DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote:Women of Boxer's generation, including me, grew up when feminists were fighting for equal rights, INCLUDING the right to be addressed as equals, not as lesser subjects or minions to be talked down to. /snip

In the military there is no such thing as 'equal rights'. no mollycoddling. no 'are you okay with this?' and certainly no hurt feelings. these things simply do not exist. you address your superiors as either Sir or Ma'am and nothing else.

Even if you might be thunderbunnying people here as hostile believes, I really think it would be in your best interest for you to have a look at how the chain of command works in any branch of the armed service. Wikipedia is nice for a start, but to get the best information, it's best to either talk to the people here who have served or go down to one of the bases that's closest to you.

Another thing I thought of that I found interesting about the exchange was that she said to him that she had worked very hard to earn that title........ As if the GENERAL couldn't relate to working hard for the position LOL.... My guess is that he probably worked pretty hard to make flag in the army....... But hey what would I know?

Thanks to TC I now have to re-evaluate all my cherished cowboy hero's like Roy Rogers, Hop-along Cassidy and Gene Autry. There I thought they were all being respectful to the women folk when they dipped their hat brim and said \"Ma'am. Little did I know they were really looking for a little nooky.

woodchip wrote:Thanks to TC I now have to re-evaluate all my cherished cowboy hero's like Roy Rogers, Hop-along Cassidy and Gene Autry. There I thought they were all being respectful to the women folk when they dipped their hat brim and said "Ma'am. Little did I know they were really looking for a little nooky.

Is that why the lone ranger wore a mask?

no kidding hos. i found that to be quite insulting.

tunnelcat wrote:The term ma'am is defined as madam. The general should have addressed her as 'Madam Senator' if he'd wanted to use a gender term in addressing her. But check out the third definition here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madam

Nice of him to call her a 'whore'!

Ok I just read this again and I don't understand your logic here TC..... You say that calling her ma'am is short for madam which is another word for 'whore' AND that you were insulted by such a term, but then in this part of your quote I have highlighted here, you say she should have called her 'Madam Senator'...... So by your definition calling her whore is bad, but calling her whore senator is ok?

What gives?

Up until now I didn't think this thread was worth any effort (ridiculous matter). ... and probably still is ... but...

Tunnelcat just isn't understanding the very definition Tunnelcat referenced. The first definition (#1) states that if \"Madam\" is used without any name or titles (just the word \"ma'am\" or \"madam\" then it is: \"as a form of respectful or polite address to a woman\" so as far as I'm concerned ... insinuating that the General was calling her a \"whore\" is just a long shot in the dark by someone who is going out of his/her way to find fault/contention.

The General wasn't being disrespectful in any way and anyone who thinks he was can go shove it out their own porthole.

WOW, that was fun. I knew I'd tick off every male here and they'd rise right to the occasion. You're all predictable. I turned another-all-male-rant here into a sexist pretzel fest! Fun, fun, fun!

But please give me a little break. I DID agree that Boxer WAS disrespectful to the General, that's a moot point. I also agree that he probably meant no disrespect to her when he used \"ma'am\", although I do think that she should have been called 'Senator' in the first place. She IS one after all and she earned that title, whether you like it or not. The General should wake up and live in the present.

Sorry TechPro, that's the trouble with English. Too many words have different meanings depending on the person's perspective or life experiences. I have heard the term 'Madam (title here)' used also as a form of title, but NOT one I would frankly use (to closely associated with 'whore' and the old societal paternalism in my book). I've also heard the term 'Madam Prime Minister' used as well, so it's not irregular, neither is 'Madam Senator'. Since I'm just an ordinary pion in life, 'Mrs' or 'Miss' will have to do when I'm addressed by a stranger. By the way, don't members of the military call or refer to themselves as 'sir', even if that member is female? I've heard female officers addressed that way by those of lesser rank.

Back to Barbara Boxer's rant. I was ONLY trying to explain WHY she may have reacted the way she did, not excuse it. Females think with emotions most of the time, much to our detriment I'm afraid. Even I'm guilty of that a lot of the time, here as well. You males think with your gonads most of the time, so don't give me grief about women's right-brain thinking.

But seriously guys, women of my generation DO remember the olden days of our paternalistic society and let me tell you, IT REALLY SUCKED BIG TIME FOR WOMEN! Even as a child, somehow, the way my mother was forced to live in subservience and stay at home to make babies and please her husband made an impression on me. It made me sad to see her so unhappy (she admitted it to me years later) with her status in life and I wondered why the status quo was that way. I was even repulsed at the thought of having to do that in my future life! Her only choices in the job market back then were secretary and teacher or some other job unbefitting a MAN. So ...... THANK GOD FOR THE SIXTIES! YEE HAA! So tough luck BOYS (No offense. Sorry, couldn't resist). If you haven't walked a mile in our shoes, don't call us 'femi-nazis'! That really shows your colors and that you have NO EFFING CLUE. I'd like to shove that expression up where the sun don't shine in Rush Limbaugh!

To show you what makes a modern American women mad (this one will piss Bee off), I just saw a TV news article about a show in Afghanistan called 'Afghan Star'. One of the contestants was a woman who was singing. That was marginally OK to the males of the audience UNTIL she started to, GASP, DANCE! Good God! The males of the audience actually said OUT LOAD that she should be PUT TO DEATH for her heresy! Nice Democracy we've created there! Women still have a long way to go in areas the world to get out from under the iron thumb of males.

Thank you for reinforcing my opinion that it is actually you who really needs to wake up and live in the present (as you so nicely demonstrated).

P.S. The war in Afghanistan is not over and still has a long way to go. Did you miss the memo?

tunnelcat wrote:WOW, that was fun. I knew I'd tick off every male here and they'd rise right to the occasion. You're all predictable. I turned another-all-male-rant here into a sexist pretzel fest! Fun, fun, fun!

Ma'am with all due respect. bull-sh!t you said what you meant and you meant what you said, you got flamed for being and idiot and now your trying to back out of it

tunnelcat wrote:But seriously guys, women of my generation DO remember the olden days of our paternalistic society and let me tell you, IT REALLY SUCKED BIG TIME FOR WOMEN! Even as a child, somehow, the way my mother was forced to live in subservience and stay at home to make babies and please her husband made an impression on me. It made me sad to see her so unhappy (she admitted it to me years later) with her status in life and I wondered why the status quo was that way. I was even repulsed at the thought of having to do that in my future life! Her only choices in the job market back then were secretary and teacher or some other job unbefitting a MAN. So ...... THANK GOD FOR THE SIXTIES! YEE HAA! So tough luck BOYS (No offense. Sorry, couldn't resist). If you haven't walked a mile in our shoes, don't call us 'femi-nazis'! That really shows your colors and that you have NO EFFING CLUE. I'd like to shove that expression up where the sun don't shine in Rush Limbaugh!

Ma'am, first off I am of your Generation and you are a Femi-nazi, and its your complete arrogance in your attitude to think that Women are subservient to men in their home life and that women that goto work everyday are somehow better than those that don't.
I'm terribly sorry that your father made your mother feel that way. not all men treat their stay at home wives as slaves. some of us respect women that have chosen a VERY noble profession of organizing the household and raising the children that we together have chosen to have. I will tell you that it takes MUCH more effort for a woman to be on call 24-7 365, than it does to goto work 9-5 every day and to plop your sorry ass down on a couch when you get home because you feel you've done your deed for the day. so again get off your pedestal because you don't speak for all women. and to look down your nose at Women who chose to stay at home. again proves the validity of the Femi-nazi label.

p.s. and just for FULL disclosure here, My wife and I have been married 27 years, she has chosen to stay home and raise our Large Family since my first one was born. she is now staying home and helping to raise my Grandchildren while their Mothers work for economic reasons, both of my daughters have said that they would rather raise their family then work outside the home, but with the economy they cannot afford to do that, but are someday planning on it.

tunnelcat wrote:Drivel

Ma'am, I cannot even begin to tell you how stupid you just sounded

As we used to say in Norfilly…”If you see a “boy” you better smackim”.

tunnelcat wrote:....Females think with emotions most of the time, much to our detriment I'm afraid....

You might want to check with your sisters to see if they are willing to let you use them as an excuse....

Cuda, I'm glad that your wife stayed home and raised your family. There's nothing wrong if a women wants to do that with their lives. I'm of the opinion that more women need to that responsibility seriously if they DECIDE to have children. Family is a HUGE commitment. A lot of them don't and instead focus on their careers and end up with dysfunctional families.

