Thursday, June 18, 2009

Titles

Some people get a little too wrapped up in their titles.

Demanding that someone refer to you by a certain title is small minded at best, and arrogant at worst. When I was a Senior Chief and Master Chief in the World's Greatest Navy, I never once admonished any sailor who omitted "Senior" or "Master" and simply referred to me as "Chief". Being called Chief was sign of respect enough. I'm certain that more than a few sailors had other titles which were reserved for use when I wasn't around. Heck, I'd be disappointed if they didn't, since that would mean I probably wasn't doing my job.

In the military, the use of the words "ma'am" or "sir" are used as signs of respect when addressing an officer. If Ms. Boxer would take a moment to step past her arrogant ignorance, she would realize that being addressed as "ma'am" by the good General was a larger sign of respect than being addressed by a title simply bestowed upon her by the voters of her district.

2 comments:

Buck said...

How interesting! I just came from blog-bud Kris' site, and she posted on this same subject. Just to save time and energy, I'll repost what I left over at her place:

(Kris) "...as military protocol advises that officers may use "sir" or "ma'am" when addressing anybody higher than them on the chain of command." (/Kris)

The REALLY smart ones use "sir" and "ma'am" all the time when addressing those not in uniform. And at least he didn't call Boxer "bitch," which is the title she richly deserves.

Just sayin'.
June 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterBuck

PS: Got too quick with the "create" button. I meant to add "regardless of where they are in the perceived chain of command or social hierarchy." Even though I'm a retired MSgt I've been addressed as "sir" by a two-star and a host of colonels... in recognition of my (ahem) longevity.
June 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterBuck"


Great minds and all that, Buckskins.

Buckskins Rule said...

Buck, I'm not a bit surprised that you and I are of a like mind on this one.