Senator!" If he had, we'd be all over him like a cheap suit, and you know it.

I didn't hear Landrieu say it either. She had no problem with his very courteous form of address.

I don't see "inherent unfairness" in using a polite, proper and respectful form of address that a military subordinate affords to a SUPERIOR.

FWIW: He did NOT refer to the male Senators as "Senator"--there was only one male senator who questioned him, and that was Vitter--and he sir'd the shit out of him. Go have a look at the tape. I did. This guy is getting a BAD RAP here, and it makes progressives look like assholes when people jump on a guy who did nothing wrong.

Boxer even admitted her frustration was with the ACOE's budgetary process and appropriations submissions that happened BEFORE this guy ever got to his command. When ACOE was fucking up, this poor bastard was in IRAQ.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

145. I stand corrected, then ..........

I could be thinking of another general in another hearing, so I probably got that wrong. I apologize for that.

But, Senator Boxer had a preference. She expressed it gently and very politely. She didn't "scold" the general, she simply asked him to call her by a title that is rightfully hers.

What's the big deal? I'm really surprised that it's generated any kind of heat here..............

[MADem]

148. The big deal is not that she asked, but WHEN she asked.

Look, if a dignitary has a preference (A guy named Willard or Elroy wants to be called "Kip" or "Red" instead of his own goofy name, for example) there are coordinations between staffs that occur before CODELs and Congressional testimony to ensure that everyone gets the word and knows the preference. I know--I have been on one end of the phone making them.

If Barbara Boxer had a "thing" about ma'am--and don't tell me she hasn't, in eighteen years in the Senate, heard everyone from Olympia Snowe to Liddy Dole to Hillary Clinton "ma'am-d" out the ass by a parade of flag and general officers--and maybe even been "ma'am-d" herself in prior committee meetings--she should have had a staffer TELL THE GUY AHEAD OF TIME. That's just common courtesy. Sir/Ma'am is not a shock or a surprise at the green table--it's standard. And it IS courteous.

I've had staffers call me and tell me that their principal was going to hammer on a specific area of testimony, and that my principal needed to be up-to-speed on this, that or the other thing. That's common courtesy, too, so that time isn't wasted, that the staffs let DOD know what they will be looking for, and then they issue guidance about what they want from DOD after the testimony as well (usually reports, submission of statistics on a regular basis, that kind of stuff). My point is that ahead of testimony, there's a lot of chatting back and forth, especially if there's a lot of ground to cover.

The only time a rep or senator plays GOTCHA is if they want to jerk the testifier around, or make a point for the CSPAN cameras. That guy Walsh was in Iraq when Katrina was going down. Boxer was pissed about funding and appropriation aspects of a post-Katrina project, stuff that happened before this guy even made general, and she was taking out her frustrations on the guy--which wasn't very cool. IMO.

The big deal is that Boxer is perceived as bullying a guy who was only trying (and he was trying) to answer her questions as fully and as honestly as he possibly could. He wasn't jerking her around or playing "cute" with her--he was giving her status reports to the best of his knowledge and ability, and that was entirely obvious to everyone there, even Boxer. And she was dressing him down for stuff that he'd sent UP his chain of command, but hadn't made it through the loop back to the Senate.

No one likes to watch the public flogging of an innocent man, and that's how that whole exchange came across.

Again, because I feel I have to repeat this--I like Boxer, but she fucked up this time.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

181. You may be right about this,

and I may be right about this.

But the only ascertainable reality is that no one knows what went on inside Senator Boxer's head except Senator Boxer, so no one will ever know why she did what she did.

Your vehement, vociferous, and often irrational campaign here to try to establish only one reality - yours - is clearly a sign of how some men will never understand what a small - to them - word can mean to others. It may be a cultural blind spot, it may be willful disregard of a reality that makes them uncomfortable on an inaccessible level of consciousness, it may be complete cluelessness, it may be the kind of resentment and anger that leaves people seething at people who are different than they are. It may be an unfortunate combination of all those things.

Just as you are wildly convinced that your perspective on the incident is the only true reality, just as you bend the obvious facts to fit your contorted exhortations, just as you refuse to consider the other historical implications of what Senator Boxer said and did, so you'll blow off what I write here, just as you've done to any poster who voiced an opinion different from yours.

Hey, that's your right.

I've already blown off everything you wrote...............................

[MADem]

287. ..........vehement, vociferous, and often irrational ?

What? Because I believe in the military's Equal Opportunity policy?

You know that's not just for the "ethnic" people and the "girls" don't you? It's even for the "boys" -- good old, from the hood, and Boston Irish, and everything in-between.

You make an assumption about my gender (and you base your argument on it--the "You wouldn't UNDERSTAAAAAND" routine), but you don't know what it is, and I don't tell anyone. Why? Because of bullshit just like this.

You're the one with the preconceived notions here.

That guy did NOTHING wrong. Watch the full tape, you'll see.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

289. No,

it's time to stop all this ................

[Forkboy]

294. MADem has not flipped out in this thread.

A couple people have, but that's not one of them. I like and respect you a lot, but MAdem doesn't seem to me like he's "flipped out" in the slightest bit.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

296. If you read his posts about Senator Boxer's

demeanor when she made the request, you'll see a full flight from reality.................

[Forkboy]

299. I've read the thread, and watched the video...all of it except the last two minutes.

I thought she could have handled it better than she did as well. I don't think she was being rude, per se, but neither was the man addressing her as "ma'am". The term isn't rude unless he keeps using it after she asked. He did not. This whole thing is some hardcore manufactured controversy that is worthy of about 10 posts, not 300.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

302. You know, you're right .......

I signed out of this thread a few minutes ago. It's nuts that it's gone on like this, and I regret my part in its unnecessary expansion.

No one did anything untoward - the general was fine, and Senator Boxer was fine. If I have a client I'm calling Mr. Smith and he, holding a degree of which I may or may not be aware, asks me to call him "Doctor Smith," I'm fine with that.

Simple courtesy, that's all it was. She could not have been more courteous or polite, and the general adjusted his manner of address appropriately without missing a beat.

A tempest in a teapot, so to speak.

Ultimately, of course, the dissension in this thread isn't about what Senator Boxer asked.

Thanks for the fresh breeze of good sense..............................

[MADem]

295. Watch. The. Full. Hearing.

And stop trying to falsely characterize me. That's what people do when they can't argue on the merits.

Get this straight: I APPROVE of "women in power." I want to see MORE of them running this country. Is that clear enough for you?

Do a search on this forum. I don't know how many times I have advocated for a er, female President, and fifty percent of our legislature being female. More than once, that's for sure. I've advocated for EO/female appointments to the Supremes, too, and wanted an Hispanic female judge before Obama picked Sotomayor.

I'm not the sexist, here. I'm simply fair. And "fair" includes being fair to white guys from New England who have done nothing wrong.

So this is what I want from you.

Cut the sexist crap. You're the one pulling it.

and

Watch. The. Full. Hearing.

BG Walsh got a bad rap, and was unfairly scolded.

Cracked prism? Look in your mirror, TB. Look hard. Calling people nuts or "driven by forces" because you don't like what they're saying is a failed argument on your part. I expected better from you, frankly.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

298. On second thought,

none of this is worth it................

[MADem]

301. Information? You don't need no steeeeenkin' information!!!!

Here is why you should watch the full hearing:

----Because you will see, if you watch the hearing, Walsh address Boxer as MADAME CHAIR at the start of the hearing.

----You will also see Boxer address Landrieu as MADAME SENATOR .... and "scold" her for trying to take her committee seat, and give her instructions about where she is to sit (because ML was also giving testimony re: Katrina).

----You will also, if you watch the hearing, see Boxer explain to Walsh, about an hour or so in, that she's not really mad at HIM, she's mad at the command he represents (he was in Iraq when the Katrina stuff went down, he's taking the heat for people who came before him).

----You will also hear Walsh call Landrieu "ma'am" quite respectfully, and Senator Diaper Boy Vitter "SIR" at least a half dozen times.

THAT is why I want you to Watch. The. Hearing. Context, you see, IS everything, and Boxer was, IMO, having a BAD DAY.

It's nothing, on my part, about "control issues." But there ya go again!

I'm not getting personal here. You're the one calling me names with every post you make. If I'm not a sexist who doesn't understand, I've got "control issues."

Stop with the personal characterizations. They reflect on you--badly.

I actually do have expectations of you--you're usually a more artful and clever poster who doesn't use personal insult as a weapon. Yes, I am disappointed that you'd stoop to that in discussing this matter. I really thought you had a bit more class, actually.

[Common Sense Party]

365. You're absolutely right on this. The general did NOTHING sexist

or inappropriate. If she wanted to nip this in the bud in a way that didn't look egotistical, she should have jotted a quick note, slipped it to one of her many aides and staffers, and have one of them slip it quietly to the general.

If any guy Senator had done the same thing ("Don't call me 'sir,' call me Senator. I worked hard to get that title") I know what my response would have been. What an egotist!

[omega minimo]

197. Total bullshit. And why is the onus on her staff and not his? You're out of line on this

playing a pecking order game of logic that is irrelevant. It happened. If the general didn't know before (why are you assuming he shouldn't or didn't already know?) he does now.

You and he been schooled. Welcome to the 21st Century. :hi:

[MADem]

399. The onus is on her because she is the SENIOR in this equation.

Congress tells DOD what to do--not the other way around. However, in this instance, she "told" this guy that established protocol wasn't "good enough" for her. That's why she's being criticized.

I've been schooled all right. I've learned that you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about! Yet, you do talk nonsense with a great deal of exhortative positivity!

Thanks again for "schooling" me--I'll be better able to "consider the source" when I see what looks like tripe with your name attached to it!

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

481. What "established protocol"? Military? No, it wasn't good enough. Now everybody knows.

[MADem]

491. The protocol of polite society, something you plainly know nothing about. NT

[omega minimo]

194. She didn't "step on him." NO ONE is "jumping on him." She prefers her title. He was testifying on CH

Deal with it.

[JDPriestly]

162. Senator Landrieu is a southerner and the term "Ma'am" is southern

as is the term "boy" which is just as demeaning as "Ma'am."

[Name removed]

164. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raineyb]

171. Excuse you but "ma'am" and "boy" are absolutely NOT equivalent.

Where the hell did you get that shit?

I've been called ma'am on occasion, and while it makes me feel old when it's used, I know it to be a term of respect. However, no one in my family would accept anyone calling him boy at all. Fifty years ago I'm sure that my father, or my cousins would be on the receiving end of a "boy" but I as a black woman wouldn't even rate a "ma'am" at all. I don't know where you get your info but it's utterly wrong.

And as a military brat I can tell you "sir" and "ma'am" are used as a term of respect. You know damn well what "boy" was used for.

[omega minimo]

199. Senator Laudrieu is also Republican and supports the white male dominant power structure status quo

as she supported it during Katrina NOLA when all those "boys" were drowning in attics and floating down the streets.

[Ex Lurker]

223. Senator Landrieu is a Democrat. Try to keep up n/t.

[omega minimo]

253. Why would a Democrat participate in federal genocide in her home state?

Would could have seen THAT coming? :wow:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

216. Hey boy, you are an idiot. That's demeaning. Saying yes maam is polite.

[omega minimo]

192. And isn't it interesting that there's an assumption that b/c they're women, they would have the same

preference? :eyes: That in itself is sexist.

Has it been confirmed that he was calling the males "Senator" and females "Ma'am"?



Well, now he knows and so do all the others who can't wrap their minds around the concept. :spray:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

225. It doesn't matter.........

I don't care if he was calling the other Senators "Your Majesty" or "Your Holiness."

It's irrelevant. All that matters - and it's astonishing to me the controversy this insignificant matter kicked up here - is what Senator Boxer wanted to be called.

If someone doesn't understand that, or can't deal with it, that, to me, is indicative of a deeper pathology at work, one that transcends common sense and rationality. To go ballistic and call on "rule books" about what Senator Boxer very politely and gently, almost self-effacingly asked the general for was to have him address her by her title and not by "ma'am" is to not see what is right in front of your face.

What is the big deal?

When claims are made that she did it for nefarious reasons, "to throw the general off his testimony," I say that if a general has reached that rank and can be rattled by a request as simple and polite as Senator Boxer's, the person has no business being a general. What will he do in wartime when someone fires at him? Collapse in tears?

