Clarification re: Sen Boxer & Brig Gen Walsh

June 23, 2009

Hi Chris.

I decided to put this out here because of the vile nature of the other comments we have gotten. Many folks had the same questions/comments but yours were the only postable ones. Hopefully answering your questions will answer theirs and stop the hate. Relevant posts.

Sen Boxer & Brig Gen Walsh exchange
And if the General was called Mister?

Thank you for your thoughts.

There was only one thing that truly bothered me about what you wrote, which I think was a simple misunderstanding. I appreciate not only the time your took to make your comments, but also that they were free of blatantly sexist remarks. Your personal beliefs and attitudes toward men and women and their respective worth – inherent and earned – are your own and I respect them.

I would like to clarify some things – using your own quotes – in an effort to promote further understanding. It got kind of long because I was trying to address as many questions at once so if nothing else please skip down to the bottom to “This is what bothered me” and read just that. Thanks.

You go out of your way to refer to a man who has defended YOUR freedom to speak as mister

The precise point of the post. Although it seems the point was taken in only one direction.

The General no matter how you feel about him politically has in fact earned his title.

And the Senator no matter how you feel about her personally has in fact earned her title.

Even if the writer discounts her “earning” it or “her worthiness of said title”.

One cannot begin to compare their career paths — the second point.

His career choice has led him down roads that Sen. Boxer wouldn’t dream of traveling, and he deserves the respect that comes with that rank.

You’re absolutely right. She wouldn’t have…because it would have been pointless. The military as a career choice was an absolute impossibility just as motherhood is for Brig Gen Walsh. No matter what dreams, desires, skills, natural aptitude, military connections or physical abilities, Sen Boxer could not have earned the title of general by leading soldiers in to battle.

Though the statement itself reveals a great deal about what the writer (and society in general) considers to be a “worthy” career and how the career itself dictates the absolute level of respect afforded. That the title of “General” carries with it more inherent respect than “Senator” or even “Mother”. That even the most disrespectful General would be more worthy of respect than the most respected Senator.

No logical argument can be derived from the absolute comparison of their respective careers since his career was not even an option. They can only be assessed relatively in regards to the absolute standards of their separate careers, which, for both, arose from the same desire to serve their country — the ultimate position attainable for both (as yet, only in theory), Commander in Chief.

Sen Boxer cannot be judged as a father and Brig Gen Walsh cannot be judged as a mother, but they can be judged relatively as parents.

You still insist that a General is more deserving of respect than a Senator?

Who is more intrinsically worthy: a mother or a male general?

A mother who can give birth to more than one general or a single male general?

Is a female general, who is also a mother, more worthy of respect than a male general, because she is capable of doing things he wouldn’t dream of doing? Things, that for him, are an absolute impossibility?

A male general, no matter how exemplary his service and no matter how many soldiers he has lead into battle – or more importantly, out of battle – will never be a mother, be never be worthy of being a mother and will never earn the respect of actually being a mother.

So does that mean he is not capable of being respected equally for what he does do and is capable of doing?

Using the writer’s logic, a man of any occupation, no matter what he dreamt or didn’t dream, is not capable of being a mother, and thus, less inherently worthy of respect as the female general. And no matter what title he is assigned, he did not “earn” it the way she did.

And to extend the argument to conclusion?

Men can become generals but can never become mothers. They can never achieve that title — they can never earn that title. They can dream and dream all they like and never come close.

But women are not only capable of being mothers and generals – they can give birth to more potential generals.

So are women generals inherently more worthy than a male general, who is only capable of doing one of the three things a female general is capable of?

I don’t think that’s where the writer wanted to head.

So now that it’s clear from both sides that Sen Boxer’s and Brig Gen Walsh’s relevant worthiness of respect cannot be assessed on the basis or comparison of career choices, this borders on ridiculous.

The next point I would like to make is since when is being elected to public service considered working hard towards a title? She won an election, she didn’t become a senator by leading soldiers in battle, nor did she earn her title through exlempary service. She won her title in an election. Winning and earning an award are two entirely different things.

Frankly, those words and the thoughts behind them reflect a sexist ignorance that even with logic cannot be overcome unless it is so chosen.

How is someone who is not in the military — nor could ever be — as in the possibility did not exist — going to earn the respect of her title through exemplary military service? It’s as ludicrous as saying the general did not earn the respect of his title because he has never given birth and/or passed legislation.

If one were to compare them, as the writer has, one could say he is less deserving of respect and really did not “earn” his title because less than 200 people voted to give him the title, as opposed to the almost 7 million votes — the most for any politician — man or woman — in California history — that Sen Boxer received in 2004.

Do 7 million people know Brig Gen Walsh’s name…even now?

How is a politician rewarded for their “exemplary service”?

Re-election.

And no one in the state’s history has received more votes than Sen Boxer.

How is a soldier rewarded for exemplary service?

With medals.

Has Brig Gen Walsh been awarded more medals than any other brigadier general in history?

Is Sen Boxer more worthy of respect because she represents the interests of tens of millions of Americans and he less worthy because he commanded less than 5000 as Commander of Task Force Hope?

Is Sen Boxer worthy of more respect because she is one of only 100 people who have such titles and he’s one of 302 and that’s just in his branch of the service?

