There’s been some debate that “Sir” is a form of military address, and thus gender neutral. Admittedly calling your sergeant “Ma’am” doesn’t really convey that you’re respecting her on basis of the rank she earned.
That said, when I was (very briefly) in the CAF military, back in the late 90s, they were training us to always address superior officers by their actual rank. “Sir” was supposedly how the US military addressed their superiors.
Mind you, as recruits-in-training, we often slipped up and called them “Sir” and they just as often missed catching it either. There’s been 1000 movies and TV shows involving the US military for every Canadian one… actually I’m struggling to bring to mind a Canadian one at all.
Well that was a pretty big tangent. Not necessarily a gender-fail for Tyler to call her “Sir”, was my only intended point. 😛
Well, I do think that Schultz was implying something there that the kids today are all about. Something about gender fluidity and the spectrum of gender or what have you. Though in a very non-specific and 50’s-palatable kind of way.
There’s been some debate that “Sir” is a form of military address, and thus gender neutral. Admittedly calling your sergeant “Ma’am” doesn’t really convey that you’re respecting her on basis of the rank she earned.
That said, when I was (very briefly) in the CAF military, back in the late 90s, they were training us to always address superior officers by their actual rank. “Sir” was supposedly how the US military addressed their superiors.
Mind you, as recruits-in-training, we often slipped up and called them “Sir” and they just as often missed catching it either. There’s been 1000 movies and TV shows involving the US military for every Canadian one… actually I’m struggling to bring to mind a Canadian one at all.
Well that was a pretty big tangent. Not necessarily a gender-fail for Tyler to call her “Sir”, was my only intended point. 😛
A bit of a nod to Peanuts and the way Marcie would refer to Peppermint Patty as ‘Sir’, actually.
Man… that confused me as to “Pat’s” gender for so many years…
Well, I do think that Schultz was implying something there that the kids today are all about. Something about gender fluidity and the spectrum of gender or what have you. Though in a very non-specific and 50’s-palatable kind of way.
I’d put a fair bit of money down that he’d never heard those terms in his lifetime.