Jump to content

Should the US military make it it protocol to have have its members address their superiors as sir?  


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I've seen on Star Trek military commanders being called sir by their suburbanites. Got me thinking on whether this is a policy we should try out. Can it help women get respect in a male dominated institution would it be counter-productive, or simply pointless?

Uh I'm not sure what you are talking about. You always address an officer or a more senior officer as sir or ma'am or maybe by their full rank.

You do at least unless you're wanting to be a Johnny Bag O' Donuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Uh I'm not sure what you are talking about. You always address an officer or a more senior officer as sir or ma'am or maybe by their full rank.

Sorry I meant to say "female military officers".  I'm just wondering if the idea of making the honorific for addressing a female superior in the military "sir" is a good idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I've seen on Star Trek military commanders being called sir by their suburbanites. Got me thinking on whether this is a policy we should try out. Can it help women get respect in a male dominated institution would it be counter-productive, or simply pointless?

Except when you're dealing with Cap. Janeway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think so.

In my experience, there are 2 main camps among female officers. Those who want everything to be more unisex--that is, to have similar/same uniforms as the men, removal of female-specific items--and would probably also support everyone being called sir. Then there are those who want to assert their femininity AND their rank/status simultaneously. They tend to be proud "skirts" (what we used to call the women who voluntarily wore skirts instead of pants with their dress uniforms), support maintaining traditional female uniforms, etc. They would probably hate to be called "sir". I myself am more of the latter camp.

To be clear, I don't think that either camp is objectively correct. It's just two very different approaches and I witnessed a lot of clashes over it. For one example, recently the Navy female officer cover was declared that it was going to be changed from the traditionally female "bucket" hat to a unisex one that is the traditionally male hat--https://goo.gl/images/33V4ra change demonstrated in this picture. There was a pretty large outcry from a lot of female officers, and the higher ups ended up backing down and making the transition optional while they figured out what they were going to do. I'm not sure what the final status of that was because it was after I got out and so I don't follow these things as closely. 

Basically the way I feel about it is this--the idea is proposed to make things more equal by removing gendered distinctions, a good goal. But the implementation is to take the previously "male" designated term and make it unisex, dropping the "female" designated term. To me that doesn't feel equal, it feels like I have to pretend I'm not a woman or that I don't care about being a woman. Why not propose that all officers are called "ma'am"? Or come up with a new term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Starkess said:

I myself am more of the latter camp.

Hmm I hoped women in the armed forces would share their views on the matter. Thanls for your perspective.

 

29 minutes ago, Starkess said:

Basically the way I feel about it is this--the idea is proposed to make things more equal by removing gendered distinctions, a good goal. But the implementation is to take the previously "male" designated term and make it unisex, dropping the "female" designated term. To me that doesn't feel equal, it feels like I have to pretend I'm not a woman or that I don't care about being a woman. Why not propose that all officers are called "ma'am"? Or come up with a new term?

I do see your point on how such a thing can perpeturate the idea of "masculine" being more worthy of respect  than "feminine" I guess I could see the argument popping up against making up a new term first is  gender neutral is that it will generate a backlash of idiots saying  "political correctness is out of control, the feminists are trying to  feminize our soldiers". I think developing and instituting  a gender-neural honorific should be the goal, but I guess just having women refereed to as sir is a good stepping stone to start with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am averse to calling anyone 'sir'. Maybe I am channelling the Hound too much or maybe it is my anarcho-socialist views, or maybe it's just my Canadianess showing through. 

In Canada, coaches of sports teams are always called by their first name by the players on the team, never by the honorific of Coach. I heard a story once of an American player coming here to play and asking "Coach, can I ask a question?" to which the coach replied "Yes, Player, you can." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I am averse to calling anyone 'sir'. Maybe I am channelling the Hound too much or maybe it is my anarcho-socialist views, or maybe it's just my Canadianess showing through. 

In Canada, coaches of sports teams are always called by their first name by the players on the team, never by the honorific of Coach. I heard a story once of an American player coming here to play and asking "Coach, can I ask a question?" to which the coach replied "Yes, Player, you can." 

Hmmm. But it's a different dynamic between coaches and their players than officers and their soldiers. 

Edit: Example-

"Captain, can I ask a question?" to which the captain replied ", Yes, Airman, you can."

Less weird yeah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I am averse to calling anyone 'sir'. Maybe I am channelling the Hound too much or maybe it is my anarcho-socialist views, or maybe it's just my Canadianess showing through.

South Park taught me the honorifics in Canada are generally limited to "friend," "buddy," and "guy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

In the police it's Guv or boss. Both gender neutral. Sir would be used alongside ma'am but more for a much more senior rank, if you don't know them very well. But non would be inappropriate. 

You know what that's a fair point. Simply making it always protocol to refer to a superior by their rank rather than sir or ma'm seems logical. Though I have to say "Captain yes captain doesn't roll off the tongue as smoothly "sir yes sir" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Good thing we don't live in the movies then, and most people don't like sir sandwiches. 

You mean all gunnery sergeants aren't just like R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket?  You take that back!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Good thing we don't live in the movies then, and most people don't like sir sandwiches. 

"Sir" means "cheese" in my language, and I assume most people like that in their sandwiches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always the option of removing both terms entirely. There's no equivalent to "sir" or "ma'am" in the Norwegian language (in this context at least), and we get by fine.

 

Subtitling military/police movies or shows often gets extremely clunky because of this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...