Wait... maybe I'm getting my etiquette mixed up... but isn't "Madam Secretary" the correct form of address for a Secretary?
As far as I know, it still is correct. I meant to wonder whether anyone who takes offense at a general addressing a female senator as "ma'am" was also going to take offense at a female cabinet member being addressed as "madam."
Edited to add:Actually, is it really possible to separate the fact that Senator Boxer is being criticized for asking the general not to address her as "ma'am" from the fact that she is a woman?
I'm afraid she may well have given a "gift that keeps on giving" to her opponents for her Senate seat. She created an issue where there was none, that somehow the general was disrespecting her by calling her "ma'am," and that was just stupid, on her part. If the general had been calling her "honey," or "sweetie," or "little lady," or something really condescending like that, then he would for sure have been disrespecting her. But I'm pretty sure the general is "of an age" that when he was coming up through the ranks and being educated as an officer, that was how officers were taught to address women, as "ma'am," as a sign of respect.
You can argue that it's time for the military to change it's thinking on this matter, and on how it educates its officers, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but for the present IMO Senator Boxer has done herself a disservice by creating this issue where there was none.