Yes, ma'am!

A timely (sorry) and entertainingly written article in the New York Times -- which I've got an online membership to in celebration of its becoming somewhat more relevant than previously -- discussing the problem of addressing women as "ma'am."

I first became aware of this issue when I read The Devil Wears Prada (don't judge me) and there was extensive discussion of the evil boss's hatred of being called "ma'am."  (I prefer the spelling m'am but I think that's considered scathingly colloquial these days.  But I digress.)

It's timely because I've noticed that, here in the just-as-friendly-as-they-stereotype-it South, if people want my or M's attention, they say, "Ma'am?"  Once even, "Ma'am, could I trouble y'all a minute?" which I found charming beyond belief. 

I love this.  Why?  Because in California, greeters at shops and strangers on the street would call M and I "girls."  "You finding everything okay, girls?"  Drove me mad.  It strikes me as condescending.  You wouldn't say, "Want to try some free samples, girl?" Making it plural does not make it okay.

A lot of women, apparently, don't like "ma'am" because it makes them feel old.  I suppose maybe my lack of objection is because I'm barely edging into my twenties and very conscious of my callow youth, so it pleases me to be thought of as older.  But then, I'm very sensitive to agifying family titles.  Call me "Auntie Chelsea" and I'll call you dead.  Call my mother Auntie Jane and I'll call you buried alive.

So yeah.  Er, yes ma'am.  No conclusions.