June 21, 2009
The fact this exchange (on video below) was an issue at all proves Sen Boxer’s point. The comments prove that sexism and misogyny are alive and flourishing. And the fact that the GOP is using it to make money proves how desperate and out of touch they are.
bigkurt25
What would have happened if Sen Boxer referred to him as “Mister” instead of “Sir” or “General” while she was sitting in his office on a military base reporting to him ?
There is absolutely no doubt he would have corrected her immediately.
But the most important point?
Sen Boxer would not have had to been told. She would not have had to be corrected. She would have know that his position demands the respect of his title and would have addressed him by it.
He did not.
And from his silence it appears he thinks “Ma’am” is enough.
I get the justification that “Sir” and “Ma’am” is how one is taught in the military – and expected (or else) – to address other military and that it is usually so indoctrinated that non-military are addressed in the same way. But that is not an excuse. Sen Boxer is as deserving of her hard-earned title “Senator” as he is of “General”.
Did you just shake your head?
If so, there’s no need to continue reading.
Mister Walsh is of a certain age – and I would imagine of sufficient intelligence and experience – to know how “Ma-am” comes across to the women of Sen Boxer’s generation. How it is used to denigrate and put “little missy” or “honey” or as barry prefers “sweetie” in her get me some coffee, iron my shirt, just shut up and look pretty place. And he is well aware of how it can be said and in what word order to make it most offensive. And he did exactly that.
How it makes a woman feel cannot be understood by men – no matter how enlightened. But it is something men of that generation understand and are aware they do. And it cannot be completely understood by post Title IX females – even if they took the time to listen to the “whining”. It is something specific to pre-Title IX professional women. And someone not of that demographic will have trouble understanding the nuance of how he said it and why it irritated Sen Boxer. But it is something that Dr Jill Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Martha Stewart would have immediately recognized.
And folks who cannot possibly understand it in the first place are judging Sen Boxer on a 16-second video clip, which was not the initial exchange. No one knows how many times he already referred to her as “Ma’am”, whether he had said it every sentence, what tone he said it in, what order he said it in or what visual hints he missed – or intentionally dismissed – when he said kept saying it. All of these things matter – a great deal. And a woman of any age can take only so many “Ma’ams”. A Ma’am every sentence would drive Emily Post insane.
The Q & A did not just start. Sen Boxer was asking him to defend why something he was responsible for was delayed. Instead of responding with a direct answer – which did not require a “Ma’am” - he started with, uh, and then, Ma’am. Again, why this is insulting cannot be fully explained, and even if it were possible, it wouldn’t be believed unless it was experienced – but it has to do with the fact that he did not give Sen Boxer a straight answer and instead mentioned “Ma’am” — putting her in her place before he deigned to answer. It is a pattern of behavior professional women of that generation are sensitive to – something they have heard over and over and over…and something that is done intentionally.
And to prove Sen Boxer’s point beyond debate, she is being a called a bitch for how she interrupted him and the “shrill” manner in which she said it. There isn’t a single female politician’s voice that doesn’t go uncommented on. Why?
Whose hang up is it if it “reminds them of their mother or first wives”?
What would have happened if Sen Boxer was in his office on the military base defending something that wasn’t finished and instead of directly answering him said, uh, Mister?
He darn well would have cut her off and no doubt it would have been in a stern voice (and a look of physical dominance), but no one would have found that offensive. Just like this would not have been mentioned if it were two men or two women.
As many commenters have said – a general is allowed to do that. But not a senator in the exact situation? That being in the military automatically demands respect – even the lowliest of soldiers. But not a three-term senator? Implying that respect of the military needs only go one way.
And what if was a male senator who said it to a female officer?
Would it have even made it to video clip?
Not a chance. Her superior officers would have given her a dressing down.
And if someone came to her aid?
How many David Letterman jokes would there be? What special words would he have then? Feminazi? A frigid c—? A dyke? Or maybe somebody just needs to slap that bitch up side the head?
There is no doubt–in my mind at least–that every single servicemember – regardless of gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political party and whatever else one wants to split themselves into – deserves the utmost respect, as they have volunteered to put their life on the line to defend mine and my freedom. But that is extraneous to this – even though the male commenters I have read focus on nothing but.
As I mentioned previous, Mister Walsh of an age that he is aware of the sensitivity – and even more than most because he is military. He knew he was going to Sen Boxer’s office to be asked questions that he would have to defend. He wasn’t going for a chat with a friend. He wasn’t going for a discussion with a colleague. He wasn’t going to hash something out with a fellow officer. And he certainly wasn’t going on a date. He knew that his rank of general would not come into play as far as their exchanges.
Or did he?
Did it ever cross his mind?
Or did he naturally assume he would be in the position of authority and dominance because of his military status even though it was not his office and he was not the one asking the questions?
Did he consider that he would be participating in a defensive fashion, in a public proceeding, the rules of which he would not be as familiar with as the person – the woman – who would be in the position of authority over him?
Is he even capable of having such a thought as a man? As a man of that age? As a member of the military? As a very high-ranking mlitary man?
Did he realize that his rank would mean nothing as far as authority and that Sen Boxer would be dictating the show? That in that situation, Sen Boxer outranked him?
And if he gave it any thought – which I highly doubt – would he have been happy about it?
And as the questioning became more pointed, and he was placed further on the defense by an (attractive – yes matters) woman of his generation - not of equal rank and most definitely not of equal size – with people all around watching the exchange, he wouldn’t – however subconsiously – try to point that out? That the Ma’ams wouldn’t be coming more frequently – especially when Sen Boxer asked him a flat out “why?” and it appeared he didn’t have an answer?
And all that aside – why doesn’t a Brig General know how to show respect to a non-military woman with a title, by referring to her by that title?
“Ma’am” is reflexive - generic. Senator is not. Addressing Sen Boxer by Senator forces him to make that connection – to remind him that she is in the position of authority and he is not – and his not using her title it is a direct dismissal of her authority. And done when Sen Boxer had him on the ropes is nothing other than dismissing that authority.
Again, women who have not been in this powerplay over and over and over cannot understand it. How many female doctors automatically get called nurse? And how many male nurses are automatically called doctor? How many times does a female doctor have to correct the same patient? And how often does the male nurse bother to correct the patient at all?
And folks who cannot understand it think women are bitches with shrill voices who should subjugate themselves to a general because they aren’t “worthy enough to clean the shit off his boots” and shouldn’t be frustrated when he did it for the however many times when she knows exactly why he is doing it and so does he.
And where was this upstanding general in need of respect when Sen Boxer was getting trashed?
Where did this honorable soldier come forth and say chill the hell out I was in her house and should have played by her rules?
His silence proves Sen Boxer’s point with an exclamation point and it is why he is not deserving of any further comment. By not coming forward, he admitted he did it on purpose or at least saw nothing wrong with it and thinks Ma’am was good enough – even after she clear it was not.
And it is reinforced by his fellow militarymen in a statement from the Veterans of Foreign Wars:
The general is 100 percent correct in responding to members of Congress with ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am.’
The senator, ON THE OTHER HAND, is also correct, THOUGH probably EVERYONE now AGREES that this should have been HANDLED DIFFERENTLY, IF AT ALL.
Yes, it should have been handled differently: Mister Walsh should have had the respect — not just the 100% correctness – to address a senator he was appearing before as Senator. And the “if at all” is the exact reason Sen Boxer should never apologize for anything – perceived shrillness or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment