Barbara Boxer schools general in sexism-Tells Him To Call Her

Run time: 00:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT9YA-xCihk   Posted on YouTube: June 18, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 18, 2009 By DU Member: kpete Views on DU: 6604

 

Calling the President "Sir" is not good enough? I don't see the sexism involved.

Its not his title. "His/Your Holiness"

Just the like the appropriate title to address the president with is "Mr President" (we dont all him "sir")

The APPROPRIATE Title to address any senator is....."Senator"!!!

Its actually not a sexism thing here, Senator Boxer is correcting a general officer. Congress has oversight of the military.

It's the feminine equivalent of "Sir"...which is an honorific title (and one that military personnel are used to using).

It suggests that she doesn't know jackshit about military culture.

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

And I've done it in UNIFORM.

So sorry, forgive me if I put your lousy opinion right where it belongs--in the shitcan.

I hate to tell you this, but "Sir" is perfectly acceptable for the Commander in Chief.

Grow up, and don't give people "protocol lessons" when you plainly cannot find your ass with both hands on this topic.

Both are correct.

some people don't know how to play nice and disagree without being entirely disagreeable or attacking personally because they lack a debatable point

She should concentrate on her job and keep the nonsense to a minimum.

Where "Don't call me 'sir,' I work for a living" is an inside joke.

An officer is called "sir" or "ma'am." I suppose the gentleman is used to calling any woman in authority "ma'am."

The reason this same person will call the President "sir" is simply that the President is in his chain of command. Senator Boxer is not.

unless the person addressed is in the chain of command??

it doesn't matter if we think it is sexist or not.

she is a senator, and if she wants to be called by her title rather than "ma'am" why should anyone have a problem with it?

so maybe so does she.

But if the person being addressed prefers one form over the other, THAT'S what you use.

Let's see what the Right Wing digs up on on how Boxer has treated others in such instances - I bet it won't be consistent. Glass houses and such.

This thing is already playing heavily on various GOP channels - red meat for moderates thrown from the base of the Party.

No matter how many stars he or she has.

It was a pompous, petty comment to make.

In that respect, Senators are one step below the President.

What a weird environment the internet is when we can see a :17 second clip and assume that we have enough information to make a better decision than the person who was actually there.

Maybe she was being unnecessarily rude. Maybe, given the circumstances, she was being necessarily and purposefully rude to achieve some end. Maybe she was asserting dominance. Maybe he'd been in the room while someone else got testy with her. Maybe she was just moody.

My point is this -- how do we know with such certainty given so little information?

They can play deferral games with each other all they want, but they serve us.

generals and any other military person is appointed.

Senator and reps used to be regarded as a truly powerful person. Even here, look what McCarthy did.

But the right wing has consistently and systematically brought it all down to a low common denominator. In coversation do you even hear people say "president Obama"? or is it just "Obama".

Senator Boxer, or just Boxer?

its like not calling a doctor, doctor.

a fairly rigorous selection process. The Senate "advises and consents" on it.

Above the two star level, the President makes the call --well, the SECDEF and sometimes, particularly in the case of three star appointments, four stars in the service in question will make recommendations up the chain, and JCS will of course weigh in--it's pretty much a combo of "Works and plays well with others/sheer talent/likeability" -- and there is no selection board process.

So no, they aren't just "appointed" and if they haven't jumped through a load of hoops, to include joint service and advanced education, they are going home at a lower paygrade.

No one called Barbara Boxer "Boxer." The general, like what he said or not, followed proper military protocol, and Barbara Boxer made herself look like a jerk. And as I have said on this thread, I like her. But dumb is dumb, and wrong is wrong. If a Republican Senator has said "Don't call me SIR, call me SENATOR" this thread would have been about what a pompous fucking ass the guy was.

Good for the goose, and all that....

I'll check again.

if he expressed a preference which she ignored, that would be different.

As far as I am concerned, she asked for everything that comes out of this 'moment' of her self-involved lovefest.

If she wants him to call her "Your Majesty" he'd better do it if he knows what's good for him.

If she wants him to call her YOUR MAJESTY I think she should be censured by the Senate and given a mental health check.

Sir/Ma'am are INGRAINED. They are the ultimate in politenesss in the military. The female general is called Ma'am. Any female officer senior to the speaker is Ma'am.

I've met a lot of Senators while I was in uniform. Most were men. We didn't call those guys Senator, we called them Sir. They didn't mind.

this is the kind of bad-theater that undermines the Democrats with the military - so if it hurts Boxer's run for Senate in ads in California, she can discuss it with an audience of voters in a year, explaining how hard she has worked and how she has earned that title. Then again, maybe Cindy Sheehan will see this and say 'hey, time for me to enter the race'!