Is Sen Boxer more worthy of respect because she has been re-elected three times and he has only earned a measly one star? A star he really didn’t even “earn” because people just voted to give it to him – one of whom was Sen Boxer?

Is Sen Boxer more worthy of respect because she is one of only 27 female senators in all of American history?

Is Brig Gen Walsh one of only 27 anythings?

Senator Boxer earned her title by fighting her own battles – in civilian life – the only place she was afforded the opportunity. She was forbidden from even attempting to “earn” them through military service and the fact the writer mentioned it makes her case even stronger.

Would the writer stand before Senator John McCain, a man of great honor, a man who has selflessly served his country since he was a teenager, a man who more than earned his military awards with five years of captivity and torture, and tell him that he just “won” his title in an election? That he didn’t earn it?

Has the writer read Sen McCain’s words as to how he views his military service in comparison to public service? Which he finds more humbling? More challenging? What he finds to be the greater responsibility?

Would the writer stand before the President and tell him that that title he “won” doesn’t qualify him to be Commander in Chief because he did nothing to “earn” it?

[My answer to that question is the only place in any of this where "politics" would come into play. I believe he is not. I believe he was given his title and did not in any way earn it and he has not even proven he is eligible to hold it. And if I ever had the honor to speak with Brig Gen Walsh - yes, honor - I would not only given him the respect he deserves, I would thank him for his service, and then I would ask him to make his Supreme Commander prove that he has the Constitutional authority to send brave young American volunteers into battle - some to certain death.]

This is what bothered me:

Lastly I see that you feel politicians are worthy as being addressed by their titles and soldiers are not, and that is a battle I will not attempt to win but it does show that the left wing still has no respect for the brave men and women who eat, sleep, live and die to protect the country they love.

The blog description states very clearly that we are not affiliated with, nor endorsed by, any candidate, political party or organization.

Secondly, no where did I say a politician is worthy of being addressed by their titles and soldiers are not. That flies in the face of the entire argument. I referred to Brig Gen Walsh as “Mister” to illustrate my point – which you got – but only in regard to and in defense of the General. I made very clear my respect and gratitude for the military:

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.

So your comment was a direct insult to the honor of my father and all five uncles who served in WWII. Since we are clearly on the same side of the issue there – there is no issue – I’ll accept that it simply got missed.

Military protocol is the way it is for reasons, and as a civilian I can not expect you to understand that.

To this day I respond, as my father and mother taught me, “Yes, Ma’am” and “Yes, Sir” – even to people younger than me or in a position of lesser authority. I believe every person deserves that simple respect until they do something to revoke it. But I more strongly believe that people who have earned – yes, earned – their titles deserve to have their efforts acknowledged, which means addressing them by their title. Most particularly women of Sen Boxer’s generation, who preceded affirmative action (unlike the president and first lady) and got where they are on their own merit and despite rampant sexism – which clearly is alive and well.

And I can assure you my father, uncles and six brothers would have addressed Sen Boxer as “Senator” without having to be told. That no matter what happened, they would have spoken up instead of letting her continue to be disrespected on their behalf. And they would have loved to chat with the soldier whose silence caused the Pentagon to have to go on record.

Yes, Brig Gen Walsh’s use of “Ma’am” was well within protocol.

Yes, Sen Boxer had every right to request he address her as “Senator”.

And, yes, Sen Boxer might have phrased her request differently.

But Brig Gen Walsh’s continued silence, knowing how Sen Boxer is being attacked, is a measure of disrespect all on its own, and it does not reflect well on his character. And it makes her point in the shrillest voice possible.

Thanks again. And if you are military yourself – an extra sincere thank you for your service and sacrifice to our country.

And if the General was called Mister?

6-23 Boxer – Walsh clarification

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.

Sen Boxer: It’s “Senator”, not “Ma’am”

June 18, 2009

Senator Boxer lets Brigadier General Michael Walsh know she deserves the respect of the title she earned just as much as he does. I do wish the camera was on his face instead of hers. He looked taken aback that she dared to interrupt him. No one does that to a general, little lady. That is Sen Boxer’s office – he is testifying before her – yes, he is a genera,l but it is a non-military proceeding and she is the position of authority and she has every right to demand she be given it. As for her level of frustration, we have no idea how many times he has “Ma’am” — [A woman - title or not - can take only so many "ma'ams"], how many he has used that tone, how many non-verbal clues he missed or how many times she had asked him before. This is clearly not their initial exchange.

All you need to do is listen to the snickers or read the comments anywhere this is discussed and you will understand Sen Boxer’s frustration. You can not understand the condescension unless you’ve lived it. And from the comments it’s not going away soon.

An especially lovely one that proves her point:

She’s not even fit to scrub the shit off his boots.

I bet she could do a bang up job ironing his shirts.

And this that proves the point out of his own lips:

You don’t need to talk down to the man because he doesn’t know before hand, what title to use in addressing you.

Problem being it is his job to know that.

bigkurt25

SEN BOXER: Why has it been delayed?

GEN WALSH: Uh, Ma’am, the…

SEN BOXER: You know, do me a favor – could you say ’senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’”

WALSH: Yes, ma’am.

[snickers]

SEN BOXER It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you.

That wasn’t a request – it was an order.

GEN WALSH: Yes, Senator.

Message received.