Anonymous wrote:It's a military/law enforcement way - very hard to stop something so engrained.

And yet .... in some circumstances, we need to learn a new way to be respectful.

Back in the day, people tried to defend employers who called their secretaries "Honey" in much the same way. He doesn't mean anything by it, he's southern, it's ingrained in the way he talks, he truly, truly did not mean any disrespect, it is just a really hard habit to break. Sincerely. It can also be an expensive habit to break. If you can't stop saying Ma'am, don't stop saying Sir either. You just can't be selective about it based on gender.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how to determine who's comfortableness trumps? He is uncomfortable interacting with women without using respectful phrase and the women are uncomfortable with him being respectful... who must be made uncomfortable in order to make the other party happy? Does the principle of equity apply? In other words, who is most capable of incurring the loss of comfort? That person should be the one to absorb to discomfort? Are the women saying that he must change because it is too much for them the bare? While most may not realize it, if that is what is really being concluded this is an anti-feminist position because it means that women require men to make them comfortable.

Doesn't the fact that everyone at the agency calls each other by their first name indicate which experience should trump?

Nope. That is forced assimilation and assimilation is wrong. Multiculturalism is good. You should accept his culture and phraseology in the workplace.

Employee walks into a conference room full of co-workers:

"Hello, Sir, Ma'am, Sir, Ma'am, Ma'am, Sir." OK.
"Hello, Sir, Suzie, Sir, Sir, Jane, Sir." Not OK.
"Hello, John, Ma'am, Ma'am, Pierre, Tom, Ma'am." Not OK.
"Hello, George, Female, Javier, Female, Female, Phil." Not OK.
"Hello, Mavis, Boy, Kaitlyn, Boy, Boy, Cora." Not OK.
"Hello, Sara, Enzo, Xavier, Kendra, Ana, Taj." OK.
"Hello, Dude, Goomba, Sweetie, Chica, Lady." So not OK. Multicultural perhaps, but not OK.

It's a military/law enforcement way - very hard to stop something so engrained.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I've thought about taking him out, but after reading this thread, I'm afraid to risk being viewed as a precious snowflake, a whiner, a pathetic idiot, a NOW spokeswoman, or a feminist freak rather than someone who was trying to help him out.

Several people gave you useful scripts and recommendations and you haven't responded to any of them. Instead, you just had a bunch of posts removed wondering why you weren't responding to any of the helpful posts and are continuing to only respond to the negative ones. So I, again, question whether you're just trolling, even though it means my post will, again, be deleted by Jeff at your request.

NP here. *I* reported the thread to Jeff. I was appalled at a good 50% of the responses the OP received, a good portion of which consisted of "troll troll trolllllllllll" and some pretty offensive stuff. Who knows - maybe I'm not the only one who reported.

What offensive stuff? not one post has been "offensive" unless by offensive you mean that it has a differing opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how to determine who's comfortableness trumps? He is uncomfortable interacting with women without using respectful phrase and the women are uncomfortable with him being respectful... who must be made uncomfortable in order to make the other party happy? Does the principle of equity apply? In other words, who is most capable of incurring the loss of comfort? That person should be the one to absorb to discomfort? Are the women saying that he must change because it is too much for them the bare? While most may not realize it, if that is what is really being concluded this is an anti-feminist position because it means that women require men to make them comfortable.

In a business environment, the client trumps. The OP says that the clients don't like it.

This is really not hard to understand, folks.

She did not say that the clients ACTUALLY mind. She things its odd and used the clients as an example....+ what fed agency has "clients" anyway? Its not like the "clients" can fire the agency...

Anonymous wrote:I'd make a joke it and respond "Yes, sir!" every time.

Or I'd just chuckle, and say "Hey Bob, I gotta tell you - we really are a first name only kind of agency. I know you've got a more formal background, but if you're gonna stick around here, first names are the way to go."

And then I'd correct him every time after that, ie -

*Knock, knock" "Hi, Ma'am, I had a -"
"Susie, Bob, it's Susie. My name is Susie."
"Okay, well yes Ma'am. I just had this -"
"No Bob, really it's Susie, just Susie, not Susie Ma'am"

Anyone who actually did that would be viewed as really weird.

OP, I'm a Career Director and get this all of the time from people leaving the military and starting college. Just let him know. Don't let it eat you up. I just say to the folks who call me mam..."I appreciate your manners" and I want to let you know that in order to transition to this new world. "you have to when in Rome...act like the Romans do" and let him know that you are a first name firm and "mam" is for the military and the south. Just keep it simple and nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, I have no intention of "filing a complaint" or raising issues of hostile work environment.

I would like to let him know he's out of step.