That kind of shit can ruin a career. This poor bastard is a lowly (relatively speaking in the upper echelons) one star, just starting out on his way up the flag/general ranks.

If he becomes known as "Boxer's Ma'am Guy" and the wingnuts turn him into a sacrificial lamb, they'll end up fucking him. If, at his next promotion board, it's down to him, and some other guy with his exact same resume, only none of that contentious crap with Boxer, it's the other guy who gets the second star.

If you look at how fast Arnold's popularity has come and gone, ego-licking incidents like this are the death-knell of careers. To somehow act like she deserves to harp on someone for an innocent show of respect is pitiful. This is one of those things that folks in authority love to throw at someone underneath them to try to build up their own egos. I tend to think it is a sure sign she actually lacks the self-esteem she claims to show. Her attempt at taking a political shot failed miserably and from what I have read, is now paying the price all across the internet with a strong majority of reviews saying she was mean-spirited.

She should remember something - polite people who have learned to say 'sir' and 'ma'am' are probably more likely to be registered voters, proud of our military, and unimpressed by her attitude.

She has no place in the chain of command. But she does get to vote on the budget which has some effect on him and his staff, officers and troops. So he would be well advised to show her whatever deference she feels is necessary.

BTW I knew guys in the NCO ranks who could say the word "sir" in such a sneering tone, that the officer being addressed knew immediately he was being disrespected. Oddly enough, none of them ever challenged these guys on it, at least not while I was present.

On edit: I've met Senators also. I've met Sen. Boxer. In fact I spent a day driving her around to view damage when I was the director of a flood control agency here in CA. It's been a number of years ago but as I recall I addressed her as "Senator".

No the chain of command does not go throug the Senate. The BG works for Commander-in-Chief, the SECDEC. This is otherwise known as the Executive Branch. Now congress has oversight, but he does not work for her. But everyone in Public service works for us, the public. Whether it be President, Senator, or Military, etc.

Sir/Ma'am, Senator are all proper terms. Now if this BG addressed all male Senators as Senator while Senator Boxer was there, I can see why she would feel disrepected. But the proper way to handle it is a privete discussion between Senator Boxer/or her aide and the BG. Not a rebuke in public.

So he would be well advised to show her whatever respect she deemed necessary. Regardless of where she falls in or out of the direct chain of command.

Is it reciprocal? Is he entitled to her respect in return? Certainly he is entitled to common courtesy. But he is not entitled to any special deference simply because of his rank. Not from civilians anyway.

She did the right thing, far as I'm concerned.

As he is above 0-4 he is addressed as 'general'. I think a Senator would get the same treatment.

any female officer or person in service to the government in a civilian capacity, be they a senator or representative or governor or SES civilian appointee, called Miss. Ever. You might call the ten year old daughter of a Senator "Miss," but not someone "in the job."

I met Barbara Milkulski, the Senator, and I called her Ma'am. She isn't married, to the best of my knowledge. She didn't get mad at me, either.

though in informal settings it's pretty common.

It IS the equivalent of 'sir'. You are right.

But age did not used to be the reason one chose 'miss' or 'madame'. It is now.

Not having encountered many, but if a male Army warrant officer is referred to as "Mister" whatever, I wonder if "Miss" may not be considered acceptable?

that Sir, Ma'am, and Senator are all considered acceptable when addressing a U.S. Senator.
I think it is Senator Boxer that needs to hone up on the proper congressisional edicate.

"Edicate". No such word...

Thank you so much for your gracious comment regarding my misspelling of the word etiquette.
I shall strive in the future to become 100% perfect like you ;)

your post made me laugh.

If you're going to presume to make a public announcement about protocol and you'd like to be taken seriously, you might want to spell things right. It's not a matter of whether people should take you less seriously when you make a mistake like that, it's that they will.

If you present a grammatically flawless argument, it looks as if a well educated person is making a judgment about another well educated person, rather than a person who has never even read the word "etiquette" trying to explain its finer points.

Instead of being snarky, maybe you could just learn to spell etiquette and thank CTYankee for any credibility the spelling lesson might give you in the future.

And, to be fair, "edicate"? Really? That's not a typo or a misused homophone.

My misspelling of a word has nothing to do with the fact that Congress has rules of etiquette/protocol.
So, are you saying that if an uneducated person were to come to DU that they shouldn't state their opinion only because they wouldn't be able to communicate their thoughts in a properly grammatically manner?
If anyone was being snarky it was CTYankee.
How many people have ever come to DU and have never once have typed a word incorrectly?
You are correct by my typing 'edicate' was not a simple typo - it is a misspelled word that I typed quickly without reviewing while I was having a migraine.
How much are you being paid to be part of the 'grammar police' and who is your leader? ;)

p.s. Please feel free to review this comment for more misspellings, since I've been up all night I am sure there might be at least one up above.