Absurd.

What this whole mess was about, I am convinced, was the reluctance on the part of some males - they're not men, not yet - to understand, or, at the very least, to respect how some things are demeaning to women. I fully understand that this might be difficult, but so is learning to walk, yet we all manage to do it. If you can't put yourself in another's place, then at least have the good grace to admit it and to recognize that someone sees the situation differently than you do because her life has been so very different from yours.

What we saw here last night was the worst kind of sexism, attempting to hide behind the fluffy skirts of "rule books" and "she called Condi Rice 'ma'am'"(?), and "she was a bully," "she scolded the general"(!), and "she shouldn't have done it."

I, as a woman who's spent her life pushing back at the Old Boys' Network, am just tired of this recalcitrant and antediluvian thinking and behavior. I truly didn't expect to find it so virulent here at DU...........................

[omega minimo]

256. "Senator Boxer very politely and gently, almost self-effacingly asked the general for"

Very good description. How people view that as "condescending" and "bitchy" is heresay and sexist projections of how women "should" behave.

Esp. with the epidemic of young women speaking in a strangulated, baby girl affectation, on TV and IRL, many people are shocked by what real female speaking voices sound like. (Ever see one of the Paris Hilton speakers get mad and stop gargling, you're hear their REAL voice!!!)

This whole notion of the moment being a power play and worth this sort of dust up, shows that people don't know what goes on in capitols every day. Then there's the media spinners who want to poison the public discourse with this for a while.

"If you can't put yourself in another's place, then at least have the good grace to admit it and to recognize that someone sees the situation differently than you do because her life has been so very different from yours."

"I, as a woman who's spent her life pushing back at the Old Boys' Network, am just tired of this recalcitrant and antediluvian thinking and behavior. I truly didn't expect to find it so virulent here at DU..........................."


Yup. :hi;

[polmaven]

424. To be perfectly honest, with you,

I don't really care if he was calling them "sir". The word "sir" has never had the same demeaning quality as "ma'am" has, or at least used to have. That some here cannot understand at least the generational divide about the word is a little disturbing. It is Senator Boxer's generation .... and mine...(I don't know about your's) which in many ways made it even possible for Senator Boxer to BE a Senator....I think she knows what she finds to be unacceptable in addressing her.

[mkultra]

95. there is. Non military are refered to as sir or ma'am.

[omega minimo]

106. Absolutely not. No way. She was respectful and kind and started, "Could you do me a favor."

[Tangerine LaBamba]

137. I disagree -

your perception of the exchange is the exact opposite of mine.

Maybe that's the difference between men and women?

[JDPriestly]

159. If he had called an African-American senator "Boy," you would understand.

Calling her "Ma'am" is equivalent to calling an African-American senator "Boy." It is a term that evokes the sexual subjugation, the sexual roles of the past. It is improper in the Senate. Madam Secretary is a different matter. I believe it may be the correct official terminology. "Ma'am" is not a title of any kind. It is improper. It is particularly insulting if the witness referred to the male senators as "Senator."

[MADem]

165. You really are disgusting. You're slandering this guy and your assertion

that "Ma'am" is equivalent to "boy" is SICK.

What's "Sir" then--the N word? By the way, the one male senator got sir'd to death by the brigadier. So gee, your theory has fallen on its ass in that respect.

You really should be ashamed of yourself and your hideous comments, but that takes self-awareness.

Anyone reading your dispicable, slanderous commentary will probably come away with the same opinion I have of you.

Hint--you're not the Person of the Year.

[Raineyb]

173. No it's not! You are simply wrong.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about and I'd suggest you stop using the history of the use of the "word" boy to continue your wrong-headed argument. You're only making yourself look even more ignorant.

[omega minimo]

201. "Boy" is much more highly charged -- (from black history we looked at for Juneteenth)

The poster seems to be trying to point out that "ma'am" can be used to imply inferiority or to disempower, disrespect....

Both can be used that way. The inherent charge of each is quite different, due to different histories.

[Raineyb]

326. Well the poster picked the dumbest of analogies.

The use of the word "boy" is not only more highly charged but is also universally recognized as a method of demeaning someone especially when used towards a grown man. The word "ma'am" is not in the same category at all. It is a sign of respect. The two are not at all equivalent and to make the comparison means that someone is either downplaying the offensiveness of the use of the word "boy" or is deliberately misstating the use of the word "ma'am" which is it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

217. This is perhaps the dumbest argument ever made here.

[hack89]

227. That's pretty stupid nt

[Control-Z]

188. Is there another link?

Or maybe you know the name of the clip? It is no longer available on that page. I'd really like to watch/hear it.

Edit: I found another page with the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5mpJVnxwIo

Senator Boxer made what appeared to be a reasonable request. I can't imagine anyone finding a problem with what she said.

[merh]

334. Amazing isn't it - all of this over a simple request.

Important issues are overlooked, allowed to go without comment, and then there is this thread over a simple request.

Sorry the video at the link I provided was deleted.

I'm glad you found a new link.

[hack89]

226. They are called both - it depends on the context.

As in "Good morning Senator X" as a greeting. And as in "Yes Sir" when agreeing with the senator.

[imdjh]

13. This is not a settled area of protocol.

Sir and ma'am are not equal. They can't possibly be equal because the origins are unequal.

Queen Elizabeth is called "ma'am" once you have properly addressed her, because she instructs you to call her that. Obviously, you aren't being disrespectful by calling her that, it is a courtesy of familiarity which she allows you.

Were I a Senator speaking to President Bush, it would become obvious to the more critical observer that I always referred to him as "President Bush" or "Mr. President" and never "Sir". In this way I am respecting his official rank while withholding social acceptance. I do not use "sir" or "gentleman" or "lady" indiscriminately, but "ma'am" is a lower level of courtesy which I use indiscriminately.

Senator Boxer's timing may have been off. Perhaps she should have gotten together with the other women in Congress to see if they could come up with a common expectation. Her timing notwithstanding, her right to be addressed by her title when she is engaged in official business is unquestioned.

[MADem]

24. Yes, it is. Ask any female general -- she'll take "ma'am" as the equivalent to "sir" any day.

You are obviously not in the military. It's entirely appropriate to address any senior officer, or any senior civilian in the chain of command, OR any dignitary in government, as SIR....or MA'AM.

The fact that you are calling "ma'am" a lower level of courtesy says more about you and your attitudes toward women in general than you perhaps realize.

You might want to check your biases.

I think most Senators who are not male want to be treated the same--not better than--the Senators who ARE male.

Boxer fucked up.

[omega minimo]

202. Correct. They want to be called "Senator"

"I think most Senators who are not male want to be treated the same--not better than--the Senators who ARE male."


There's no reason for a Senate panel in hearing to defer to a military parlance, rather than the witness recognize his surroundings and as a man of integrity and protocol, give a Senator due respect.

You really ought to ask him if he had as much trouble with the concept as you are having.

[MADem]

410. No they don't. They'll take Sir, Mister Chairman, or Senator--like the

TRADOC guidelines indicate.

I didn't hear the male Senator complaining about being called SIR repeatedly during that same hearing.

It's not "military parlance" either. It's common courtesy. But then, you think Senator Landrieu is a Republican, so we'll take your views from whence they come.

[avaistheone1]

15. Boxer had every right to be called Senator. It is her title and they were in a formal hearing - she

should have been addressed properly. Stop with the right wing pandering.

And stop making excuses for this general. As a general he should have had a better understanding of etiquette and protocol rather than addressing Senator Boxer so casually. She is not just anyone, or any woman. Senator Boxer is a U.S. Senator - one of only 100 key lawmakers in the Senate.

[MADem]

18. Stop calling me a "right wing panderer" because I know military protocol and you do not.

I don't "like" this General, and I do like Boxer. But wrong is wrong, and she was wrong. And so are you.

"Sir" is good enough for the President of the United States. If Clinton had won, "ma'am" would have been good enough for her.

Boxer was out of line. As are you. The difference is, she should have known better, you--I don't know your background, so maybe you should be cut a little slack.

[imdjh]

28. Military protocol is not the issue here.

They do many things in the military which are not tolerated in civilian society. I'm not saying that the general was being disrespectful, I'm saying that when Senator Boxer is in effect holding court, she can tell the general how to address her.

[MADem]

32. OK, now you're just being absurd. The man was in uniform, testifying for DOD.

He wasn't out in "civilian society" wearing shorts and flip flops. When a person is in uniform, military protocol DOES control them.

And Senators do not "hold court." That's what ROYALTY does--she's not the Queen, she is one of two senators from California.

She can "tell" the General to go shit in his hat, if she'd like. She can say what she'd like--no one is arguing that point. But she also can be criticized for it. In this case, she deserves the criticism.

She was wrong.

[imdjh]

34. Glad we settled that.

:)

[omega minimo]

109. She was within her rights. You think she was wrong. So what? She WAS within her rights

In that hearing in that room, the Senate rules apply. Deal with it.

[MADem]

146. She made an ass of herself. But she was within her "rights."

Her idiot GOP opponent has already made the exchange into a campaign ad.

And you don't get away with In that hearing in that room, the Senate rules apply. Deal with it.

What "Senate rule" applies here? Do tell. That Senators are allowed to behave like boorish asses? Is that in the rules? Please name them.

Come on. Put up, or shut up. And provide a LINK. Otherwise, I won't be "dealing" with anything but a load of ... innuendo.

[omega minimo]

204. "Boorish ass"? Perhaps you can proved any evidence of that.

[MADem]

412. I did. Bit you're too busy having a sword fight with everyone on this forum to bother to watch it.

Can't sit still for an hour and ten minutes, is that it?

Not surprising.

[omega minimo]

453. I don't need 1:10 to know that Senator Boxer is one of the best and deserves more respect

than to be referred to as 'boorish ass" and "asswipe" by boorish DEMOCRATIC keyboard commandoes. :patriot:

[MADem]

455. Something I've said ten or more times in this thread: I like Boxer.

But when someone is WRONG, they are wrong. I don't mitigate or defend, even people I genuinely like, when they do the wrong thing. See, that's what real FAIRNESS is all about.

And Senators, or Representatives, do not "deserve" respect. No one "deserves" respect. They EARN it. She has earned it in other venues, but she didn't earn it on the day of this hearing. She withdrew a bit from her "respect" bank account, frankly.

But wave your flag, continue to obsess as you do, and defend what is not defensible. Put those fingers in those ears and scream LALALALALALA for all I care. Don't watch the video. Can't disturb that faux viewpoint you cling to, certainly!

It most certainly WILL ruin your fantasy with regard to what actually happened in that hearing room if you do deign to spend some time and watch what actually happened.

You are to be pitied. You cannot read contextually, and you cannot argue as anything other than a rabid, unthinking, furious and very unhappy partisan. If your paradigms are challenged, you are completely unable to adjust. Instead, you get angry and obsessive, and you are all too quick to shoot the messenger.

This isn't the first time I've seen you do this, either--it's an MO with you.

What a dreadful way to live--you don't learn much, because you know it all.

[omega minimo]

458. I can read half through the thread with an open mind and when the insults kick in, your credibility

= 0

:shrug: your choice.

[MADem]

459. The only one tossing insults is you. NT

[omega minimo]

460. Read your own post and take just one moment to consider how you shoot yourself in the foot

:think:

[MADem]

463. I have been reasoned, you've been both abusive and obnoxious.

As you often are.

I'm not the only one on this thread who has noted your behavior.

[omega minimo]

467. oh yes most certainly congratulations. Better luck next time. (You always do this, don't you?)

I mean maybe not, but when EVER?

Dunno, good luck with all that hypocrisy and anti-fenale crap. Hope it works out eventually,

[MADem]

469. There you go again. More accusations. This time, you are accusing me of

hypocrisy and (sic) "anti-fenale crap."

You really should stop insulting people and check your conduct.

[omega minimo]

474. "You really should stop insulting people and check your conduct."

Odd how ALL of your accusations are about yourself.

[MADem]

475. No they aren't. They're about you, accusing people of being sexist, rightwingers, etc.

Of course, you don't read.

You just post.

That's your life, I guess.

[omega minimo]

476. "Odd how ALL of your accusations are about yourself."

If you don't want to support the RW memes against a dedicated and proven Dem senator, then stop it. Simple!!

[MADem]

477. There you go again, with your rightwing accusations, like a broken record. NT

[hack89]

231. She had the right to be rude I guess - doesn't mean she had to exercise it. nt

[omega minimo]

273. She wasn't "rude"

[hack89]

320. She went out of her way to publicly embarrass someone - that's rudeness. nt

[omega minimo]

347. A woman senator got tired of being called "Ma'am" rather than her title and said so, politely.

No, she did not "go out of her way to publicly embarrass someone."

She probably put up patiently with the "ma'am" bit for as long as she possibly could before speaking."

Do you know if the general was calling the males "senator" or only "sir"?

Did you know that Senator Boxer is the ONLY senator to contest, with Senator Tubbs-Jones, the bogus count in the 2004 election in Ohio, that inflicted Bushco on the nation for another 4 years?


Have some damn respect.

[hack89]

371. What he called her is standard military etiquette

He would be expected to call male senators both depending on the context. As in "Good morning Senator X" as a greeting. And as in "Yes Sir" when agreeing with the senator.

She is no newbie and has undoubtedly been called "ma'am" countless time before and understood that no insult was intended. If she truly was offended why didn't she notify the Pentagon's office of legislative affairs and let them know of her preferences?

[omega minimo]

372. Both your assumptions depend on questions posed here repeatedly; no one has the answers

[hack89]

374. The military has been briefing Congress for years

I think everyone understands the accepted protocols and etiquette - the General certainly did.

[omega minimo]

376. Go ahead. Miss the point/s. Don't have the answers, anyway.

:hi:

[hack89]

381. There are no points - just people justifying the rudeness of an egocentric politician. nt

[omega minimo]

382. Willful ignorance is bliss.

[hack89]

384. I am glad you are happy - Bye. nt

[omega minimo]

386. Get back to us when you have the answers.

:hi:

[Name removed]

387. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[avaistheone1]

42. You most certainly do not know military protocol or even common etiquette given your

position on this. Senator Boxer has every right simply as a human being to be addressed as she pleases. Furthermore, she is a U.S. Senator and the general was before her in a committee setting and was not properly recognizing her in her role. Boxer was absolutely correct and right to call the general out on this.

In addition, Senator Boxer let it be known very simply and clearly how she wanted to be addressed. She spent a moment informing the general. The senator didn't spend the entire hearing educating him about it. The general then addressed her properly and the hearing moved on. I think Boxer handled herself beautifully. It was the general who erred and then made the appropriate correction.

I think if you understood the history of Senator Boxer calling out the Pentagon and military on a number of issues, you would have a better understanding of why the senator is sensitive about how she is addressed by members of this group. I strongly stand with the Senator on this issue.

[MADem]

55. Yes, I do, and I even quoted the TRADOC guidance downthread.

One more time, since you cannot read or comprehend what I am saying--YES, Senator Boxer has every "RIGHT" to demand she be addressed as she pleases. And American citizens who know military protocol, having lived it for a full career, have every "right" to say "She's making an ass of herself, she's wrong, and she's childish."

If Boxer really didn't want to make an issue of this matter, but simply wanted to be addressed as Senator exclusively, she would have had someone on her staff call Walsh AHEAD of the testimony and specifically advise him that Boxer prefers the "Senator" form of address. Good staffs, see, do this kind of shit. Happens ALL the time (particularly with nicknames on CODELS). Obviously her staff is lazy, or Boxer didn't let them know how she feels about this issue so they could warn anyone testifying before her.

You can strongly stand with her all you want. On THIS issue, I, who like Boxer on most of her POVs, find her to be dead wrong and a bit jerky. And I say that even if the general was being a shit, or nonresponsive.

This will bite her in the ass once again in future if she stands for reelection. It likely won't be a mortal wound, but who needs even small cuts?

She was wrong, she handled this badly. She could have had her way with simply a bit of advance notice. Of course, that would have denied her the inevitable dramatic moment. I think she made a bad call.

[omega minimo]

111. Or the general's staff could let him know how to behave before a Senate committee

You ignored the point in the previous post about the HISTORY b/w Sen. Boxer and the military.

You have the right to be wrong, but you're wrong on this.

[MADem]

130. Don't make a complete fool of yourself. The Army guidance tells

people how to conduct themselves before Congressional committees, he followed it TO THE LETTER.

I even provided a link to it in this thread. Try reading it.

I'm not wrong, Boxer is. That's why people are crawling up her ass about her comments.

[omega minimo]

205. Didn't see the link. Does the protocol prevent the witness from using "Senator"?

[omega minimo]

110. +1.. Absolutely SPOT. ON.

[omega minimo]

203. That is what you're doing. RW is doing this. Military protocol doesn't supersede Senate protocol.

I'd give the general more credit than you are for understanding this.

[Chemisse]

17. Maybe somebody should say stuff the Madame

Why should a female Secretary or Speaker elicit a different form of address than a male Secretary? They are not gender specific terms (except in the sense that they had previously always been held by males) so why does that need to be added?

It's rather like when the news used to specify someone's race only when the person was nonwhite.

[MADem]

25. Fat Denny Hastert was "Mister Speaker." Nancy Pelosi is "Madame Speaker."

Henry Kissinger was "Mister Secretary." Condi, I still can't believe they gave her the job, was "Madame Secretary."

Unless you come up with a non-gender-specific honorific (and if it has the word PERSON in it, it belongs in the shitcan), or we become even more boorish in our conduct than we are now, those are the forms we use.

Why should a person be ashamed of their gender? THAT's the thing we need to get past, IMO. I think the Madames ought to take over at least half of government, myself--maybe that will get people over this sir/ma'am crap.

[imdjh]

30. Well, at least we agree on that.

"...person" in the shitcan that is. Add to that s/he and "his or her".

I also want to slap people who use "their" inappropriately. Everybody doesn't have their favorite, everyone has his favorite. The male pronoun is the generic. So by this rule, Senator Boxer should be called "sir", and that takes away any notion that there is a difference in the respect level.

[MADem]

37. If you call her Sir, you deny her her gender.

Getting rid of "ma'am" suggests that there is something WRONG with being a "ma'am." I vociferously disagree with that. Why not call the male Senators "ma'am" then? Ma'am for everyone!

We are one of the few countries that gets all bent out of shape about gender identifying language. Everyone has to be an actor, "actress" is considered not as good. Everyone has to be a waiter, or a server, because "waitress" is a put-down. But only in America--other countries have no problem with gender sprinkled throughout their language, even giving the table, the couch, or the potato "genders" if you will.

I would like to see fifty "ma'ams" in the Senate, myself. That would get people over the "ma'am" thing.

I'd like to one day see the Marine saluting the President disembarking from Marine One be able to respond to the President's query if he is having a nice day, "Yes, Ma'am."

That "they" thing instead of he or she is gaining currency. "They" are writing it into style books now.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

139. I just wanna KISS you

for mentioning that "their" thing. It drives me nuts, and yes, the proper is his, or her, or his/her if you don't mind being horribly clumsy.

Sometimes, it's just nice to see that someone respects the rules.

Thank you................

[omega minimo]

348. I prefer the gender neutral. Why the clumsy choices? The male is not gender neutral.

[fishwax]

328. actually, "their" is perfectly fine in that instance, and has been used that way for 500 years

"Their" is perfectly appropriate when used with everyone, every, each, etc. It's been used that way for centuries, and (as far as I can tell) nobody got their knickers knotted over it until much more recently, when its use became specifically associated with a desire for a gender neutral singular pronoun.

[polmaven]

425. The male pronoun is NOT

"generic". The use of the male pronoun when the person's gender is not known is simply sexist. Nothing more.

[omega minimo]

206. She's not. That's why she DARED to request her title in a considerate, appropriate manner.

"Why should a person be ashamed of their gender? "

[dorkulon]

100. So he should call her "sir"?

I have a feeling she would not have been okay with that either.

[polmaven]

429. He should call her what she ASKED to be called!

Senator! What is HARD about that?

[Auggie]

23. As I posted yesterday, she has the right to be asked to be addressed

any way she prefers. I agree the remark (paraphrasing) "I worked hard.." was going a bit a overboard, but understandable, perhaps, due to mounting frustration on her part.

[MADem]

27. She has the "right" to act like a fucking asshole when she does so, too!

She looked like a total JERK in that exchange. The GOP nut who runs against her will play that in heavy rotation as a campaign ad in the red chunks of CA. No comment needed.

It doesn't matter if she was "frustrated." If she wanted to diss the guy, she should have griped about his testimony, or even called him "Sir" with a sneer, instead of dressing him down for using an APPROPRIATE form of address.

And I don't know how many times I have to repeat this--I LIKE HER. A LOT.

If someone like me, who is inclined to give her a pass, looks askance at her conduct, it's a PROBLEM. She should apologize to the general, explain politely that she prefers to be addressed as Senator, and put it behind her.

What's unfortunate is that this stupid exchange is being associated with the email exchange of that mentally ill "Don't call me Liz" Hill staffer.

[Auggie]

73. Maybe she was having a bad day?

:shrug:

I like her too.

[MADem]

75. I think she was, especially since she spoke about her frustration with the ACOE

at the end of Walsh's testimony. She reiterated that she's mad about the "patch and pray" model, in essence, and the ACOE's foot dragging and inability to say what they needed. She was pissed that ACOE didn't ask for the money to do the job fuly and right, in essence (of course, that could have been a Rummy decision--and probably was). Vitter (the Diaper guy) expressed the same sentiments, that ACOE didn't ask for the money they needed to do the full job of protecting NOLA.

The ACOE did fuck up mightily during the Bush regime. This guy, who took the heat for the sins of the past, wasn't in the driver's seat during Katrina, though.

[malletgirl02]

284. ACOE

It's kind of dumb to be pissed at a person for something when they weren't even in charge of that thing at the time. I alogizing for hijacking your ost, but kind of thing irks me.

[omega minimo]

208. It seemed she was explaining why she had a preference and did it to take responsibility

and attention away from him.

IMHO it's part of why the way she made her request was perfect.

[BurtWorm]

26. I disagree. She's not in the military. She's a senator.

As Lindsay Bayerstein of Majikthise points out, too, it may have been a psychological tactic as much as a point of etiquette, to make a disrespectful witness quake a little.

[MADem]

29. Well, you can disagree, but you're wrong. It is appropriate protocol to

use Sir or Ma'am as a respectful form of address to a senior or a dignitary--even if that person is not in the military.

Boxer may have been playing mind games with the guy because she didn't like his testimony, but she was out of line--because she was wrong.

[kiranon]

118. As a former woman officer and member of a general's staff, you are wrong.

There are very few women generals and this BG General from the Air Force which has a terrible problem with sexism was not used to saying "Ma'am" to anyone in the service. He was being disrespectful in an insiders kind of way. That said, I would have let it go and I would have called him Brigadier General every time I addressed him as a BG General is at the bottom of the barrel in terms of generals. But, I do not think Senator Boxer knew to do that but she knew she was being disrespected. Call me Senator was ok by me.

[MADem]

142. No I am not wrong. And there are not "very few women generals."

Let's highlight this comment of yours, because it is an incredible example of someone getting their facts ENTIRELY wrong:

...this BG General from the Air Force which has a terrible problem with sexism was not used to saying "Ma'am" to anyone in the service. He was being disrespectful in an insiders kind of way....

There are fifty eight female general and flag officers on active duty, and many more on the retired list. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to BS this forum in that fashion.

If you were actually "a member of a general's staff" (which general, pray tell? General Nuisance? General Motors?) you'd know that. Further, the Women Flag and General's luncheons, which are a regular staple in DC, wouldn't be very well attended if there weren't any upper echelon women in the ranks, now, would they be?

Moreover, and here's where you outed yourself--the guy you are calling, without evidence, a sexist, wasn't an AIR FORCE officer--which makes your comments about your "staff experience" seem even more suspect, since you obviously cannot even recognize an ARMY uniform. If you are on any Flag or General staff, from junior enlisted driver to senior officer Chief of Staff, you'd damn well better be able to recognize the uniforms and ranks of ALL services.

