Center for a New American Security

Did he want to be addressed

Did he want to be addressed as Mr. Walsh?

Yeah, this is a phenomenon

Yeah, this is a phenomenon that sociologists have documented very well.. In professional contexts, women get addressed as Mrs., Ms., or ma'am when men get addressed by their titles or ranks. If the general expected to be addressed by his rank, he should have addressed the senator by her title. That she even had to ask is sort of embarrassing for the general.

I think your site ate my

I think your site ate my comment. And it was a &*^% masterpiece, too. Well, maybe not.

So, my parents came to the US in the late 60s and my father always says the great thing about this country is that there are all kinds of opportunities for all kinds of people, if you are lucky, and if you look for them. Even the stupid people.

I allow you to draw your own conclusions, re: Senators.

"No problemo, Senator Babs."

"No problemo, Senator Babs."

What would have happened if

What would have happened if he called her 'Liz?":

http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0609/No_namecalling.html?sho...

Thats a perfectly

Thats a perfectly appropriate comment, to remind who is in power of who. Strength to her.

"Yeah, this is a phenomenon

"Yeah, this is a phenomenon that sociologists have documented very well"

This is a phenomenon that PVTs on their first day at boot camp have documented very well: Always refer to any man as "Sir" and any woman as "Ma'am."

The custom is so engrained in the miltiary that only a dullard -- or a senator -- would fail to realize that generals always call their civilian superiors "sir" or "ma'am." In the mind of the BG, it would've been impolite, almost denigrating, to term her merely a "senator."

She is and was a "ma'am."

While I don't much like the chickenhawk meme, perhaps if Boxer had served a day in uniform before she began nitpicking the etiquette of general officers, we wouldn't have to confront such an absurd parliamentary moment. When universal conscription was the order of the day and the vast majority of senators were WWII veterans, the lawmakers would've understood the custom completely, and wouldn't have dressed down a general for adhering to it.

It's sort of odd to see in

It's sort of odd to see in Exum's post title and Jason Fritz's comment above the idea that Boxer was "reasonable but" and "not wrong according to "Service Etiquette"" but still "obnoxious." If she had a reasonable request, what's the "but"? If she's not wrong about how she ought to be addressed, what's so "obnoxious" about expecting to be addressed correctly? Apparently, it's obnoxious and somehow inappropriate to do what's reasonable and correct according to service etiquette. Hm. I think that's what those whacky feminists call a "double standard."

And on a slightly different point, are generals really such delicate flowers that they can't be expected to get some pretty simple protocol right? Or that they can't be expected to have a more sophisticated command of protocol than a PVT? Really? That's actually a pretty scary thought.

Okay, I don't know why this

Okay, I don't know why this thread of all the threads has me so involved....there are other women commenting above, right? It's not all guys, is it?

1. He addressed the male Senators as sir, didn't he? So, if he's an offender, he's an equal opportunity offender.

2. Doesn't it bother any of you that this is the attitude of our political class? They are not our betters, what is all this protocol nonsense?

3. Listen to her tone of voice. I'm a woman, so, like, I don't think her tone seems snotty to me because I'm some kind of backwards, anti-feminist male. But, maybe I'm wrong! I don't like the political class. I guess I just wouldn't talk that way to someone, and jeez, I'm not exactly a shrinking violet...the words 'ball' and 'buster' might have been used about me at one time or another, which is just RUDE, people.

4. Is this a generational thing, where the Senator is a Boomer and I'm Gen X and Gen X feminists are different? We probably didn't face the same institutional sexism, so, maybe I didn't hear what she heard from the General.

5. Oh, and what else? I dunno. This whole post and thread bothers me though. Well, it's either that or I'm procrastinating.

"if you listen to the clip

"if you listen to the clip elsewhere, sounded a touch high-handed to me. "

If you listen to the hearing, M, you might also note that he refers iteratively to male senators as "sir," and no one upbraids him for it. This, perhaps, is because they realized that a high-ranking military officer is hardly being derogatory by giving them that honorific.

Regardless, Boxer also is right about a key fact: She never earned "ma'am." She was provided by title by military custom, just as any PAC money guzzling halfwit from the Great State of (fill in the blank) earned the mantle of "sir."

Others who have attained her lofty rank of senator would include the racist hate-mongerer Theodore Bilbo, the drunk Commie-baiter Joe McCarthy, John "Traitor with Burr" Smith, Ted "Build me a House" Stevens, Dave "Condo Fee" Durenberger and Burton "Interior Department is my ATM" Wheeler.

At least when addressed by a person in uniform, they were "Sir" or "Ma'am," the reality of character or criminal status notwithstanding.

SNLII is right about this

SNLII is right about this being so basic and ingrained - Sir to males, Ma'am to females. I would only address a Superior by his rank if he was in a posse of peers, and I had to differentiate. It may be our most ingrained habit of customs and courtesies (we don't call it protocol).

Madhu's first instincts were correct. This is a symptom of the growing putting on of airs by what is indeed an emerging aristocracy - the political class. They do indeed consider themselves our betters, I guess because they are better at causing catastrophic damage then the rest of us, and getting rich, fat, old and menopausal doing it.

Fnord -" who has power over whom". You nailed it Fnord, it's exactly how this ...person... thinks. Which is why they all, all, all need to be thrown out on their arrogant, incompetent asses in disgrace. Every single last one.

We are a Republic Fnord (still). They serve the citizens, not the other way around. It's not a Constitutional Monarchy, for instance. If your point is civilian control of the military, we get that lesson right after the Sir/Ma'am one.

The MSM will not televise

The MSM will not televise the Revolution, but it is happening. There are now 96 more cities having tea parties on 4th of July then when I checked 3 weeks ago, over 400 more than happened April 15th, for a running total now of 1,228 total so far.

This includes Chattanooga, BTW. Also the small town where I am from, where about 500 people showed up, out of about 15K population. And no, we're not "Astroturfed" (thanks Nancy, another slip) we are indeed grass roots.

And I would think anyone who say this little dustup just got a little closer to attending.

Can’t' speak for the Army

Can’t' speak for the Army but in the old corps when one was perturbed with a senior we would use their rank instead of “sir” or “ma’am.” So instead of “I will take care of it, sir” one would say “I will take care of it, Captain.” If you were really pissed you would also slip into the third person: “The Gunnery Sergeant will take care of it, Captain.”

It was a form of respectful disrespect.

Boxer just seems enamored with her nice title, which she earned only by the fact that she convinced more people to vote for her instead of someone else. BG Walsh isn’t in her chain of command anyways.

Fair enough, maybe it

Fair enough, maybe it implies a lack of knowledge about armed forces... But I still understand the quip.

Yea, Elf, go and get

Yea, Elf, go and get yourself teabagged!

Fnord, it's quite OK to

Fnord, it's quite OK to refer to her in an early reference as "Senator," especially in a former of address (in the House, a general might say "Mister," "Miss," "Ms" or "Mrs" before a last name). But in continuing conversation, it is appropriate to refer to senators as "sir" or "ma'am."

One most certainly would address a letter to Senator Boxer, for example, but in a conversation one wouldn't keep saying "Senator" this and "Senator" that, regardless of gender.

Holy cr*p SNLII! I am

Holy cr*p SNLII! I am officially freaked out, now. You know more about my subculture than I do!

I gotta go. I might not be visiting too much for a while. Talk, argue, comment, educate, everyone! This place is a treasure.

Strangely, I was taught to

Strangely, I was taught to address an admiral as "Admiral" vice "sir" in conversation. It's really hard to get used to.

"Brahmakshatriya "

"Brahmakshatriya " caste?

There is no such thing. There are brahmins. There are kshatriyas. There is no brahmakshatriya. (fwiw I am Indian )

"brahmakshatriya" I should

"brahmakshatriya"

I should have hyphenated it as Brahmin-Kshatriya. As I explained, they are people from the two castes that have intermarried, with the offspring converted to the lower caste of Kshatriya. For those keeping score, there are four traditional Varnic classes, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra.

My guess -- based only on her sparse background -- suggested that she was the offspring of a Brahman and Kshatriya marriage, but I might very well be wrong.

Is it possible that

Is it possible that long-term service in the Senate causes a form of autism that doesn't allow one to respond properly to complex social cues, causing social outburst like someone not being (perhaps) correctly diplomatic, but in no sense trying to be disrespectful getting lashed @ the mast?

That would make a medical/psychiatric argument for term-limits were it true.

Are you kidding me? How

Are you kidding me? How petty - - but not surprising. I just wish people in high government places could get their heads out of their butts and just do their jobs. He was still being respectful to her -- she on the other hand with that comment was not respectful at all towards him.

I had no idea Madhu was a

I had no idea Madhu was a woman either. I had envisioned a put upon 30ish guy Doc slogging it out in the Chicago health system, fighting a lonely battle against bureaucrats, George Clooney look alike womanizers and the human condition.

I really like Da Buffalo's "political autism" theory. It's bought on by being given a course of immunizations from reality, the consequences of their actions, and from what usually gets the rest of us in jail, like taking bribes. I would posit it goes beyond just social but into moral and ethical autism as well. In it's terminal stages (and lets hope most of them are there) they completely lose touch with the rest of the world outside Beltway-ople, begin to think they are actual nobility instead of "our only native criminal class", and give interviews denouncing crimes they were party to, actually participating in the investigation (actually the last one they usually get away with).

The Revolution continues on July 4th. Viva Republica Americana

Yes, it was a reasonable

Yes, it was a reasonable request. The woman wants to be called Senator, then let her be called Senator. Would there be such a flap over this if, say, Ted Kennedy had asked for the same thing? Probably not.

"Oh - and this whole thing

"Oh - and this whole thing about where Madhu is from is seriously creepy. "

Cultural anthropology, used as a sort of digital parlor game, might seem "creepy" to you. In Iraq and Afghanistan, however, it saves lives.

In this case, it was a moment of fun to discuss cultural gleanings from months of reading her words. I'm somewhat astonished that so many of those who routinely comment here didn't realize from her written discourse that she was obviously Indian, born to immigrant parents, enculturated in the best traditions of high caste competency and astonishingly bright, brash and articulate.

Understanding the culture in which one operates -- indeed, understanding the very different sorts of people one confronts within a society -- is a paramount skill to the counter-insurgent. We might consider the exchange between the bovine, blitheringly blinkered buffoon Boxer and the pogue general to be one of those Balinese Cockfights, wherein we gain clues of how they not only appraise each other, but also how our unique online culture views them (and, therefore, are own social ordering herein).

Boxer, despite what would seem to be many years in the Senate, apparently had been unaware about the social conventions of the military caste. She seemed unable to grasp that he was extending courtesy to her and sublimating his own position within the social order to appease her -- an incompetent reading of military commanders that wouldn't affect those with greater cultural literacy.

I mentioned the ease with which the former Sen Hillary Clinton conversed with military commanders to show that it wasn't a question of gender, title, elected office or other characteristics, but rather of familiarity and competence. I supposed that I just as easily could have included Sen Dianne Feinstein, who has long attended hearings concerning national security and has a level of comfort -- and a certain literacy when in comes to military leaders -- that her junior colleague seems to lack.

No one is denying that anyone has a right to be termed whatever he or she desires. If the goodly senator wishes to be known as "senator" and not as "ma'am," that's most certainly something a general can do. But it is NOT the norm, rather an alteration of the typical discourse between military commanders and their elected overseers. In the future, I suspect the general will ask his aides to canvass the senators at an upcoming hearing to gain, beforehand, their preferred titles, so that he might change tradition to suit them.

It wouldn't be a "flap" for Kennedy most obviously because Kennedy served in the military during the era of conscription, and is quite aware that it's considered an honorific for him to be called "sir" by senior military leaders. Indeed, I would imagine that Kennedy, having earned that "sir" after once occupying a quite junior rank in uniform, rather likes hearing it tossed his way.

That you don't to realize this really just shows your cultural illiteracy, too. I don't find that creepy, but rather an indication of just how far we've come -- culturally -- since the ending of the draft. When the Senate mostly was composed of military veterans, this question of how best to address them wouldn't have arisen.

Only now when the Senate is bepopulated with those who have never served in uniform -- and some, like Boxer, who apparently haven't even encountered in any meaningful way the norms of our miltiary's culture -- do we have these moments.