CTYankee pointed out that you spelled "edicate" wrong. Which is reasonable, considering that you spelled it like you were scratching graffiti into a 1920's Appalachian outhouse. What he/she did was the equivalent of pointing out that you had spinach in your teeth. In this case, it may have been like pointing out that you had an entire Caesar salad stuck up there. CTYankee, while a little snarky, did you a favor.

And you got all defensive. To which I pointed out that CTYankee was justified. If you're talking about protocol and presume to know more than a U.S. Senator, you'd better spell things right. Or close to right. Or, you risk looking silly.

Neither of us said your point was invalid because of the spelling (when in fact, it was invalid because it's conceited for any of us to assume we know better from a :17 clip than Sen. Boxer knew from vast experience and actually being in the room, but that's another matter). And of course, DUers make mistakes. I tend to butcher sentence structure and sometimes type double "ee"s because of my #@$$@#! keyboard. But, in practical terms, it matters when you make the mistake.

"That Rush Limbaugh shure is a turd." -- The mistake doesn't call the opinion into question.
"That Rush Limbaugh is a toatle dummass." -- The mistake makes the opinion look a bit less valid.

See?

"The guvvamint should spend less on bombs and them kind of things." -- Ok. Sure. We're with you.
"The guvvamint should spend less on edukayshion." -- Now, you sound like an idiot.

On a side note, I'm sincerely sorry about the migraine, but there is no way for other DUers to know that there's a valid reason your spelling suddenly took a nose-dive. A better answer to CTYankee might have been "Thanks. I missed that. I had a migraine and I was trying to type while I was trying not to puke."

p.s. Feel free to check my comment for spelling errors. Because even one is going to legitimately make me look like a hypocrite.

p.p.s. On another thread, you said "I person could come to the collusion that he was acting in self defense and his actions were justified." I'll assume it was also a result of the migraine writing. But if CTYankee points it out, you may want to explain.

"Little lady." Woefully so.

a function of marital status. Single women were not called 'Madame'.

Madame Chiang
Madame Nu
Madame Mao

It was used only for married women.

In the west we use Mrs for women we know are married:

Mrs. Bush
Mrs. Peele

Miss Hepburn
Miss Diana Ross
Miss Marple
Miss Honeychurch
Miss Havesham

Eleanor Roosevelt has had them all.
1) Single. Eleanor Roosevelt. Miss Roosevelt.
2) Married. Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt.
3) Widowed. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt.
4) At the UN, often 'Madame Roosevelt'.

That she was addressed as just 'Eleanor Roosevelt' while FDR was still alive was a tribute to her independent persona, but it was NOT correct.

When men and only men were in the Senate and every other place of power in our government, of course it was standard to call them "sir." It was a time when "ma'am" was just fine indeed for the ladyfolk. There's your history. Come on, think hard, you can do it! Yes you can!

not getting into patronizing garbage.

I'm glad you've honed your debating tactics so well.

if she asks him a yes or no question, is he supposed to say "Yes, Senator Boxer," "No, Senator Boxer?"

No. If it was a male Senator, he would say "Yes, Sir." Same deal, different gender. Call it the fault of English for not having a neutral honorific, but it is certainly protocol.

the full rank - 'Senior chief Smith, tell the troops...'

It used to be just 'chief'.

0-4s and above are addressed by rank, those below as 'mister': 'Mister' Roberts. 'Captain Hornblower'.

I've never heard the chief one. Then again, I'm not military.

chief, etc.

It's silly. Queen Elizabeth isn't addressed by her full title, and, like navy chief, it's a Divine appointment.

Ma'am is the honorific you use for any female person who is commissioned or in government. It is the exact equivalent to Sir.

this is not one of them.

'Madame'/'ma'm' is the respectful, cultural default to address any woman over the age of 30.

Now, if you want to talk about the military's referring to 'women' as 'females', then we can talk. Ships are crewed by 'officers and men', not 'officers and males'. 'Nuff said.

And if they use the word as a stand alone, it's "females over here, males over there" kinda thing.

The idea is to "keep it clinical." They don't want to paint any word pictures, I guess.

They're also getting slightly better at that "officers and men" shit--they still use it on subs (for obvious reasons) but I've heard "Officers and crew" as well as the unwieldy, "Officers, men and women" in reference to mixed gender crews.

I am a fan of the simple "Crew." I really never felt the need to be separated from the pack as a consequence of my commissioned status. I had eyes and could see the sleeve of my blues, to figure out where I sat in the pecking order!

Or is this just a Senate thing?

:eyes:

:rofl:

Madame Secretary Clinton will want a high horse, too, if that were the case!

time for a well-written and rehearsed apology or she is going to be hearing about this for weeks.

showing her military respect. If you really want to be a shit in uniform, you use the RANK instead of the Sir/Ma'am. It's a subtle way of doing a dig. "Yes, COLONEL" has a different quality than "Yes, SIR."