BG Walsh is a member of the ARMY Corps of Engineers. ARMY--not Air Force. Didn't you watch the hearing? If you didn't, why are you shooting your mouth off like you know what you're talking about? If you had watched it, you'd KNOW that this man was ACOE, not USAF. Gee, and you "know" that Walsh is a sexist? Why don't you point to the section of the hearing (give us the hour and minute point in the link I provided in this thread) to show us where this "sexist" was anything but courteous? The man was entirely polite to everyone, male and female, on that committee. Boxer even acknowledged at the end of the guy's testimony that her frustration was with events that happened BEFORE this guy even reported to his command. Of course, if you watched the testimony, you'd know that and wouldn't have called him, wrongly, a sexist.

Take your shameless prevarications and just walk away. You have, with your own words, demonstrated that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and no shame at all in putting forth bona fides that do not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. For this reason, I look askance at your insistence that you were ever commissioned or worked on a general staff--I do not find any of your statements or assertions of experience credible in the slightest. And that's YOUR fault, for making stuff up.

Here, a little light reading for you--shame on you for making false assertions about this man: http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/mrc/about/bio.php?b=1

[kiranon]

254. I heard it on the radio and yes what I said is true - a BG says "yes General" not "Ma'am."

Cannot say where I was on the general's staff because I would be recognized and 58 isn't very many and I stand by my statement that this BG said didn't have much practice saying "Ma'am to any general." Note: The issue is not how many generals but how many outranked the BG which means how many women generals have 2 stars or more. That's the number that counts since he wouldn't be saying "Yes, Ma'am" to someone on the BG level. Since you know so much, you tell us. Some of the retired women generals spent a lot of time deciding what uniforms women in the military should wear and nothing more important than that. Some are very important but how many out rank this BG and work with him? I guess I got your dander up but except for the Air Force part (radio called him Air Force) I stand by my comments. I don't spend my days watching TV. Please look up how women have been harassed at the Air Force Academy if you want to see what sexism looks like. I was the SGS at at Unified Command and was awarded the Joint Service Commendation Medal. What do you have?

[MADem]

292. Again, I do not believe anything you are saying. Environmental subcommittee meetings

are generally not "radio" fare.

And I worked for the SECDEF, I'm not "afraid" of being recognized, so that argument is crap. Like I said, I'd believe you if you told me you worked for General Motors and his Aide, Major Asshole.

You do know the Army now has a four star female general, don't you? No? Gee, thought you might be interested in that. Know who Claudia Kennedy is? No? Look her up.

Please. You're digging that hole at a brutal clip. That remark about female generals and the uniforms, too, is absolute horseshit and the biggest insult to military women I've heard in EONS. And if you were truly military, you'd know that.

Oh, I have a shitload of medals, and I could spend hours telling you how I got each and every one of them. I only wore my top three, because I found that sort of display ostentatious, I was secure in my abilities without a need to display my fruit salad, and they're stuffed in a drawer because the only reward I need is given to me on the first of the month, every month.

The Navy captain who was sent to investigate the excesses, both in terms of sexism and religious harassment at the USAF academy, is a friend of mine. Don't tell ME about EO issues in the military. I'm more familiar than you could ever be.

And your story is not believable. Not even slightly. Shame on you.

I don't believe you. I think you're making stuff up to bolster a lousy argument.

[kiranon]

315. Now I don't believe a word you say. Nice try.

[MADem]

322. Ah yes, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument. Thanks for proving my point! nt

[Ilsa]

52. She isn't in the military. They should use the more formal manner of addressing her.

[MADem]

60. She's been in the Senate for three terms. The default is Sir or Ma'am.

Or Mister Chairman or Madame Chairwoman.

Those are the ones that are supposed to keep one out of trouble. Senator Diaper Vitter, who sits on that same committee, didn't have problems with Walsh calling him "Sir."

She came off as petty. It's not just my opinion, either.

[Crabby Appleton]

62. I agree

She made an ass of herself.

[dorkulon]

99. +1

This was just stupid.

[omega minimo]

105. "Do me a favor, could you call me Senator instead of Ma'am, it's just a thing, I worked so hard to"

"Do me a favor, could you call me Senator instead of Ma'am, it's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title."

She did NOT make an ass of herself, nor did she attempt to make an ass out of the general. She handled it perfectly. The hearing continued.

She made Democrats look GOOD by the gracious way that she corrected him. It's not easy to do that.

[MADem]

153. She "made Democrats look good?" She made them look so good that her

opponent has already made a video of the exchange, painted her as a military hater, and is raising money hand-over-fist because of this.

She was anything BUT "gracious." Asking someone a question, and then interrupting their answer to give them a lecture is not "gracious." It's RUDE.

And I can say "Do me a favor" too, in a way that implies "Listen up, schmuck..."

Yeah, sure. She was "gracious," and pigs fly. And every poll on this subject has her coming out a huge loser.

:eyes:

But hey, you think what you want. Just don't google the topic, you won't like the reality.

[omega minimo]

214. If the Reich Wing propagandize on this, the appeal will be to status quo sexism and bigotry.

Good luck with that.

[MADem]

281. Her idiot opponent already has a commercial out and is fundraising based on it.

But hey, whatever. I always thought California was reliably blue, but then came that Governor of theirs.

[JDPriestly]

158. No. Ma'am is a sexist word left over from the period of slavery.

It should not be used in a Senate hearing. It is the sexual version of separate but equal. Everyone in the Senate has the same title: Senator. Gender is irrelevant, thank you. If you want to call your English teacher, Ma'am, that's your business, but when you speak to a female jurist, you call her "Your honor," not "Ma'am" and when you speak to a Senator, you call her Senator, not "Ma'am."

[Rebubula]

179. You aren't from the South are you?

As children, it is beaten into us to address adults as Sir or Ma'am.

As a 40 year old, I still address anyone of respect or in polite situations 'sir' or 'Ma'am' - it is what I was taught from childhood.

You can try to tie this to a racist past as hard as you want. The rest of us will simply laugh at you.

Sometimes a Pen is just a Pen...

[JDPriestly]

332. Yes, I lived in the south for some years as a girl/teenager.

That's why I abhor the word "Ma'am" so much. I lived there pre-integration. I know very well what the power of the words "boy" and "Ma'am" are. "Ma'am" appears to be a term of respect and deference, but actually is a term that sets older women in particular apart, that makes them not exactly equal. And, yes, it was beaten into us to use the terms "Ma'am" and "Sir." That's exactly why I object to the term "Ma'am." It is a term of subjugation rather than of equality.

[Ex Lurker]

323. That's one of the most idiotic things I've read on DU lately

Senator Boxer should be called whatever she wants to be called. But your assertion is absurd.

[imdjh]

5. I can't tell from the video if he was being condescending.

But she has every right to insist on her title in that forum. If she tries it on my at a townhall where I am angry about healthcare, she can kiss my ass and I'll tell her so. But in government, she holds a higher position than the General (or any general) and if SHE thinks he needed to be reminded of her position, then I have no problem with that.

[UndertheOcean]

7. Is it only me , because English is my second language , but I always thought that "Ma'm" was an

expression that implies respect . Akin to "Sir" for men .

If it is not , and it is really derogatory.... what is the equivalent of "Sir" for women . please educate me.

[CTyankee]

10. "Ma'am" was what women were called when they had no legal rights in this country.

It was fake respect. Men in power then and now have the title of "Sir." That's the difference. Think about it...

[avaistheone1]

43. I agree.

[treestar]

82. Exactly. It may have been meant to be equal, and might seem

to be that way now, but it goes back far enough to when it was not equal.

[Common Sense Party]

366. "Ma'am" (short for "madam") was what women were called when people had manners.

Webster's:

Main Entry: mad·am
Pronunciation: \ˈma-dəm\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural madams
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French ma dame, literally, my lady
Date: 14th century
1plural mes·dames \mā-ˈdäm, -ˈdam\ : lady —used without a name as a form of respectful or polite address to a woman

[Hekate]

11. See Post #9 above. It's about context, in my opinion.

Of course, I could be wrong, and so could Senator Boxer, but for me this triggers certain flashbacks...

Hekate

[MADem]

39. It does imply respect. It is a respectful form of address.

The people who have a problem with it have a problem with the lack of women's rights in general, and that's an issue for another day.

It is the precise equivalent of Sir.

[tammywammy]

44. That's how I was raised

Ma'am and Sir are equivalents, I call my dad sir and my mom ma'am. Heck, I call the GM where I work sir and my boss (who's female) ma'am. :shrug:

[MADem]

57. Senator Landrieu didn't have a problem with Walsh calling her Ma'am.

Common courtesy gets less common by the day.

[omega minimo]

114. How do you know? And if she didn't SO WHAT?!!

[MADem]

129. Are you saying she is so weak-minded she wouldn't have piped up?

Watch the testimony. Or don't. I really don't care.

[omega minimo]

219. No. YOU are. Another of your projections. And it's sexist to assume women all think the same.

Can you comprehend that?

[MADem]

305. I am not saying that at all. Try reading and stop ass-uming. It reflects badly on you. NT

[polmaven]

433. May I ask why

"the lack of women's rights in general" always seems to be an issue for another day?

[Raineyb]

54. You are correct.

And while it is certainly within her right to insist on whatever title she likes Senator Boxer came off very badly in the way she did it.

[treestar]

81. It was, but IMO it is 19th/early 20th century stuff that needs to

be retired, along with "sir." I hate being called that. It does not feel like respect. I can't explain it - but it just does not. Rather it feels condescending.

I never use "sir" or "ma'am" on anyone else for that reason.

[MicaelS]

156. So just how do you refer in a couteous manner

To a man or woman whose name or title you do not know? If someone does not know YOUR name or title, just precisely how do you want to be addressed, so you are not offended?

[Ex Lurker]

421. crickets n/t

[CTyankee]

12. Hmm. This thread is playing out just about the way I thought it would.

How DARE this woman even question a man?

Good thing I've got some refreshment handy...:popcorn:

[MADem]

40. Wow, throw a little gas on the fire, why don't you? No one is saying that except YOU.

And that's pretty telling. No wonder you have the popcorn going--you're digging the controversy.

[omega minimo]

112. The only controversy is you think your opinion outweighs the Senator's right to be called Senator

[MADem]

149. No, that's not accurate, but thanks for your input. nt

[omega minimo]

215. Yes it is.

[omega minimo]

113. Doesn't she LOVE a man in a UNIFORM?

Does somebody ring a bell on these threads or blow a dog whistle? :shrug:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

140. Really? You're not surprised?

I am absolutely floored that anyone here didn't think Senator Boxer did exactly the right thing in exactly the right way.

I mean, I'm really floored..............

[CTyankee]

169. So am I but sadly there are those who stand with the protocol argument. For them, if the

rule book says it's so, it is so. Of course, feminists have been fighting "rule books" such as these for a long time. And of course, feminists have LONG understood that it is under the rubric of the rule book ("It's so because we say it is") that so much sexism has gone forward in our country. And it's not just men, sadly. Many women join in, out of their powerlessness, to have at least SOME peace with the guys. In the end we all lose if we don't fight, IMO.

I've got two daughters and three granddaughters and I'll be goddamned if I'll leave this planet worse for them, if I can do anything about it...

[Chemisse]

16. One could argue about Sir and Ma'am

But she simply expressed her preference for Senator, and I would prefer that too if I were in her shoes.

While there is nothing wrong with Ma'am on the surface, it has been uttered as a sign of a level of respect for women which is much lower than the degree of respect for a Sir. But Senator says you have truly accomplished somethingb that demands respect.

I expect her comment will set a new standard - or at least a new awareness - of addressing women who hold other titles.

[MADem]

47. It wasn't simple, though.

It was deliberate. She wanted to "throw him off" for whatever reason.

There's a lot of effort that goes into testimony before the HASC, SASC or assorted subcommittees at the DOD level. A "guy" doesn't just show up, sit his ass down, and chat with assorted members of Congress. The briefing books are massive, there are three or four bozos behind the poor person taking the heat with briefcases full of them, to pull up the answer that the Congressperson wants--be it a figure from a zillion years ago, or a percentage statistic, or what have you. There's probably twenty hours of effort by a dozen or more people that goes into every five minutes of testimony--really.

Also, at the high enough levels, and AHEAD of the testimony, there's also interface between military and congressional staffs. If a Senator or Rep wants specific info, the staffers are usually pretty fair and let the people at DOD know in advance that Senator So and So is going to be pounding pretty hard on Such n Such. That way, the testifier can prepare ahead. During this back-n-forth, how hard would it have been for someone from Boxer's staff to tell the guy "Call her Senator, she prefers that?" Not hard. Pretty simple, actually.