My point is that women before the 1960's had very little choices outside of the home for career opportunities. 'HOMEMAKER' was just about it during the first half of the twentieth century and it was an EXPECTED role back then. Women couldn't even vote until 1920. Men may look back fondly at the 1950's, but I viewed that time without rose-colored glasses and it wasn't pretty to me, even as a child. My mother, bless her soul, HATED the role of homemaker she got stuck with, but it was expected of her in 1955 and she followed it without question and tried to be a good mother.

Women WERE required to be subservient to men before the 1960's. It's not something I want to see women go back to. I've been married for 31 years to a wonderful man that has treated me with respect and equality and allowed me to live my life as a free-thinking person with my own career path. That's what's nice in this day and age, women have the ability to CHOOSE their lifestyle now and even find a husband that will encourage her.

Cuda, why do you think that I'm a Feminazi? I don't want to or have the desire to wage a gender war on men. I only want to keep the freedoms and opportunities that have been afforded us in the last 40 years. I have NO desire to go out and neuter males. My only fight with men will happen if all those things we've fought for and won start being taken away. All you guy's caustic reactions to my thoughts tells me volumes I'm afraid. I'm not here to make enemies, only discuss opinions. I consider most of you as kindred friends who play Descent and like a rowdy discussion.

The reactions to Senator Boxer's rant shows me that most males still have a ways to go in understanding women's emotions. I knew that I'd get flamed for my flip opinions about it here. There's a fine line between respecting women and patronizing them. Sometimes with our emotions, that gets blurred when we deal with males. Our brains are vastly different. Unfortunately, sometimes we make the wrong assumptions about a male's intentions, so don't get mad at us. Senator Boxer made the wrong assumption with the General's attempt at politeness and I've noticed that the forum MALES here have had nothing but negative reactions to it. If there were more females here to give their opinions, it might not be so one sided.

I see. It seems your mother's contempt for men in society, justified as it was at the time, wore off on you and still remains. As ancient and outdated as your dictionary definitions.

Continuing this argument is probably futile, unless someone knows an Islamic fundamental extremist who can drop in to provide an equally adamant counterpoint. That showdown would probably be pretty entertaining to read.

TC wrote:The reactions to Senator Boxer's rant shows me that most males still have a ways to go in understanding women's emotions.

You agreed that she was being disrespectful, so I think there is a bit of a mountain being made out of a mole-hill here.

I also think that the general perception that Barbra Boxer has a bias against the military as a starting point is what really fanned the flames. If Sarah Palin asked to be called Governor Palin, this would so be a non-issue. Though I'm sure Gov. Palin would ask it all cutsie like and make the General blush.

Gooberman wrote:...

I also think that the general perception that Barbra Boxer has a bias against the military as a starting point is what really fanned the flames. If Sarah Palin asked to be called Governor Palin, this would so be a non-issue. Though I'm sure Gov. Palin would ask it all cutsie like and make the General blush.

I think Palin would have recognized the General was being respectful if he called her Ma'am...just like Boxer knew it too.

Boxer has been a Senator for good while, she's heard numerous military officers testify/report before Congressional committees...she knows their protocol quite well she just chose that moment to posture at the Generals expense. Boxer has an ego problem she likes to force feed it to everyone around her and TC is just grasping for a rationale to justify the arrogant Senator's behavior because she has a D beside her name. As soon as a woman with an R makes a sound TC's claws come out as we've seen and nowhere did TC defend Palin when the democrats were tossing around all sorts of condescending rhetoric about her! TC's feminist side is quite selective.

tunnelcat wrote:The reactions to Senator Boxer's rant shows me that most males still have a ways to go in understanding women's emotions. I knew that I'd get flamed for my flip opinions about it here.

1) You agreed that she was being disrespectful. Seems we males understood her perfectly.

2) You intentionally phrased your argument in an incendiary way. Of course you "knew" you'd get flamed for it -- you were whining and acting like a Queen Bee, and all us "boys" gave you what you asked for.

Senator Boxer knew she was grandstanding. Let's not pretend she's just woken up from the 1950's as a first-term Senator and was surprised by the way she was addressed. And don't act like us guys are clueless; most of us have wives and mothers who have been called "ma'am", and we know how they react to it. Senator Boxer's response was WAY out-of-the-ordinary, and frankly, unbecoming of someone who has earned the title of Senator.

tunnelcat wrote:WOW, that was fun. I knew I'd tick off every male here and they'd rise right to the occasion.

hehe. you give yourself waaay too much credit.

now you got me goin up against you.. can you guess how that's going to end? LOL

Krom wrote:I see. It seems your mother's contempt for men in society, justified as it was at the time, wore off on you and still remains. As ancient and outdated as your dictionary definitions.