It's the rare male general (other than those working for a female SES) who even has to use "Ma'am" all that often--because there aren't enough female generals to make the useage needed on a daily basis. The guy had to dust off his courtesies, and got his ass handed to him for his trouble.

I have no idea if the guy's testimony was bullshit, and she was jerking his chain for THAT reason, but she shouldn't have done it.

He was very respectful. Not putting her down or anything. Its not like he kept saying Mrs. Boxer or Boxer. I've having a little trouble seeing why she went at him that way. Must be more to it. How did he treat her in a previous hearing?

Maybe that's what she needed to pursue her line of questioning. I can imagine that in certain instances, women need to posture a bit in order to overcome traditional gender bias.

It strikes me as odd for people to question her methodology without any knowledge of the results.

Not counting the ladies of ill repute.

she was showing attitude and she got caught - and frankly deserves any fallout she gets from this

If the President is required to address a Senator with the title, Senator, I would think it proper for someone at a hearing to do so as well.

Rule 101. Title of Senator. The President, when speaking to any member of the Senate, and the members, when referring to each other in debate, shall use in their addresses the title of Senator, and by way of distinction name the county in which the Senator resides.

they mean the President of the Senate, who is, in the US Senate, Joe Biden, but way more than half the time some poor bastard is sitting in for him.

And I don't think your rules are even from the US Senate--there's no "rule" that requires amyone to name the COUNTY a Senator comes from. Christ, when you do the google, read your sources before cutting and pasting. Also please do provide a link in future.

That is how the people in the Senate Chamber of whatever state you cropped that excerpt from address themselves when the Senate is in session--it is not how President Obama or anyone else is to address Senators while they're hanging out, farting around, having a discussion or even holding a hearing off the Senate floor.

:eyes:

Context is everything, ya know! And check your sources next time, because you erred in a big way with this particular assertion.

I made a mistake, you frickin' jerk.
I made an attempt to find a rule that applied to the Senate and Senators.
It apparently was the wrong one.
If I were a know it all like you, I would have seen that.
I never said I was right, but thanks for jack asses like you to point that out.
I never thought I quote Dick Cheney but, ...

You did "assert:"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assert

assert

Main Entry: as·sert
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsərt, a-\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin assertus, past participle of asserere, from ad- + serere to join — more at series
Date: circa 1604
1: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively
2 a: to demonstrate the existence of <assert his manhood — James Joyce> b: posit, postulate
— assert oneself : to speak or act in a manner that compels recognition especially of one's rights


You rather positively and declaratively posted those unlinked paragraphs as though you were giving all of us the final word. It turns out your assertion was incorrect. Get over it. The world isn't ending.

I am not a "know it all." I just don't pretend to know stuff when I don't, I do my research, and if I screw up I will say so.

Maybe you are referencing the wrong Senate?

Sorry 'Senator', you came off as being very petty. And I was 'schooled' to address all adults as Sir or Ma'am.

No, not Senator Boxer, but every poster on this thread who "knows" beyond all doubt, from a :17 clip that she was "DEAD wrong" or that "she shows she lacks the tact" or that is was "uncalled for."

It's the trend, though, for a sub-culture I'll call Internet Americans to assume that we can make better decisions, in any given moment, than the person who was actually there. And we don't just think we're right, we're convinced. To be fair, maybe given all the information she had at the time, she was in the wrong, but none of us can do more than guess. Consider the following reasonable possibilities:

1.Senator Boxer has found, through experience, that it is useful to assert social dominance when dealing with the military.
2. Senator Boxer has found, through experience, that it is useful to assert social dominance when dealing with this particular general.
3. Senator Boxer has found, through experience, that it is useful to assert social dominance when dealing with men who are testifying before her.
4. The general failed to show her due respect in earlier testimony.
5. Another person gave testimony during which they failed to give her proper respect and she was re-setting the tone.
6. Senator Boxer finds it useful to knock people out of their comfort zones. Especially when they are overconfident, male, military or all three.

And those are just the reasonable assumptions. What about ones we'd never know about that might have happened? Here are a few wild possibilities that none of know didn't happen.

1. The General gave her the stink-eye out in the hall.
2. The General winked at her out in the hall.
3. She overheard the General making misogynystic jokes.
4. She knows the General to be one of the types we all went to school with who acts like a jerk until somebody in authority is around.

How do any of us know that any of those aren't better explanations (or more true explanations) for what happened? We don't. To pretend we do know and that we know to such a degree that we can use it to judge her capabilities or character based on a :17 clip is just silliness.

civilians outrank Generals anyway

Doesn't she know her "place"?