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
1
1
0
Mr. or Ms. is a Civilian or a WO. You should address a soldier by rank and name, especially in the presence of others. I had several Senior NCO's and Officers I was on a first name basis with, but we used rank and name when appropriate...We all knew our place in the "Food Chain", as one E-8 used to say!
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
You hit the nail right on the head SSG Scott Burk, "when appropriate". I assumed it went without saying that I use this practice within the confines of my team (whatever that may be at the time: platoon, section, office, etc...).
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
This is the worst post I've seen on Rally Point. Absolutely amazes me to read this. Waste of time to have written it.
A few reasons why:
You earn your rank, you should be addressed accordingly.
Military personnel aren't meant to be addressed as mister or anything like that. That's why there is a rank structure!!
By not calling them by their rank or calling a commissioned officer sir or ma'am you are wrong. Period.
Quit being soft on people, that's why things are getting worse in the military.. Not enough people willing to be hard asses to their subordinates and then the subordinates take their kindness for a weakness.
A few reasons why:
You earn your rank, you should be addressed accordingly.
Military personnel aren't meant to be addressed as mister or anything like that. That's why there is a rank structure!!
By not calling them by their rank or calling a commissioned officer sir or ma'am you are wrong. Period.
Quit being soft on people, that's why things are getting worse in the military.. Not enough people willing to be hard asses to their subordinates and then the subordinates take their kindness for a weakness.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MSG Bo Lathrop, you're looking at the world and the Army through a very small pinhole. Surely you know that there are positions of higher responsibility in the Army that an acting First Sergeant.
There has been nothing misleading about anything I've said. Feel free to share your opinions about the topics at hand, but it's quite inappropriate for you to question my integrity.
There has been nothing misleading about anything I've said. Feel free to share your opinions about the topics at hand, but it's quite inappropriate for you to question my integrity.
(0)
(0)
MSG Bo Lathrop
All I'm saying is that you said you held a position higher than me. I'd like to know what that was.
(0)
(0)
MSG Bo Lathrop
I do know that there are positions of higher responsibilities than 1SG's on the enlisted side Sir. They are called SGM's. Nothing in the enlisted infantry is higher than that. I've been in almost 14 years, I'm not an idiot.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I have not insinuated that you're an idiot, nor have I suggested that you don't know what you're talking about, but again, you're only looking at the infantry world.
I spent over 12 years in the military before I became an infantry officer. It's a big Army out there MSG Bo Lathrop.
I spent over 12 years in the military before I became an infantry officer. It's a big Army out there MSG Bo Lathrop.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Um, how is referring to someone by rank an insult or derogatory?! 1LT you seem to be a bit too sensitive. Your examples seem acceptable to me. I never took offense if someone called me by rank without my name. They either didn't know me or know me well enough. In the military your rate/rank/specialty are a part of your identity. Get over yourself! If you want to be referred by name, get out and work as a civilian. But I advise staying out of para-military fields (i.e. law enforcement) because you'll find people calling you "officer".
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
PO1 John Y., it's obvious that you didn't really pay much attention as you read my post.
The post had nothing to do with what people refer to me as. As a matter of fact just about everyone refers to me as Lieutenant Slaughter, Lieutenant, or LT, and that's perfectly fine with me.
This is also not about me being sensitive. I'm not bothered by anything that people address me as.Please understand, I'm also not worried about offending anyone. I'm not avoiding negativity. I absolutely don't feel that its inherently negative to call someone by thier rank. It certainly depends on tone and intent.
To answer your first question, I'll simply refer to my original post that you paid only partial attention to and I'll repeat that some people use certain rank-titles in a derogatory manner. Not everyone, not even most, only some.
This is simply a method that I've found helps me to build a healthy level of comfort and respect within my team. I recognize that it isn't for everyone. I was just sharing something that works for me.
There is no need for me to get over myself and there is certainly no need for you to address me with such negativity and then off any sort of 'advice'. I do just fine for myself. Thank you though.
The post had nothing to do with what people refer to me as. As a matter of fact just about everyone refers to me as Lieutenant Slaughter, Lieutenant, or LT, and that's perfectly fine with me.
This is also not about me being sensitive. I'm not bothered by anything that people address me as.Please understand, I'm also not worried about offending anyone. I'm not avoiding negativity. I absolutely don't feel that its inherently negative to call someone by thier rank. It certainly depends on tone and intent.
To answer your first question, I'll simply refer to my original post that you paid only partial attention to and I'll repeat that some people use certain rank-titles in a derogatory manner. Not everyone, not even most, only some.
This is simply a method that I've found helps me to build a healthy level of comfort and respect within my team. I recognize that it isn't for everyone. I was just sharing something that works for me.