Now, as a result of this, Boxer got in a short-term dig at a witness she may have felt wasn't giving her what she wanted, but in the longer term, she is being painted as an asswipe who hates the military. I'm sure that's not true, but it's how she'll be perceived as a consequence of her dressing down a one-star for using the "proper" form of address.

[Name removed]

266. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

312. There you go with the personal "characterizations" and the insults.

That is the refuge of a person without an argument.

[omega minimo]

314. Your post applies directly to you. "...she is being painted as an asswipe who hates the military..."

My comment stands.

[Name removed]

321. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

339. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

377. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

383. I understand perfectly. You presented it. Your choice. Totally disrepectful.

As if we need to know or care what those "_______" say and base our decisions or opinions on that.

If you want to worry about what the real "asswipes" think, you don't have to drag the shit in here.

[MADem]

396. Faux outrage fails to convince. Don't tell me what I may or may not do here, either.

Unless you're a mod, that's not your role.

And do learn to read contextually. That will help you engage in civil conversation with others here.

[Name removed]

404. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

409. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

427. You are consistent. Pestering people from start to finish. Trashing one of our best senators.

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

456. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

462. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

464. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

466. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

468. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

470. Wahhhhhhhhhhh

:cry:

[Name removed]

472. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

483. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

485. I am not the one behaving badly here. You are. NT

[omega minimo]

487. You started out badly, that's the POINT. I'll believe it when I see it. Better luck next time.

:kick:

[Name removed]

488. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

489. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

490. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

493. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

503. No, I didn't. You simply get angry at anyone who disagrees with you.

It's all on you. By your behavior we shall know you.

[kestrel91316]

19. Good for Senator Boxer!!!!! WOOT WOOT WOOT!!

As a woman veterinarian I have earned the title "Doctor" through years of blood, sweat, tears, and exams. Men in my profession are ALWAYS addressed as "Doctor".

A number of my clients (though thankfully fewer every year) never address me as Doctor kestrel - from the moment they meet me they make a point of addressing me by my first name only, or worse yet as Mrs. kestrel (I am single). Sometimes it's simple ignorance, and corrects itself when I simply ask them to call me Doctor kestrel, but in other cases it is clearly intended as a power play so that I know who is boss, lol. Those folks get a surprise when they realize that I am boss of my practice, not them.

Don't get me wrong, some particularly good clients over the years have eventually gotten on a first-name basis with me and become friends, and of course the more casual "Doctor (my first name)" is always fine.

Just one of those pet peeves of mine, I guess.......

[goclark]

35. I agree and Sen. Boxer is Senator Boxer!

:bounce:

[polmaven]

438. I just HATE that!

The "Mrs." thing! Why do so many people automatically assume that a woman over a certain age is "Mrs."? :banghead:

[Matariki]

20. Could someone put this in context? Maybe a link?

I get the gist of it from the thread, but I'm curious about the details.

Thanks.

ps - note to the OP - not everyone is watching television with you!

[MADem]

68. It's long.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Choose&Hearing_id=c7026be1-802a-23ad-4fa3-4c8ed0b6d074.

[MercutioATC]

22. Geez, Pelosi must be OUTRAGED!!

I can't count the number of times her fellow Representatives have belittled her by calling her "Madame Speaker".

[DURHAM D]

36. Pelosi doesn't have any "fellow Senators".

She is in the House.

[MercutioATC]

38. You get my point.

Fellow Representatives.

[MADem]

46. OK, enough of this nonsense--let's go to the MANUAL. Boxer was wrong.

The guy wasn't doing anything improper. She was perfectly free to tell the guy that she preferred another form of address, but she didn't need to scold him--and that's why she's taking heat. Perhaps she would have been better off to have one of her staffers tell his people (and anyone else who testifies before a committee she sits on) of her preference BEFORE the cameras start rolling. The whole preparation for testimony process is a long one--there was time and enough back-n-forth emails to make that happen.

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/cong/faqs.htm#11

11. How do I verbally address a Senator or Congressman or a Congressional staff member?

“Sir” or “Ma’am” works for most everyone, but more specifically --

House: Congressman or Congresswoman; Representative;

Mr. or Ms., Sir or Ma’am

Senate: Senator, Sir, or Ma’am

Committee Chair: Mr. Chairman or Madam Chairman, Sir or Ma’am

Ranking Member: House: Congressman or Congresswoman;

Mr. or Ms., Sir or Ma’am

Senate: Senator, Sir or Ma’am

Staff Member: Mr. or Ms., Sir or Ma’am

[dorkulon]

125. Gee, I wonder why no one responded to this.

Maybe because it completely settles the question and doesn't give the female chauvinists any scenery to chew on.

Boxer's wrong here. It does come to pass occasionally that a man is right and a woman is wrong.

[MADem]

132. Because facts are pesky things.

I spent half a career being the asshole with the books behind the poor bums (of both genders) who had to sit at the green felt tables. I heard enough Sir-ing and Ma'am-ing to fill a dumpster. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone gripe about being accorded respect.

This is misplaced offense, by people who do not understand military protocol. Clinton, Milkulski, Snowe, Landrieu, Dole, Collins....no one save Boxer has had a problem with the form of address.

And if she did have a problem, tell a staffer to warn the guy ahead of time. Don't step on his response and scold him--that's the real "sin" here. Later, as he finishes his testimony, she acknowledges her beef is with the ACOE, and not Walsh. He wasn't even a general officer when Katrina went down, and the hearing was about protecting NOLA in future.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

141. " ... scold him..."?

You are dead wrong on this. She very politely asked him to call her "Senator," and added, quite nicely, that she'd worked hard for it.

Scold?

You're 'way off on that....................

[MADem]

150. Watch the whole tape. It is over an hour.

She crawls up his ass and gives him hell for the entire time she's grilling him. At the end of his testimony, she acknowledges that her frustration isn't really with him, personally, but with stuff that happened before he took the job. I'm sure that made him feel better...or maybe not.

And yes, she's scolding him. She even scolds "Madame Senator" Landrieu at the start of the hearing, because Landrieu is testifying (about Katrina issues) in addition to being on the committee, and Boxer didn't want her up on the dais--she "scolds" her to stay down in the audience until she testifies.

And then, she asks Walsh a question, and as he is in the middle of his answer, she INTERRUPTS him and lectures him (and she's very rude to do so, IMO) about the "ma'am" stuff.

Again, as I have said elsewhere, if she wants ONLY ONE form of address among the three available and commonly used when speaking to a committee chair (and Walsh used two out of three--Madame Chair and ma'am--before he was "educated") she should have told him BEFORE the hearing. She should not have interrupted his response to rip him a new one for using an acceptable and respectful form of address. Even if she couldn't bear it and felt the need to correct him, she should have waited until he finished his response, not jumped on his answer.

She was wrong. Dead wrong. Her stupid opponent has already made the exchange a "Why does Boxer hate the military?" ad.

I'm not way off--I'm right on the mark.

[CTyankee]

170. No kidding. I went back and watched the clip again and was surprised at how meek she was.

She wasn't at all confrontational. But she DID interrupt him and doncha know, wimmin should NEVER interrupt a man who is speaking...:sarcasm:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

178. No kidding ............

Watching all the passion, all the words, so many words, going on and on, to attack Senator Boxer, to "make her wrong," when, in fact, she was as polite and gentle as she could be, makes me wonder exactly what the hidden - and perhaps subconscious - agenda is here.

Men defending men? I don't know, but I do know that there is an almost irrational - ok, strike that "almost" - adherence to, as was so brilliantly pointed out (ahem), the "rule book".

"This is how it's done. This is how it's always been done. This is right. You are wrong. Sit down and shut up, little lady."

That's what's being thrown around here, and, honestly, I'm surprised as hell, but then I remember the days in law school, when women were admitted in the proper number, proportionate to our percentage of the population because of Affirmative Action, and the male (read: all of them) law professors routinely referred to us as "lawyerettes."

Men can go on and on all they want, but they haven't a clue as to what went into that beautiful, golden, eternal moment, when Senator Boxer asked the general to "call me Senator."

Hooray for Senator Boxer, and gentlemen, turn off your engines. You haven't a clue ...................................

[edbermac]

48. Some blogs are stating that Boxer called Condi Rice Ma'am.

It might just be RW bullshit, but I wonder if there is a tape of it out there.

My two cents: If he called the men Senator and the women Ma'am, then she was justified.
If he called the men Sir and the women Ma'am, she comes across looking very petty.

[MADem]

58. There is tape of her on YOUTUBE, calling Condi "Madam Secretary"

in a quite deliberate tone.

Walsh used both Sir and Ma'am in his testimony, until Boxer jumped on him.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raineyb]

64. I hate to have to say it but I have to agree with you there.

This exchange made Senator Boxer look bad.

[EFerrari]

83. Why is she a bitch for asking to be called by her official title?

:)

[Dramarama]

88. I think it's the tone

[EFerrari]

89. The funny thing is, "Ma'am" and "Sir" , although usually the former

can be used as a passive aggressive put down. I wasn't in that room and I trust Barbara.

[Raineyb]

174. I saw the video, and she came across badly. n/t

[EFerrari]

198. I thought she looked fine.

[Raineyb]

327. Meh, she came across as rude to me

I certainly would have been taken aback if I were the one testifying.

[Kaleva]

63. It's standard in the military to call men "sir" and women "ma'am"

I very highly doubt the General was being demeaning to Senator Boxer. This, IMHO, makes Senator Boxer look petty and small.

[tammywammy]

66. Agreed n/t

[omega minimo]

115. It's standard in the Senate to call senators, "Senator."

She expressed her prerference in a gracious and respectful manner, even explained her reason.

It doesn't matter whether "the General was being demeaning" or not. That's not the point. She doesn't have to earn the title or ask his permission.

She has already earned the title. That's what she explained to him.

The people criticizing her here, joining the Right Wing vultures, are who looks "petty and small."

[proteus_lives]

65. I was raised to use ma'am and sir.

It's about respect. I use ma'am for older women and unknown women unless they have an obivous title like doctor or request something different.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

166. Yeah

I grew up in Florida. We were taught to call older men "sir" and older women "ma'am".

[ItNerd4life]

70. I think it was disgusting of her and completely rude.

I grew up saying 'yes sir' and 'yes ma'am'. It's a sign of respect. As other posters have noted,
it's part of military protocol. Is she so uninformed that she doesn't know this?

I guess military personnel can no longer salute Obama and say 'Yes Sir'?

[omega minimo]

116. Is he so uninformed he can't use the title she prefers and requests by right. No. He's not.

Why are so many here that uninformed?

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. Rude and condescending. She was doing nothing more than showing her disdain

for people in uniform in general, and the General in particular.

[Throd]

78. I think she came off as a self-important jackass.

[omega minimo]

127. You mean like any other member of the Senate?!

:think:

[Breeze54]

79. Senator Boxer.....

:yourock:

:kick: & Recommended

[treestar]

80. Ma'am sucks, I can't put a finger on why, but whenever I get

called that, it pisses me off, even if the intent does not appear to be condescending.

This is America, we do not have titles, we should abandon both "ma'am" and "sir." They are outdated.

It is distracting and I don't blame Sen. Boxer for not liking it.

[Rebubula]

397. LOL...

...cause it makes you sound old!

:evilgrin:

[solstice]

84. Boxer was grandstanding. As a woman, I find that way more annoying than being called "ma'am."

[omega minimo]

117. She made a brief request, explained her reason, the hearing continued. How is that grandstanding?

[mopinko]

85. things that make you go hmmmm. why is this clip out here?

who found this and why did they launch it into the blogosphere? quite the clever little smear it is.

i say go senator. a short woman like her must have to assert her office often. a damn shame it is, and good on her for doing it. i though she was perfectly polite to the guy, and perfectly right to assert herself. the brouhaha about this just shows you what a long way we still have to go.

[mopinko]

86. oops

gremlins

[Retired AF Dem]

87. I guess you have never been in the military

When a male of less rank is talking to a female of more rank, ma'am is the correct title.

[EFerrari]

94. And the context was a Senate hearing, not a muster. n/t

[mkultra]

98. ma'am is the correct title of respect for non military females.

