Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Boxer scolds Army General for not calling her “Senatorâ€. «What got her most rankled was when she wasn't addressed properly. It seems that “ma'am†— a term deemed appropriate by a Military Protocol guide — isn't good enough for the senator. She demands the title “Senatorâ€. So much so that she interrupted his testimony to scold him for the apparent lack of respect. »
My previous posts on similar subjects would lead me to prefer "ma'am," because it is a courtesy that can be extended to any (female) member of the society.
I understand, however, that some women perceive "ma'am" as being sarcastic or a passive-aggressive way of disparaging a woman holding a position of authority.
Why not just "Ms. Boxer"? That would probably also annoy the senator, but so far as I am concerned, no holder of public office, whether a senator or a brigadier general should expect to demand deference.
Interesting. Boxer is my senator, and I wonder if there is any official protocol or guidelines for how people are supposed to address each other in DC. But then again, Boxer asks the General to "do her a favor," and admits that it's "just a thing." So, even if it's not official protocol, Boxer is expressing a personal preference, and I suppose that is her prerogative. It would have been funny if the General had, in turn, asked Boxer to address him as Brigadier General. But I guess that he didn't just have a thing about his title. Or maybe he didn't work as hard as Boxer did to get his title. 
I'm currently a little peeved at Boxer about a recent email she sent me (as one of her constituents, I get monthly updates from Boxer's office). As many of you know, California is in a bit of a financial pickle. Senator Boxer informed me that she is working hard on this:
I recently honored baseball great Rickey Henderson's upcoming induction into the Hall of Fame with a statement that appeared in the Congressional Record. You can find my statement below, and I am pleased to share it with you.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
The email contains the entire, long-winded statement, and I won't bother pasting it here. Somehow this doesn't seem so senatorial.
Grant Barrett said:
Boxer scolds Army General for not calling her “Senatorâ€. «What got her most rankled was when she wasn't addressed properly. It seems that “ma'am†— a term deemed appropriate by a Military Protocol guide — isn't good enough for the senator. She demands the title “Senatorâ€. So much so that she interrupted his testimony to scold him for the apparent lack of respect. »
Demanded or politely requested her proper title? And is it true that all the other (male) senators were being addressed properly? Help me, Martha!
I'm not sure there is anything "improper" about addressing a female senator as ma'am, unless there is something improper about addressing a male senator as sir. But if the same general addressed the male senators as senator, and Boxer as ma'am, then that is an entirely different matter. But something would be seriously wrong with the "liberal biased media" if that part of the story was left out.
I have searched for “liberal biased media†(news that doesn't lean as far right as Fox) or any news coverage and found only right-wing commentary. On the website that Grant linked to, below many right-wing comments I finally found one posting that said the General had been calling the male senators by their title, and it was a polite request, not a demand.
Watching the video makes it clear enough that Boxer was making a polite request, though she seemed a bit flustered, calling it "just a thing" and saying how hard she worked to get the title. If the male senators were addressed as Senator while Boxer was addressed as Ma'am, then I wonder why Boxer would apologize for her request.
samaphore said:
… why Boxer would apologize for her request.
I can tell you have never been a woman with a traditionally male career. The polite, apologetic, request to be treated as an equal is characterized as a demand and scolding by the right-wing blogosphere and even in Grant's original post here.
Sorry to butt in again, Semaphore, I know how you guys like to have the last word. 😉
Butting in is what it's all about on a discussion board, and you can tell all your gal friends that drinks are free for all ladies in this forum - we want more of you.
No, I've never been a lady in a man's world, but I've done my fair share of groveling and kowtowing to men and women! Adult life is not so much different than 5-year-olds playing and fighting in a sandbox, after all.
Back to Boxer, can anybody verify that the General was addressing the male senators in that meeting as senator while addressing Boxer as ma'am? I understand the point you're making, mclarevds, but I'm not sure that Boxer is the kind of person who shys away from a justifiable demand or scolding.
The polite, apologetic, request to be treated as an equal is characterized as a demand and scolding by the right-wing blogosphere and even in Grant's original post here.
You mean in the link I posted and the comment I extracted, not in my comments, right? Because there's no editorializing at all in my post that started this thread, beyond the fact that my posting it means that I think it's worth discussing. Everything I included was a quote.