Krom, she didn't have contempt for men, she had contempt for being forced into her status in life by society. There's a difference.

I was talking to my husband about it and he brought up the same thing with his mother. She had a degree in English and could technically go out and teach in school. But she revealed to my husband before she died that she felt that back in the 40's and 50's, she was required to get married and raise a family, that was just the way things were accepted back then. When his sister decided that she wanted to go to an expensive college, his dad threw a fit when his mom decided that she would go to work to make enough money to pay for it. There grew to be such tension that she refused to clean the house or cook if he wouldn't help her out with the chores. His father stuck by his guns and refused to lift a finger around the house. That was a 'womans' work in his mind.

Ferno, I'm not picking a fight with you. You'd win since I'm outnumbered here anyway. And yes, I deserved to get flamed too. But please try to see some of my points. I am looking at history through a female set of eyes that males don't ever seem to acknowledge.

Krom wrote:I see. It seems your mother's contempt for men in society, justified as it was at the time, wore off on you and still remains. As ancient and outdated as your dictionary definitions.

Continuing this argument is probably futile, unless someone knows an Islamic fundamental extremist who can drop in to provide an equally adamant counterpoint. That showdown would probably be pretty entertaining to read.

Where's Thunderbunny when you need him, aye?

tunnelcat wrote:...But please try to see some of my points. I am looking at history through a female set of eyes that males don't ever seem to acknowledge.

No one debates the weight of the woman's rights struggle we just think you tried to hide your silly knee jerk defense of all things democrat behind it....

tunnelcat wrote:Ferno, I'm not picking a fight with you. You'd win since I'm outnumbered here anyway. And yes, I deserved to get flamed too. But please try to see some of my points. I am looking at history through a female set of eyes that males don't ever seem to acknowledge.

i did and they're completely off-base

"He was essentially saying to her, although subliminally; my balls are bigger than yours biiiaaatch!"

I don't think so. What he was doing was addressing her as per military decorum and exercising the dicipline he was taught. If I were you, I'd go down and speak to someone in the military before pretending to know more than them.

BTW, I fixed the rather glaring grammatical error you had.

tunnelcat wrote:I deserved to get flamed too. But please try to see some of my points. I am looking at history through a female set of eyes that males don't ever seem to acknowledge.

You're GRANDSTANDING, just like Barbara Boxer. You're using what was a completely respectful use of the word "ma'am" and making a tenuous connection in order to harp on a different issue, namely, the treatment of women in the 1950s. (General Walsh was a mere child in the 50s; I doubt he has significant memories of it.)

It's not that you don't have a point about the treatment of women. It's that your point doesn't really belong here. Boxer didn't just wake up a few days ago and uncover some repressed 1950's angst and suddenly start taking offense at the term "ma'am"; she didn't suddenly decide that "ma'am" (a term she used three times to refer to Condi!) was an offensive term that she'd managed to tolerate all these years. She didn't suddenly realize the horrors of the 1950s and decide to raise awareness. She decided to grandstand over something too small to even be called petty, out of either ego or disdain for the military, not out of some noble desire to overcome the tragedy of the 1950s. Her behavior was COMPLETELY unbecoming of someone who has earned the title "Senator", and she deserves to be called out on it. Anything else is just a sideshow.

Well it would seem a male senator did not take offense to being called \"Sir\". Maybe it is just that men do not have the emotional baggage women do. From the OP's link:

\"The same day at a Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing, two Navy officials repeatedly referred to Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., with the title, \"sir.\"

\"Yes, sir,\" Navy Vice Adm. Bernard McCullough said when answering questions.

Wicker raised no objections.\"

You guys rightly called me out. I wasn't thinking, just reacting. Now I'll need to get my foot out of my mouth and recover my dignity......

By the way Ferno, what was my glaring grammatical error so I don't make it again?

If you look through the thread, you should find it. You have to do that work for yourself.

tunnelcat wrote:You guys rightly called me out. I wasn't thinking, just reacting. Now I'll need to get my foot out of my mouth and recover my dignity......

Metaphorically speaking TC, it took a lot of cajones to say that. Respect.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:You guys rightly called me out. I wasn't thinking, just reacting. Now I'll need to get my foot out of my mouth and recover my dignity......

Metaphorically speaking TC, it took a lot of cajones to say that. Respect.

+1. Props as the kiddies used to say....