[EFerrari]

124. I think non military females get to be the deciders on that one.

[mkultra]

175. sure, but dont act like hes being disrespectful

when he is clearly following the military code of ethics and protocols.

[EFerrari]

196. He had no reason to invoke her gender. Her title is Senator

and he was an @ss for not using it.

[kiranon]

121. And how many women generals do you think this BG says "Ma'am to"?

As a former Army officer and a member of a general's staff, I disagree. He was being disrespectful and knew that he should call her Senator. He would have been thoroughly briefed on this point and this error alone may mean that he will not rise above the level of BG. A Brigadier General is like a Freshman in college and treated as such by the higher ups. He has to earn that second star and it isn't easy. If he had a woman general above him who would rate him, he would never have said "Ma'am". He would have said Senator to Senator Boxer and "yes, general" to the woman general above him.

[MADem]

151. You're such an "expert" you think this guy is in the Air Force!

You can disagree all you want, but you have NO credibility here. NONE.

You'd think, if you were actually a "former Army officer" that you'd recognize the frigging CLASS A ARMY UNIFORM that the guy was wearing, and not tell me, like you did upthread, that he was a USAF officer.

You either are full of it or you didn't even watch the tape. Or most likely, BOTH.

Either way, you are not being truthful at all and you should be ashamed of yourself. You don't even know this guy, who was VERY polite through his whole testimony, and you're trashing him here. How OFFENSIVE of you. How, dare I say, sexist.

[kiranon]

255. Listened on the radio and radio person called him Air Force. I was

an Army officer on a 2 different Brigadier Generals staff and they had no female 2 star generals above them ever. The issue is how many generals of 2 stars or more does this BG report to? He would not say "Yes, Ma'am" to a 2 star woman general above him if one exists in his line of command he would say "Yes, general". One does not say "Yes, Ma'am" to persons of equal rank. I do not sit and watch tv all day but have the radio on while I work so I could not observe this particular general as he testified.

[MADem]

285. Cough. Bullshit. You did not. And you were not. You have no credibility with me. NT

[Tangerine LaBamba]

290. Not worth it..........

pearls before swine, and all that ..............

[MADem]

303. There you go again. I expected better of you and am again disappointed.

Now it's a "deep and lingering pathology."

Watch the hearing and stop insulting me, please.

[EFerrari]

154. He had zero reason to invoke her gender in that public setting.

Passive aggressive bs.

[MADem]

155. Yeah, he was being a sexist asshole when he SIR'd the shit out of Vitter too!

:rofl:

[kiranon]

261. If you were a woman, you would know that "Sir" and "Ma'am" are not equivalent.

Why are you so angry? It seems as if this is very personal for you. It's not personal for me. It's just the way it was when I was in the service. Perhaps it was different in other commands but in my command that is the way it was. The 2 star general over my one star BG was also a religious nut who went around etching religious symbols into the furniture and on other items. And,no one said, "Don't do that general or Don't do that sir." You probably had a different experience that included everyone in the service treating women like equals and no one hitting on them. That was not my experience. Ma'am was not a term used to show respect when I was in the Army and was used mostly by the enlisted and not by the officers. Most of the enlisted called me "Sir" and that was ok because they did not think "Ma'am" was dignified enough. The position I held was more important than the gender. The general called me by my rank as did other officers who never said "Ma'am" or "Sir" to me.

[MADem]

279. How do you "know" what I am?? You don't. That is a shitty excuse that is dragged out

when people have no argument--and you don't have one, so you resort to falsehoods. I am not at all "angry" (that's another tactic pulled out when one has no argument). I'm fair, which you plainly are not. Unlike you, I believe in Equal Opportunity for all military personnel--and it ain't just a one way street.

But I know what you are NOT. You are not a former Army officer who worked on a general staff. No enlisted personnel routinely called you "Sir." As Judge Judy says, don't pee down my leg and tell me it's raining. I've worked with thousands of junior, midgrade and senior enlisted and officers from all branches, and unless they're frightened because they're getting an overbearing and abusive ass-chewing, they know their "ma'am" from their "sir." Ma'am is PLENTY dignified, and you're just not telling the truth with your little phony anecdote.

Denigrating enlisted personnel in that fashion is just "not on," either--they're not stupid nor are they inherently disrespectful without cause. And they know their regs.

They don't let blind people serve in the military, either and the only way you couldn't have recognized that guy's uni is if you were 2ndLT Helen Keller, or you served at Valley Forge--and we know that's all not true, either.

Go away. Just go AWAY. Using a sexist argument to attempt to chastise someone with a long, strong EO-focused military career is just "not on." You really should be ashamed of yourself, but anyone who feels compelled to spin stories on the internet to "win" an argument has to have a pretty empty life, so just get some help. Your posts consist of obvious prevarications and shit-stirring. And you, too, haven't even seen the full testimony but that doesn't stop you from weighing in with pronouncements based on pure fiction. Shame on you.

[kiranon]

318. I've got your number and probably out ranked you so you can just say Yes, Ma'am

if you wish. Check out the early women generals in the Army when there was a Woman's Army Corps and they did just handle uniforms. You are assuming I am young but I am not. And, the incident with Senator Boxer was on all the radio stations replayed over and over again. Nice try. Do tell us your rank in the service. And the word "if" means just that - if you were a woman.

[MADem]

325. I rather doubt that. See, senior leadership usually recognize military uniforms

without having to pretend they heard a minor congressional hearing "on the radio." You didn't tell the truth about that. You made up that stuff about enlisted personnel calling you "Sir."

If that's your story, and you are sticking to it, you're not too sharp--the entire hearing centered around the ACOE's failures in NOLA post-Katrina. Why would anyone in the USAF be dealing with those issues, pray tell? Anyone working on ANY general staff, from aide, to mess specialist, to writer, to COS, would know that ACOE isn't USAF. But you, apparently, remained without a clue.

Pants on fire, dear! Grab the extinguisher!

I was a senior leader but well below the rank of 0-10. And that's as close as I will get to specificity on an anonymous message board. Now come on, do at the very least pretend to tell us what staff you worked for. No guts, no glory.

The staff of General Hospital?


But you have a nice day, "Sir, the General Nuisance of the General Staff!"

:rofl:

[polmaven]

439. I heard it on the radio too...

I don't remember if the poster said s/he heard it LIVE on the radio, but I have heard it replayed on the radio to discuss the subject.

[MADem]

492. Anyone who has served on a general staff knows the proper forms of address,

unless they were so far down the food chain, in a civilian capacity, that they never had any reason to interact with the public in any fashion.

It's just not believable that an offficer of the female gender would permit, or want, her subordinates to call her "Sir." It's also not believable that an officer who worked on a general staff would object to "ma'am" as a courteous and respectful form of address. This is taught in boot camp, in OCS/OIS, in ROTC and at the Service Academies. It's not just taught, either--it's DRILLED.

Finally, anyone with a commission, having served on a general staff, hearing the testimony on the radio would know, even absent a visual cue, that USAF doesn't testify on ACOE matters. Ever. The two just don't go together.

[polmaven]

496. My point was not the argument

about the proper forms of address within the military. i was never there, so I don't know that.

My point was that you implied, twice, I think, that the poster was a liar for saying she heard it on the radio. I heard it there, so why not she?

[MADem]

499. She couldn't have "heard" the color of his uniform on the radio.

That's my point.

An Army officer who worked for a general staff knows what the ACOE is. They also know that ACOE is not a USAF entity.

I wasn't "implying" anything. I was coming right out and saying that I disbelieved the poster's assertions. If you read my posts, that's what they say.

[Skittles]

308. damn straight, FAFD

Skittles
USAF '75 - '79 - called ma'am more times than I can count and never offended :D

[Forkboy]

313. Can you imagine the trail of kicked asses you would have left behind had you been offended?

:D

:hi:

[Skittles]

316. oh, I kicked plenty of ass

one sergeant stepped in front of me and said, "I BET YOU ARE PURTY PINK" - not smart since I was wearing fatigues and combat boots at the time. I STOMPED HIS FOOT, then when he was hopping around I kicked a shin - HARD. He never spoke that way to me again. :D

[Forkboy]

317. LOL..this is why I love you.

:rofl:

[Skittles]

319. that guy was well over 6 ft tall, 200 pounds

I weighed 115 pounds and disabled him fairly quickly - he's lucky I only went for his shin :D

[harry_pothead]

93. He was being respectful

And she snipped him out for no good reason. She embarrassed herself and the party with her antics. There's no two ways about it.

[Chemisse]

96. Any woman can be called Ma'am

Very few women can be called Senator. I think she was right to insist upon it.

And so what if it is not the military way; Sen. Boxer is not in the military. She certainly has the right to ask to be addressed in a way that shows the most respect for her position.

[Retired AF Dem]

268. Of course she isn't in the military

What Govt body confirms a Generals promotion? The Senate of course. That General better be calling her Ma'am. She could of used more class in asking him to call her Senator.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/promotions/l/blofficerprom.htm

[omega minimo]

119. She didn't snip him out. She had right and reason to her title. Explained it. Deal with it. He did.

[nomaco-10]

102. My two top fave senators are Boxer and Feingold, BUT....

as a middle aged woman who has been all over women's rights for years, I'm not on board on this one.

Ma'am/Sir? Come on. They are both addresses of respect. It's not the use of the title, but the TONE of voice of which it is used. We all know that.

Is "The Magistrate" here at du been discussed over this topic? I have always hated being referred to as ma'am by him, but I did do some soul searching, and came to the logical conclusion, old fashioned and condescending as it may seem to some, it's still an address of respect by many.

How you gonna separate the difference between those that use it as a form of respect and those that use it as a tonal dis?

[omega minimo]

120. If the Senator prefers to be called Senator and explains she worked hard for it, why is it even a ??

[EFerrari]

143. We weren't in that room. It comes down to, do you trust Boxer.

The term can be one of respect as The Magistrate uses it or, it can be used ironically as an insult. And there are likely shades in between.

Barbara Boxer is not a petty person. If she felt the need to assert her rank, I trust that she had a good reason for doing that.

[MADem]

152. The entire hour and a half of testimony is available on the internet.

WATCH IT. You don't have to "trust"--you can actually make a fact-based assessment.

The Brigadier was entirely respectful, not snotty, accomodating, polite and courteous throughout his time in the chair. His behavior was IMPECCABLE. Boxer even said at the end of his testimony that her frustration was not with HIM.

But watch the tape. She was pretty petty on that day--and not just to Walsh.

Everyone has bad days, and that one was caught on tape.

[handmade34]

183. MADem, thank you

for your rational and appropriate comments and opinions on this issue.

[MADem]

411. You are quite welcome.

I am astounded at the personal insinuations directed at me here, but they don't deter me much. I simply consider the source.

I remain (and my track record here over the course of years proves it) strongly supportive of a greater role by women in government, but when I see someone, even a White Guy From New England, being treated unfairly, called names, accused of sexism, when those accusations are objectively false, I'm going to say something.

You can't have fairness unless you're really fair to all. This Brigadier is an engineering wonk, not some Rambo-like bully. His "thing" is blueprints and construction, not bullets and bayonets. He's thoughtful. He's polite. He's unerringly respectful. He's not some stereotypical bully-weenie who hates women. He's an engineer, newly promoted, back from Eye-Rack, new command, trying his utmost to be responsive to a Congressional committee to the best of his abilities. Anyone who watches the full hearing (and most, if not ALL, griping have not) can see that.

[omega minimo]

212. "Petty"? Another projection on her behavior because she's female?

I'm sure the Right Wingers agree with you.

[MADem]

283. Watch the video. Watch it. ALL of it.

She was pretty petty to "Madame Senator" Landrieu too.

And cut with the "right wingers" argument. That's so childish. Watch that tape.

[cherokeeprogressive]

375. So you think women can't be petty? You think petty is a gender-specific term?

I would politely beg to differ. "Petty" doesn't fall under the same umbrella as "shrill" or "bitchy". Not even close. I have never in my life heard anyone make the claim that calling someone petty is an insult to women as is "bitchy" or "shrill".

[obliviously]

288. If you ever run for public

office I will gladly vote for you! That was one of the finest debates I have ever seen you realy stick to your guns. I have gained a lot of respect for you.

