Posted on Jan 21, 2015
Can addressing junior service members by rank alone be considered a derogatory term?
43.5K
526
195
14
14
0
Throughout my career, I have noticed that certain rank-titles have been continually used in a derogatory manner. The most glaring of these are 'Private', 'Specialist', 'Cadet', 'Lieutenant', and 'LT'.
Here are a few examples:
- "Hey ________, come here!"
- "Hurry up ________!"
- "What are you doing ________?"
You would never hear someone use those phrases to an NCO or officer of the rank of Captain or higher, especially without adding their name to their rank when addressing them, so why talk down to someone just because they're of a certain rank?
This has always bothered me; especially when it was directed at me while I was serving at each of those ranks. So, as a tiny effort, for the past 10 years or so, I have avoided using those rank-titles in a stand-alone manner.
Here are a few examples:
- "Hey ________, come here!"
- "Hurry up ________!"
- "What are you doing ________?"
You would never hear someone use those phrases to an NCO or officer of the rank of Captain or higher, especially without adding their name to their rank when addressing them, so why talk down to someone just because they're of a certain rank?
This has always bothered me; especially when it was directed at me while I was serving at each of those ranks. So, as a tiny effort, for the past 10 years or so, I have avoided using those rank-titles in a stand-alone manner.
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 115
0
0
0
Speaking for myself here...
Soldiers E-4 and below are normally called by their last name only until they need an "attention getter". Then it's Rank alone or Rank/Last name depending on what's going on. So in that situation, I can see how you would think it's derogatory. Otherwise, it's nothing to worry about.
For officers, I imagine it's the same speaking to Lieutenants, but I always go by Sir/Ma'am (or LT if I like you). Again, nothing to get up in arms over.
Soldiers E-4 and below are normally called by their last name only until they need an "attention getter". Then it's Rank alone or Rank/Last name depending on what's going on. So in that situation, I can see how you would think it's derogatory. Otherwise, it's nothing to worry about.
For officers, I imagine it's the same speaking to Lieutenants, but I always go by Sir/Ma'am (or LT if I like you). Again, nothing to get up in arms over.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's bothers me. Deviating from the existing standard creates confusion, and in my opinion, unprofessional by being too close to the Soldier. Proper addresses creates a clear line of separation between leadership and subordinate. "Mister" and "Miss" is and should reserved for addressing warrant officers. I don't consider addressing someone by their rank as derogatory
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I, personally, have not experienced derogatory addressing by Rank. There are always a few who are snide to anyone of lower rank, but showing unwavering respect for their rank usually leads to them realizing it isn't having the effect they wanted.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LT Slaughter, I only posted what was written in AR 600-20. Yes, I agree that addressing a Soldier by their rank is sometimes derogatory depending on the users tone and their body language when addressing said Soldier.
Sir, I assumed everyone reading my post realized the implied task of also using the Soldiers last name. I apologize for not making my post clearer.
Again I apologize if my post from earlier confused anyone.
Sir, I assumed everyone reading my post realized the implied task of also using the Soldiers last name. I apologize for not making my post clearer.
Again I apologize if my post from earlier confused anyone.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see), you were completely clear about that. It wasn't my intention to imply otherwise.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sir, I chose this option because there wasn't one that fit what I wanted to say better. I think a balance needs to be struck. While you're confident that the people subordinate to you understand the rank structure and where they fit within it, referring to them in this manner seems acceptable. However, if it begins to develop a sense of entitlement to be "coddled", as opposed to ordered, this type of behavior should stop. Some may argue that the very practice of this behavior significantly increases the odds that sense of entitlement will occur in the first place. I do not know if this is true.... I will tailor my requests so that they sound like just that… Requests...as long as both of us know that's not really what they are there isn't an issue.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see), I completely agree that it would have to stop if a Soldier ever showed that they misunderstood my intention to be respectful as sign that the rank structure was not relevant.
I maintain a level of professionalism that does not allow any grey area that would lead to that mistake to being made.
So far, that has never been an issue.
I maintain a level of professionalism that does not allow any grey area that would lead to that mistake to being made.
So far, that has never been an issue.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google