I had a similar experience, Glenn. It wasn't until I read an entire article that Grant had excerpted that I realized he was excerpting. One time a while back, before I realized this, I took Grant to task for some “idiotic†thing I thought he had written, and it may be a coincidence, but Grant hasn't written a word to me since, except for something about me being a valued member of this forum. You know what that means. 
Since I realized what was going on, I see that Grant is throwing out stuff for our general consumption, like throwing meat to the lions (or piranhas, if you like). But, along with the links and the excerpts, I wish that Grant would give us his two cents, so I can have the opportunity to take him to task for some idiotic thing he actually wrote. I love picking on people with PhD's. Maybe Grant will take Boxer's cue and demand to be addressed as Dr. 
I do occasionally add my own comments. They'll be the unquoted material (though I realize in earlier posts that link to an outside article I have not always been consistent about making sure the quotes are there). I've taken to using French-style guillemets (a.k.a. "duckfoot quotes") so I don't have to go through the extract and change all the quotes so that doubles only contain singles and singles only contain doubles.
I don't often comment because I want the debate to flow a bit more freely. Framing the debate with my own comments at the top would be a bit heavy-handed: I get the final word on the air (or Martha does), right?
But no, samaphore, no grudges here. No PhD, either. The only title I have is Mr. 🙂
No PhD? Ah, but you have a certain je ne sais quoi about you, une voie avec les mots, n'est-ce pas?
I still wish you would add your own comments, if not all the time at least more often, in a separate paragraph below the extract. (By the way, what's the difference between an extract and an excerpt?) I think the discussion would flow just as freely and you're not heavy-handed here or on the air. Your comments would not necessarily express your opinion about the article or its author. They might just provide additional background or context, or explain why it is of interest to you, for example. I'm guessing that for every article you put up on this forum, there are 99 others that didn't make it.
(By the way, what's the difference between an extract and an excerpt?)
Oo, oo! An extract is a tract that was taken out of something else, whereas an excerpt is something that used to be a cerpt.
une voie avec les mots, n'est-ce pas?
This fractured French took me way to long to figure out. I love it. (You can “frapper la rue, Jacques,†if you disagree.) Have you ever studied Japanese?
I wish that Grant would give us his two cents, so I can have the opportunity to take him to task …
I believe I have also expressed how much fun it is disagree with MR. Barrett. (Also no PhD here, but I like to practice the attitude, in case.)
An extract is a tract that was taken out of something else, whereas an excerpt is something that used to be a cerpt.
You certainly took the plain out of explain with that one.
My high school French is certainly fractured. Maybe if we had more interesting vocabulary, like le phoque, I would have become more proficient. I have studied a little Japanese, during a time I had a Japanese girlfriend. Why do you ask?
Okay, now we have our collective four cents asking for MR. Barrett's two cents. Does that make cents?
Grant said:
Boxer scolds Army General for not calling her “Senatorâ€. «... demands the title “Senatorâ€. So much so that she interrupted his testimony to scold him for the apparent lack of respect. »
I understand the <> is a quote but the first 'scolds' wasn't yours?
I have found 2 claims that the male Senators were being addressed as such, one at a left-leaning site and another in a post far down on the site linked to. I have been unable to find any news, only discussions.
Mary Clare, Vista CA
I find it interesting – and annoying – that none of the news sources I've seen report on this important piece of contextual information. To me, at least, it makes a big difference in the story. Context usually makes a big difference in any story.
I'll edit my post to add my two cents to the "scolding" discussion. A person reading the news article, or watching the YouTube video, might reasonably describe what Boxer did as scolding. I think that even if it were a male senator, addressed as sir by the General, it could still be described as a scolding if he, rather than she, had said the exact same words in the exact same way. There's nothing necessarily wrong with a scolding, if a scolding is called for. But whether it's a female or male senator giving the scolding, we still don't know the context.
I still say that if the General was addressing the male senators as Senator, but Boxer as Ma'am, it would have been better for Boxer to simply ask the General to address her in the same manner as the other senators. If she wanted to have a little fun with it, she could have "reminded" the General, with a smile, that she, too, is a Senator, and that the only people who address her as Ma'am are her children and husband.
Grant Barrett said:
the first 'scolds' wasn't yours?
Nope. It's the exact headline of the original article.
Ah, I see. However I stand by my
>>in Grant's original post here <<
since the only thing *in* your original was the headline and quote.
' class='wp-smiley' />
BTW, semaphore, if you really want the facts, and have about 3 hours to kill, you could check out :
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)