[omega minimo]

306. You are enabling ignorance and bigotry and sexism. Dems need less of that, not more.

[obliviously]

329. You are a slave to your preconcieved opinion and no amount of facts or logic will sway you.

MADem Looked over the entire situation and was honest about her opinion. It was not popular with many here but she stuck with it because she felt she was right. I respect her for that. You on the other hand won't give your point of view. You say what you think people want to hear. Who is the stronger and most liberated? I think that would be MADem she is free to state her personal opinion. Watch and learn.

[omega minimo]

341. That almost made sense. You agree with a flawed POV. Great. I call BULLSHIT.

[obliviously]

373. You have no point of view

you have whatever the crowd tells you to have. you are incapable of liberated independent thought.

[omega minimo]

378. LOL

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

Welcome to DU.

btw, with that attitude, why are you here?

[obliviously]

392. I am listening to posters

capable of their own thoughts and ideas not your robotic group speak. Power down and relax speach unit.

[omega minimo]

393. Got yer number

[MADem]

400. Thank you so much. I'm a bit past my prime for that level of public service, I think.

It takes more energy than I'm willing to expend!

I'm also unashamedly lazy, and more of a grass-rootser. I do my bit, though--I drive old folks to the polls, help them with their grocery shopping, help out campaigns with smiling and dialing, wandering around neighborhoods hanging door knockers and chatting--that kind of thing, and every so often I mop a floor at a soup kitchen.

But I do appreciate the kind words--I am and always have been a champion of women in public life. It's why this sort of thing distresses me, precisely because it is a distraction and a weapon for the opposition.

[obliviously]

406. i need to find some time

to do more volunteer work. I get so busy making a living I forget others need help.

[MADem]

407. It's easy for me--I have an abundance of time.

I never did before--I always worked fourteen hour days. Now, my time is my own. I'm making up for lost time, now, and paying off my "good works" balance sheet! I get as much out of it as I put in, maybe more, in some instances.

That said, I'm still lazy as hell--and enjoying it, frankly.

[Kaleva]

122. I don't see Palin refered to as "Governor Palin" around here much

I don't but if I was for some reason talking to her face to face, I'd call her Ma'am or Governor Palin. Many here call President Obama just plain Obama. I do try to use his title but sometimes I call him Obama.

[UTUSN]

123. Frankly, I'm not. Have any male senators *never* been called "Sir"?!1 n/t

[ccharles000]

126. I don't see what is wrong with Ma'am

[omega minimo]

128. BB PREFERS "SENATOR." SAID SO GRACIOUSLY, OFFERED A REASON, "I WORKED HARD TO GET THAT TITLE"

"I worked so hard to get that title."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5880701&mesg_id=5884759

exactly :wtf: is the issue here? :crazy:\




I cannot imagine being this WILLFULLY IGNORANT.

[Liquorice]

134. I support her too. I hate "ma'am." I just can't stand it, and apparently I'm not alone. nt

[Threedifferentones]

167. If he was also calling male senators sir, this conversation is over

Sir and ma'am are supposed to be equivalent. Of course one could argue ma'am has an old, sexist connotation...every word relating to the feminine does, since our society is quite sexist and used to be even more so. But, if a general is referring to senators as he does to superiors in the military, with sir and ma'am, what do ya'll want? FOr him to call female senators sir? To invent a new word?

If the general always calls women "ma'am" and men by their titles, this would be clearly condescending. But, he does not and did not. Controversy over.

[omega minimo]

211. Was he? Or did he call them both "Senator" and "Sir." And was she the "Chairperson"

[CTyankee]

275. Really? Is this so hard to figure out? She asked him to call her "Senator," her official title

which she earned. What do we want? Well, how about calling her "Senator"?

Honestly, if she prefers a title to which she is perfectly entitle to, what do "ya'll" want?

Controversy over.

[Threedifferentones]

398. Of course she has every right to demand to be called only by a title

That is not the controversy. The controversy is whether or not he used the word ma'am to "keep her in her place." He called male senators sir, so clearly he was not using a double standard. You apparently never really got the "controversy" in the first place.

[saltpoint]

172. Some of us boys like Senator Boxer, too.

[Odin2005]

176. "Ma'am" is a title of respect. This outrage is BS

[omega minimo]

210. The outrage over the Senator making this request is BS.

:hi:

[fortyfeetunder]

180. All about respect.

And in that case a man's ego...

[handmade34]

182. As a progressive woman, I am ashamed of Sen. Boxer's behavior

[madokie]

184. As a man so am I

[yodoobo]

190. Ma'am is derogatory now?

I had no idea. I guess I've been insulting people when I thought I was being polite.


How about "Sir"? Has that been declared un-pc as well?

[FLDCVADem]

191. As a woman...

...I thought it made her look petty and it appeared (to me) that she was trying to make the General look like a fool. I'm not sure from where people get the idea that the word "ma'am" is an insult, but it certainly isn't. Unless of course all of us military and former military were trained specifically to insult all our female superior officers. Not to mention those of us that were raised to say "sir" and "ma'am" to our elders.

IMO, a better way to handle it would be to ensure that anyone appearing before her is briefed on her preferred method of address.

[yodoobo]

200. fwiw. Senator is not a title at all.

Its a job.

We don't do titles in the United States.

Article of the US Constitution:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state"

[Liquorice]

220. LMAO. That doesn't have anything to do with calling a senator a senator. nt

[yodoobo]

272. of course!

You call a senator a senator, a President a President, and a Judge a Judge.

But they aren't titles. they are jobs.

[EFerrari]

224. LOL. It is a job title, not a title of nobility.

[yodoobo]

270. exactly. (nt)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

237. Saying it twice

just makes you immensely incorrect twice.

Twice as wrong.

"We don't do titles in the United States"? Really? So, that's OBAMA, not President Obama? Not Mr. Obama?

Do you know what "titles of nobility" means?

You'd better go find out before you post this uninformed bit of nonsense again...............

[yodoobo]

269. No its President Obama

And its Senator Boxer.

But it still isn't a title.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

274. OK, honey........

Whatever you say.............

[yodoobo]

278. Yes sweetie

:toast:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

280. No, I'm not toasting you .......

I'm saddened that you fail to understand the difference between "titles" and "titles of nobility."

That kind of ignorance makes me sad..................

[yodoobo]

293. Impressive

I understand the difference.

That *IS* the point.

I'll toast you anyway. Please don't hate me for it.

:toast: :toast: :toast:

[MADem]

401. +1. nt

[Norwood]

207. This is just another example of the PC crowd looking for something to be offended by

Why is this even a controversy? From what I've seen male senators/congressmen/etc. are routinely addressed as "Sir" so whats wrong with the female equivalent of "Ma'am".

I like Sen. Boxer but she really had nothing to gain by doing this and was totally out of line. The general was respectful and to think his addressing her as "Ma'am" was some deliberate act of condescension is just unreasonable to me.

[omega minimo]

209. No one said it was deliberate. She expressed her preference, rightfully so. Read the thread

It may help you understand.

[FLDCVADem]

218. Yes, she expressed her preference

By cutting the General off mid-sentence and by using a bitchy, condescending tone. The same thing could have been accomplished in a much better way, either before the hearing in private (staff to staff), or after he had finished speaking.

IMO, she appeared to be putting him "in his place", which was unnecessary.

[omega minimo]

221. All of that is completely false and projected from a point of male insecurity

He was not "mid-sentence."

She was not "condescending."

Her tone was not "bitchy."

She had every right to make the request in the moment.

No one knows whether it's been handled previously with staff. Presumptions that that's how the Senator SHOULD have handled this are pretentious BULLSHIT.

"IMO, she appeared to be putting him "in his place", which was unnecessary."

If you see it that way, understood. Then, it was necessary. He was not aware of his place, before a U.S. Senator, thought he was just talking to some woman and you call them all "ma'am" as a sign of the respect they should have for your service and rank.

She requested the respect he should have for her rank.

Now he does.

Do you?

[FLDCVADem]

228. Being a female...

...I don't have male insecurities. Being a retired military member, I know that ALL superiors are to be addressed as "sir" or "ma'am". The general was in no way being disrespectful to Boxer (oops, do I have to say "Senator"?). She was being pissy, and she took her chance to take it out on the general. Her perogative. However, as with all choices we make, especially when on-camera, there are going to be reactions. Some you like, some you don't.

My reaction is that there were two high-ranking, respectable officials in that conversation, but only one of them acted the part. The other one acted like my 15 year old daugher when she's in a snit.

[omega minimo]

235. Senator Boxer made her rightful resquest kindly, respectfully, provided her reason. It's that simple

What others project on her about how she sounded or if she was an "uppity woman" or what she should have done are much ado about nothing.

I give the general credit for grasping the concept more than all the detractors who are criticizing her.

[FLDCVADem]

238. There was nothing

Kind or respectful in the way she made her request.

And kindly don't put words in my mouth - "uppity" was your term, not mine.

[omega minimo]

245. If you can't see she was kind and respecful, you think she was an "uppity woman"

and compare her fair behavior with some expectation you have BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.

[dorkulon]

324. +1

:headbang:

[MADem]

402. +1. nt

[sylvi]

333. "aware of his place"?

First of all, "Senator" is not a rank. Senators are not in the chain of military command. Senators are not the bosses of military personnel except insofar as the laws they make bind them just as they do other U.S. citizens.

Military personnel are polite to members of Congress because

a. They are generally polite to all U.S. civilians

and

b. They are willing to show a certain amount of deference because Congress holds the purse strings to the funds the military needs

and

c. It is good form to be civil towards individuals who represent the populace one serves as a military man or woman.

The whole idea that being a member of Congress somehow carries some "rank" over anyone else other than people who actually work for them or that it automatically demands the respect of others in government is silly.

[Liquorice]

229. She wasn't bitchy or condescending. nt

[FLDCVADem]

230. You see it one way

I see it the other.

[Liquorice]

233. So true. I just don't characterize women in general as "bitchy." nt

[FLDCVADem]

236. Nor do I

Where did I say women in general are bitchy? I'm bitchy some days, as is my daughter, my employer, my employees and just about every woman I know.

We all have our bitchy days. Boxer just happened to have hers on camera.

[omega minimo]

243. You just did. She WASN'T "bitchy." Saying she was is sexist garbage. Wake up & smell the millennium

[omega minimo]

240. You want her to flatter him with coquettish behavior, which would have really been condescending

She acted as a Senator and a person of respect to a person of respect. He understood that. Too bad so many others can't.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

239. Whoa........

Did you see the comment?

Because if you thought she spoke in a "bitchy, condescending tone," you have a hearing problem.

If you don't have a hearing problem, your problem is much deeper than that.

But, you did make me laugh..............

[FLDCVADem]

244. Yes, I did see it

I've watched it numerous times, and there is nothing wrong with either my hearing or my eyesight.

She was in a pissy mood, and she took it out on the general.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

250. Oh, so you can glean

what kind of mood someone is in by watching that person on TV?

You are gifted. Immensely gifted. Some people might call it something else, but I'm not going to do that, because it's so obvious.

And if you saw anything but a remarkably polite woman, you're watching someone else, not Barbara Boxer.................

[FLDCVADem]

258. I've seen Boxer many times

when she is indeed polite and professional. The exchange with the general was not one of those times.

[omega minimo]

264. "Senator Boxer very politely and gently, almost self-effacingly asked the general for"

Tangerine La Bamba, from above post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5880701#5888964

All that matters - and it's astonishing to me the controversy this insignificant matter kicked up here - is what Senator Boxer wanted to be called.

If someone doesn't understand that, or can't deal with it, that, to me, is indicative of a deeper pathology at work, one that transcends common sense and rationality. To go ballistic and call on "rule books" about what Senator Boxer very politely and gently, almost self-effacingly asked the general for was to have him address her by her title and not by "ma'am" is to not see what is right in front of your face.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

265. Right .........

You know how moody those female types can be, don't you?

You really are over the top on this one.

Check the video of her making the request, and then consider taking a nice, long rest...............

[Norwood]

241. I read the thread and watched the video

The condescending way she addressed the general gave me the impression that she thought it was deliberate. Again she was out of line and people are just looking for something to be offended by.

[omega minimo]

248. Get used to women speaking and behaving as if they are people and don't have to flirt to communicate

[FLDCVADem]

252. Are you that black and white?

Do you truly believe that there are only two ways for powerful woment to communicate? Flirt or be a bitch?

[omega minimo]

257. Nice try. She was not a "bitch." She was clear, respectful and entrusted him to handle it.

Too bad you can't.