When the head of the agency says things like "This is Larlo Larloson. Don't ask him to stop calling you ma'am because I've tried three times and he won't" you have a career problem on your hands. It doesn't matter that he was raised that way. It doesn't matter that it's a gesture of respect. What he's doing is not in step with our agency culture. Get it?

So just let him know, when he refers to you, you prefer he use your first name? If the head of the organization is aware of it, as you state above, what is there for you to report? If the organization thinks the matter should be addressed it will do so.

She's already done that, and he ignores it. I would tell him straight out, "Look, I understand that you're trying to be respectful, and I appreciate that. But you call your male co-workers and clients by their names, and call all your female co-workers and clients 'Ma'am.' I would really prefer it if you call me by my name. I've also noticed that some of the clients don't like being called 'Ma'am.' Again, I know you're trying to be respectful."

Anonymous wrote:So how to determine who's comfortableness trumps? He is uncomfortable interacting with women without using respectful phrase and the women are uncomfortable with him being respectful... who must be made uncomfortable in order to make the other party happy? Does the principle of equity apply? In other words, who is most capable of incurring the loss of comfort? That person should be the one to absorb to discomfort? Are the women saying that he must change because it is too much for them the bare? While most may not realize it, if that is what is really being concluded this is an anti-feminist position because it means that women require men to make them comfortable.

He's not being respectful. He might think he is, but he's not. It's respectful to call people what they want to be called. It's not respectful to address them in a manner that makes them uncomfortable, after they have told you how they would like to be addressed. The OP said that he refers to female clients that way, too, and the clients don't like it.

OP here. Thanks everyone who posted actual tips. Some good information here.

Anonymous wrote:I worked as a civilian for the military health system for many years. I was generally referred to as "Ma'am" by almost everyone. I had many friends at work and when we were alone it was "Susie" and "Larla" but in front of anyone we referred to each other as COL Jones and Ms. Smith.

Totally different situation.

Anonymous wrote:I think it is probably his military background that is more troubling to the OP than the use of the phrase. The phrase is simply an outward sign that reminds the OP that he has a military background. She probably doesn't know how to relate to him and the phrase reminds her that his background is different than hers and she doesn't understand it so she is lashing out at what she doesn't understand. Classic fear of those who are different than you. She should attend training on how to be more inclusive in a diverse working environment.

I don't agree that she has a problem with his military background! Have no trouble with military: great skills, great backgrounds, great people -- like you find in every population.

I taught career transition workshops for the military and always/ often explained that the use of ma'am was not appropriate in the civilian workforce. It is not done in our society anymore and even when it was " done" often only in the south, or children to say to,parents, teachers, elders. My 75 yr old father ( raised in the south) stills says ma'am when he is addressing woman he does not know - very weird and awkward.

In the civilian workforce everyone ( in theory) is equal. Yes, we have bosses and decision makers but there is a sense that everyone in the group/on the team is part of the process so everyone is a "respected" colleague. You have peers and colleagues not a direct command authority. Where I work now, most people have ph.d's yet we don't call each other "Dr", we say hi larlo or will get that to,you larla. In the civilian world, work is done with peers through professional collaboration no matter your title or level. It is a different way of working and thinking and so will likely take him some time.

Anonymous wrote:First of all, I have no intention of "filing a complaint" or raising issues of hostile work environment.

I would like to let him know he's out of step.

When the head of the agency says things like "This is Larlo Larloson. Don't ask him to stop calling you ma'am because I've tried three times and he won't" you have a career problem on your hands. It doesn't matter that he was raised that way. It doesn't matter that it's a gesture of respect. What he's doing is not in step with our agency culture. Get it?

So just let him know, when he refers to you, you prefer he use your first name? If the head of the organization is aware of it, as you state above, what is there for you to report? If the organization thinks the matter should be addressed it will do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again -- I haven't reported and posts. But that attitude is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

What attitude? You asked a question and received a ton of great recommendations for how to address this with him but you're ignoring them and claiming everyone is telling you to get over it! Most of the posters are supportive of your position but you won't acknowledge any of them and are instead insistent everyone is against you. People then calling you on that isn't "attitude" it's a legitimate questioning of what exactly you are hoping to get out of posting here.

+1
OP seemed to have a lot of attitude here herself. The way she responded to posters was bizarre.

Anonymous wrote:So how to determine who's comfortableness trumps? He is uncomfortable interacting with women without using respectful phrase and the women are uncomfortable with him being respectful... who must be made uncomfortable in order to make the other party happy? Does the principle of equity apply? In other words, who is most capable of incurring the loss of comfort? That person should be the one to absorb to discomfort? Are the women saying that he must change because it is too much for them the bare? While most may not realize it, if that is what is really being concluded this is an anti-feminist position because it means that women require men to make them comfortable.

In a business environment, the client trumps. The OP says that the clients don't like it.

This is really not hard to understand, folks.