There is no need for me to get over myself and there is certainly no need for you to address me with such negativity and then off any sort of 'advice'. I do just fine for myself. Thank you though.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
When I was in, that's the way it was. It seems to me now, that more and more, the military is treating SMs more and more as individuals. That's a mistake to my way of thinking. While it is individuals that make up the military, to maintain both a uniform discipline system and for unit, from squad to division, cohesion, those individuals needs to be looked at as assets. Throughout all initial training(both basic and AIT) we were treated as numbers i.e. 1st squad, 2nd squad..., Class # 216 of year 1985.. and so on. When in a one on one situation the senior of the two, at least in my experience, would almost always refer to me with rank and name. In my opinion, the individualization of SMs, that seems to be happening, is not a good thing.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SPC John Decker, thank you for your response. I think that you will find that many of the most successful organizations in the world can attribute thier success to the ability to recognize and utilize human capital. The type of human capital that is different within each individual in that organization. My post had absolutely nothing to do with the individualizations if Soldiers, but I'm happy to discuss it further if you would like.
I
I
(0)
(0)
SPC John Decker
I agree with your human capital analogy. My choice of the word individualization, had more to do with the idea, that from a purely military perspective, the individual is secondary, in my opinion, to the asset. For example: you have 10 people, all with the same skill set. One of those people leaves the military. You need to replace them. It should be a matter of choosing whatever asset is available. WHO the asset is should not be a factor.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I knew a guy always refered to by his rank. Or was it his name. If forget. His name was sergeant as was his rank.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I suppose there is a difference in how you address someone. Rank is there for a reason. It acknowledges our place in the world. I have no problem addressing someone by rank. You can address someone by title and can come off snarky or condescending. If I say "Hey private I need to see you." There is nothing wrong in that tone. But if say "Priiiiivaaaate or Kay-det get over here!" Then that comes off with an A-hole tone.
If someone has an issue with being addressed by their rank, then they might have a bigger issue and in the wrong line of work. The titles and ranks are there for a reason. Does not mean you have to be demeaning. There is the acknowledgement that one is subordinate to another.
If someone has an issue with being addressed by their rank, then they might have a bigger issue and in the wrong line of work. The titles and ranks are there for a reason. Does not mean you have to be demeaning. There is the acknowledgement that one is subordinate to another.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Sir,
This doesn't bother me at all because in PLDC (WLC), ALC, and SLC some of the Cadre found a way to make Sergeant sound like a derogatory term. I know you have felt that sting as well. I've always been one that doesn't really sweat those kinds of things though. Some people are just "like that." And by "like that" I mean they can't think of a constructive way to communicate. That or they have an inflated sense of entitlement. Call it what you will but it is my firm belief that those who speak in such tones when it is unnecessary, have a small stature complex.
This doesn't bother me at all because in PLDC (WLC), ALC, and SLC some of the Cadre found a way to make Sergeant sound like a derogatory term. I know you have felt that sting as well. I've always been one that doesn't really sweat those kinds of things though. Some people are just "like that." And by "like that" I mean they can't think of a constructive way to communicate. That or they have an inflated sense of entitlement. Call it what you will but it is my firm belief that those who speak in such tones when it is unnecessary, have a small stature complex.
1
1
0
1
1
0
You can use someone's rank without being derogatory. From your example: "Private Smith, could you help me with this?" versus "Private, pick this shit up".
The rank is not the part that makes the second example derogatory.
The rank is not the part that makes the second example derogatory.
(1)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
Wait, we aren't allowed to say "Private/Airman, pick this shit up?" ((backing out of room quietly))
:)
:)
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Oh, you are...and should. I'm just answering the LT's question. If he wants to be polite, who am I to stand in his way?
Edit: Don't want to seem derogatory. I meant, who am I to stand in Mr. Slaughter's way?
Edit: Don't want to seem derogatory. I meant, who am I to stand in Mr. Slaughter's way?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think it depends on your intention when you do it. When I'm working the grill at the DFAC and a member of another service is next I will address them according to rank ("what can I make for you Petty Officer?). It is my attempt to honor the culture of their branch of service, the Air Force doesn't mind being called sir and ma'am, but the other services prefer to be addressed by their rank with the exception of officers
(1)
(0)
LT Carl Martin
Having served just over 20 years in the Navy, 10 as enlisted and 10 in the officer corps this discussion was never an issue. Personnel in the shop usually went by their name (mainly last name), even the shop supervisor, but outside the shop they were addressed by their rank (Petty Officer or Rating (AT2)) and last name. E7 thru E9 as Chief, Senior Chief, Master Chief and last name. Officers, always by their rank and last name. The Navy doesn't use WO1 so all Warrant Officers were call Warrant Officer and last name unless their billet was referred to by a certain name (Gunner). As an officer, I was always addressed by my rank and last name by the enlisted personnel. I addressed the junior officers by their name in private, but by rank and last name in public. Senior officers always by rank and last name unless they insisted to use their formal name, but I only did that in private. I have always used "Yes sir or Mam" as a sign of respect. For working with joint services, we were taught the rank of other services and I used their rank and last name accordingly. Unless someone is in immediate harm, if I needed to address them I would wait until I was near them and get their attention. Nice thing about uniforms, most have names clearly displayed. If not I would introduce myself and ask them their name before conducting my business with them.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google