[Name removed]

260. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

262. "She was being a bitch" --------- Welcome to DU. Read the Rules.

:evilfrown:

[FLDCVADem]

234. Exactly

Some people aren't happy unless they're screaming "sexim".

Looking for perceived slights in every nook and cranny of daily life.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

242. What's "sexim"?

And, on, your comment about Senator Boxer being "out of line" gave you away.

It was bitchy and condescending, honey.................

[FLDCVADem]

247. Left out the second "s" in "sexism"

Of course you knew that. Guess you're taking lessons from Boxer on condescension.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

251. Only when I'm invited to,

and you issued that invitation, sweetie, when you opened that door.

[Name removed]

263. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

246. Why is it a controversy? I don't get how many people can't handle

a women asserting her rank. That's all it was. Do you believe this Brigadier General couldn't handle it? If not, maybe he should get into a new line of work.

But how typical to say that Boxer was somehow "unreasonable" for defending her turf. I guess she'd be a much better Senator for my state if she just let herself be run over. lol

[FLDCVADem]

249. To me

It wasn't that she asserted her rank, it was how she did it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

286. Yeah, "politely" and "clearly"

are traits that would confuse anyone who can't bear the idea of a woman being something more than 'the little lady'.

[EFerrari]

311. Okay. Maybe I just can't see what some of you guys are seeing. n/t

[omega minimo]

259. Yeah, she stood her turf for us with Tubbs-Jones, when our SECOND election was stolen

:yourock: Senator Boxer!!

[Skittles]

307. ???

I've been called ma'am many times, especially by military guys, and it never offended me

[Beacool]

338. I'm a feminist and I thought that she was rude and petty.

He called her "ma'am" because this is how the military is trained to address their superiors. He also called the male senators "sir". Boxer interrupted the general without even an "excuse me" or "please". Her manner and tone were rude and to whine how hard she had worked for that title was unnecessarily petty.

x(

[omega minimo]

340. Did you notice if he also called the male senators, "Senator"?

[Beacool]

350. He called Vitter "sir".

I saw an expanded video on TV, but only found this audio on Youtube from some right winger's radio program. You can hear the general call Vitter "sir" at least twice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzo03_rMPPQ&feature=related

:shrug:

[handmade34]

354. the General called Vitter, Sir

this issue is about perception and unfortunately Sen. Boxer is perceived to have acted inappropriately by many people, including me. To read the transcripts, it may appear to be a reasonable interaction. To watch the video is quite another thing. The perception is that Sen. Boxer was very frustrated and chose to interject her request to the General mid sentence. Yes, it is a tactic that might be used by some in positions of authority or power and I don't like to see it done by anyone.

[omega minimo]

369. Her behavior was absolutely fine. People may not approve it b/c she's female. Doing her job. Senator

If a man had done the same thing, it would be a non event. But a male senator more than likely (including in this case) will be granted due respect and called "Senator" and nobody ever notices.

[yodoobo]

342. That was precisely the idea

It was a powerplay to bully the guy.

A negotiating tactic if you will to assert authority over her adversary. It was intended to be rude and throw her opponent off kilter.

Is that a criticism? Not at all.

Men, especially politicians do this all the time in negotiations. When women do it, people freak out.

[Beacool]

351. Maybe, but why bully the guy at all?

I cringed when I heard the video because it reinforced the RW stereotype of liberal women as humorless and ball busters. There are so many legitimate reasons to fight sexism, this incident wasn't one of them.

[yodoobo]

353. I won't pretend to get into her mind.

About why she was doing that with this particular individual. I'll assume that she felt it necessary to advance what she is trying to accomplish. Sometimes a carrot works. Sometimes a stick is better.

About the stereotypes..they are powerful things. They even affect people who actively try to avoid such things.

If a male politician postures or angles for position, he is seen as powerful, assertive, strong and a player. If a women does it, she is seen as humorless, petty and a ball buster. Its almost an instinctual reaction.


If this was a guy telling him to stop calling him Sir, and start calling him Senator, its unlikely anyone would have taken note, and if they did it would be because he's a "powerful negotiator"

[Beacool]

356. I agree with you on stereotypes.

Men are assertive, women are bitches, etc., etc.

If a man had told him to call him senator, instead of "sir", he may have gotten less attention. But, he still would have been called petty for making an issue of it in the first place.

[MADem]

403. She apologized to the guy for giving him a hard time during his testimony.

Though not for the "Call me ma'am" business. It's on the full video (I have provided the link to it elsewhere in this thread) about an hour or so in to the testimony. She acknowledges that her frustration is with the "patch and pray" model used by ACOE post-Katrina. She gripes about funding requests and DOD's failure to state what they needed. She rips him a new one because a Committee order to establish a task force hadn't been realized (the paperwork for it, though, was stuck in the pipeline ABOVE the Brigadier in the chain of command--like blaming a child because their parent didn't pay the electric bill, or something). She did note that many of her complaints relate to things that happened before the General even got there.

What she was doing, though, was beating up on the servant for the actions of his master. Walsh didn't have the authority to do much of anything, save carry water and report back to his bosses.

If Vitter (the male Senator who was sir'd to death by Walsh) said "Call me Senator! I earned it!" this board would have erupted in gleeful and vigorous denigration. The "Who the fuck does that asshole think he is?" posts would fill the greatest page, and posters here would be pointing to, not ignoring, the TRADOC guidance I have linked in this thread.

[omega minimo]

385. SHE DIDN'T

This is a senator, doing her job. This is a real woman, using a real voice, not Paris Hilton, not fawning or patronizing.

She was perfectly polite about it. She set him straight. Some people don't like it, because she's a woman. Some people don't like her "tone" because they're so unaccustomed to seeing women do that job and hearing/seeing real women ANYWHERE in public life or media (all the plastic people and fake voices are epidemic).

She wouldn't have had to say what she did, except that she's a woman. A women who's a senator who doesn't want to continuously be "ma'amed" and politely points it out and GIVES A REASON, "just a thing" was her modifier to take the onus off the general, expressing her preference to him candidly and respectfully, SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO KISS ANYONE'S ASS ABOUT IT.

[omega minimo]

352. Thank you for expressing the male POV and male paranoia so completely.

She said it because she was tired of being "ma'amed" and requested politlely, which another senator -- esp. with the attitude you express -- might not have done.

Males need to realize that females are not necessarily going to play the same bullshit games they would. They need to quit looking at this from THEIR POV ONLY.

[Beacool]

355. Now, that's funny!!!

I've spoken against sexism around here until I've been blue in the face and now I'm accused of expressing the POV of males???????

:rofl:

Please, the general called the male senators "sir" and he called her "ma'am". I still fail to see the problem, particularly since he was well aware that she chaired the committee.

:eyes:

Edited for typo

[omega minimo]

357. that reply was to someone else

[Beacool]

359. Oops, sorry!!!

It's late and I'm tired.

Mea culpa!!!!

:blush:



:hi:

[omega minimo]

360. It's cool, Beacool.

sleep tight :boring:

[yodoobo]

361. huh? I invite you to re-read the post.

I fail to understand where you see fear, let alone paranoia.

She was doing her job (quite effectively) and is being unfairly chastised for it due to unfair stereotypes in our culture.

If a male Senator chastised a subject to gain position, we would not be having this discussion.

Its called posture and negotiation. Its critical and good leaders (like Boxer) understand this very well.

[omega minimo]

363. She "chastised a subject to gain" her rightful title, which male senators would not have to do.

See the difference? I understand your point.

I do not believe she was playing that game.

I do not expect male senators would have as much reason or occasion to be FORCED TO request due respect, as this female senator did.

[yodoobo]

367. Maybe she wasn't playing that game

or maybe she was.

But don't kid yourself about male Senators. You don't get to be Senator (or any leader with significant power) without understanding power plays, posturing and negotiation.

That's kinda the point I suppose. With men, its not even noticeable unless done in a clumsy manner. Its passes without notice much of the time. Its the "invisible" part of the stereotype.

The other half of that stereotype is that some do notice, and some make a huge deal about it when women attempt to exert pressure from a strong negotiating position.

[omega minimo]

368. Wow, look at us, we're actually discussing!!

:wow: :spray: a volley of at least 2! a record for "disagreeing" peacefully on DU!! :rofl:

Points well taken. :toast:

[yodoobo]

370. Wonders never cease!

:toast:

[elmaji]

358. Use of Ma'am is hardly disrespectful.

I'd be damned if my mother had the luck to be called Ma'am half the times she wanted to back when she was raising us.

[slackmaster]

413. As a California Democrat I have license to call Senator Boxer a disgrace to my state and to my party

:nuke:

[YvonneCa]

417. As a California Democrat I have license to support Senator Boxer...

...and praise her courage in standing up for things she believes in, even when something is unpopular. She is a credit to my state and to my party.

She stood up for Ohio in 2004, for the environment, and against torture. Many women fight hard every day to earn both title and respect...which is regularly denied. Most of the time we just move on...but on ONE day, the Senator respectfully requested it be acknowledged. I say, GOOD for her! And I say that with complete understanding that the military person she addressed meant no disrespect...M'am IS respect in military institutions.

[BlooInBloo]

418. If a Senator asks you to call him or her "Senator", you call the Senator "Senator"...

All else is 100% irrelevant.

[Ex Lurker]

423. I'll call a Senator whatever I damn well please

they work for me, not the other way around.

[woo me with science]

446. Good answer! nt

[Common Sense Party]

480. Bingo!

[omega minimo]

428. This could also be a matter for DUers to attempt to support her rather than promote RW attack memes.

[AngryAmish]

420. Yes Maam, whatever you say.

[DarbyUSMC]

437. Minchia

I'd rather be called ma'am than a lot of things. I didn't grow up in the South but I did live there while in the military and out. Children are taught sir and ma'am as terms of respect as hundreds have already said. What a goofy world. Somewhere along the line being called ma'am became a degrading term?

I don't know who Senator Boxer is. I thought for some reason this thread, with so many responses, included a joke, so I finally looked at it.

Had he called her "honey" I could see a correction would be needed.

Call me ma'am. I'm sure I deserve it. (That's ma'am not puttana ;) )

[omega minimo]

443. Senator Boxer is the only senator that challenged the bogus Ohio count in Stolen Election #2 in 2004

with Senator Tubbs-Jones of Ohio. The ONLY senator with the sense and courage to fight for OUR right to vote for president and not have Bushco. reinstalled.

Both are women. One is African American. Funny how when it comes down to fighting for the American people on issues of civil rights violations, it's the people who have experienced it very vividly who are our champions. The Congressional Black Caucus does a lot of this work that we never hear about.

When we have GOOD LEGISLATORS they deserve some respect. The least people here could do is support her presence and her preference and not give Right Wing crazymakers more fuel for their fires.

Everybody's got an opinion, but who does the work? People like Senator Boxer, who gets slammed for pointing out she'd prefer to be called Senator than Ma'am.

Bunch of fucking ingrates.

[obliviously]

451. Your comments are becoming more refined and polished! N/T

[omega minimo]

461. Your snap judgements got the best of you

[Brooklyns_Finest]

484. Boxer is a joke

That display was absolutely pathetic.

If I had to testify before congress and Charles Schumer tried to pull the same type of BS, he would be just as much of an ass as Boxer was. This has nothing to do with sexism. It is about a pompous fool with an overstated sense of self importance trying to bully a military officer.

I am glad Boxer eventually apologized for her shenanigans.

[omega minimo]

486. Your post is a joke

uninformed, disrespectful and sexist. Completely clueless. You know Schumer would be called "Senator" and never would have been in the position the Chairwomen was in.

Why are you at DU?

[AtomicKitten]

494. She's my representative and almost makes up for her counterpart, Diane Feinstein.

almost ...

[Forkboy]

495. That's a tall order for anyone.

:)

[AtomicKitten]

497. that's a fact

I've seen them together riding in a car in the Chinese New Years parade here in SF and often felt like pegging Diane with rotten fruit, mustering restraint only because I was afraid I'd accidentally hit Babs.

[Forkboy]

498. Well if you ever get the chance to lob one without her in the way...

..use your other hand to snap a photo for us. :)

[AtomicKitten]

500. I'll post it as soon as I make bail. ;)

[Forkboy]

501. Hell, I'll post your bail!

:rofl: