ndkbass

Agreed. For example, I recently saw Disney’s Encanto and the music from that film could easily help make a great Madison show (at least in my opinion). One track in particular is “No se habla de Bruno”. Gives me real 1995/1996 vibes.

I definitely agree that the BOD needs to be greatly expanded and include a variety of folks including those who have nothing to do with the organization. Look at Boston's BOD, which many have referenced. I think that is a great example to mirror.

Agreed, such a good read! Would love to hear his tape for Devs from this year. Here you go:

Hey! Yah, ok. I thought so, but was not 100%. Thanks for that information. Good on them! I remember drumming with them after one show in 2009 (probably Whitewater or something like that).

That's the Shadow Armada folks, right? They expanded or moved out of their HS summer ensemble to Open Class, correct?

#20in20! 😎

Which is quite interesting. I lived with a 2008 quad player for a bunch of years, and know a bunch of other 2008 guys well, and they all say they had a great finals run. Either way, props to the percussion ensemble tonight! Must have had one hell of a run to get that kind of a number from Prosperie! His 2013 Cadets finals tape is a really good (and kinda funny) listen if you ever get the chance, and they only got a 9.9 in Achievement, and that percussion ensemble was monstrously good!

Thanks for saying something!

Likewise.

I was showing that the DSM (and the APA) are not the best source when it comes to understanding issues related to queer folk in part because they have had to update their guidelines and standards. I was also implying that this is also because of the methodologies they use or engage in. Which is not entirely dismissive of either. Rather, it is a good thing, and shows that they are a field evolving and that it is one that is full of self-reflexive scholars. Moreover, I was trying to show that scholars who expressly study those communities (and are often themselves members of those communities) do a better job of understanding and explaining the historical and contemporary issues (generally speaking, this falls under the rubric of Queer Studies, although other scholars in other fields, like myself, certainly engage with these topics and communities in their research and teaching). This does not mean that all parts of the DSM are invalid, or that all psychiatrists are bad practitioners. Although, I do have many issues with psychoanalysis as a methodology (especially as it is applied outside of clinical psychiatry), and am in no way shape or form a fan of Freud. John Levi Martin does an excellent job unpacking some of Freud's major methodological issues in his 2014 text The Explanation of Social Action. If you delve into it, be sure to read all the footnotes. They are, to a degree, better than his actual text.

Exactly! Durkheim (who is generally understood as the "father" of sociology) basically said something similar with his original study of suicide from way, way back (it is almost always about social ties). This is also why I trust Queer Studies scholars more so than the DSM, etc.. They do a terrific job of highlighting the issues you raised, and provide great ways to challenge them so that we can improve the life of those individuals and make all of our communities better for everyone.

Update: I will shortly be a member of the association in good standing (once dues payment is completely processed), and will thus be able to vote or eligible to sit on the Board. I am not necessarily interested in serving on the board at the moment due to other day-to-day commitments. I do not mind proxy stuff, but I like to be in person for discussion purposes.

You do not need to be an association member to be hired as ED though, right? HAH!!!

I do not believe I currently am, but I would certainly become one if necessary (which it is last I checked) and when the means are available. I cannot speak for Deb's Diner. I am generally out of the loop because I have not used Facebook since 2011, so I miss out on a lot of the alumni news (or pre-release of news). Not interested in Facebook. That company is gross.

I appreciate the support! I would certainly be interested, and think that being able to manage a cook truck certainly helps make one aware of how to run a corps, but I am currently focused on finding gainful employment so that I can manage student loans and other day-to-day expenses. Additionally, I do not reside near the Midwest, so that makes it hard to participate in person (even though many activities can be done by proxy). I would definitely be interested if I end up closer, and secure tenure-track employment since that would vastly increase my financial means. A few positions I am applying to for the upcoming cycle would provide such an opportunity, and would make it easier to consider such an undertaking. I do know that others from my years would do as good a job if not better, especially since some of them are already band directors and what not. And I would love to recommend them, but would not speak on their behalf.

For sure. I think scholars in Queer Studies, and other related fields and sub fields, do a much better job articulating these issues than the DSM or psychiatrists do.

Facebook does not actually list fifty eight different genders. Facebook lists fifty eight options for identifying one's gender that provide multiple options for similar categories (https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/). I.e., cisgender man or cisgender woman or cis man or cis woman. Those are the same things, just slightly different ways of saying it. Facebook is simply allowing users to identify themselves with a wider variety of presentation than it has before, it is not prescribing specific boundaries that then force people to identify in a way that may make them uncomfortable (or could ultimately be inaccurate). Same thing with its pronoun options. So, saying that there are fifty eight genders is not actually correct. Facebook just has a plethora of options for identifying a limited amount of genders (of which there are more than the basic two most people are familiar with). Gender identity or performance is way different than biological sex. DNA does not have as much to do with gender, which is primarily a social construct (see the whole field of Gender, Women's, and Sexuality Studies or Queer Studies), as many may think it does. Many prior societies (including Greco-Roman, African pre-Western intervention, and Feudal Japan) had different definitions of gender norms/roles and sexual orientation including things like what we know call homosexuality or transgender. Again, how many psychiatrists out there actually believe that? There are still people who believe in homosexual conversion therapy. There are technically still scientists who do not believe in human influenced climate change. There are still people who argue for biological differences in the races. Does not mean they are right or in the majority. Science is constantly evolving, and theories are theories. Trusted theories are ones that stand the tests of time and either are themselves constantly adapted or refined. The DSM itself is constantly being refined. Arguing for gender dysphoria as a disorder based on current DSM classification is definitely a loosing argument in my opinion. The history of homosexuality is one example where the DSM got it wrong over multiple iterations and updates to their classification. The same can be said, and I argue is on going, with regards to transfolk and transrights. Over diagnosis does exist to a degree in regards to anything that can be diagnosed. But, like any field of inquiry, mental health is growing, and many younger individuals seem to have less issues or stigma surrounding therapy and open, honest discussion of mental health amongst themselves and their peer groups. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and does not necessarily mean that they are over diagnosed as you argue. Sure, there may be an overwhelming dependency on pharmaceuticals in modern (Western) medicine, but these things need to be teased out in more detail, and not lumped together. Things like A.D.D. or A.D.H.D. or the larger (white) opioid crisis are different than the issues of transgender individuals and their treatment. Before one can transition they undergo a wide battery of examinations, both physical and psychological. Although I am not familiar with the number of folks who experience some sort of regret off the top of my head, my memory tells me the numbers are not great when considering the entire population of transfolk who come out and transition. Queer theory is not my area of expertise, so I would need to do a little digging or consulting with other scholars to completely answer that question (Sara Ahmed's work is absolutely dope though, and I highly recommend her work if you want to read some scholarship on this and related subject matters because her stuff absolutely kills). I just do not think it is as widespread as you argue here. Coping mechanisms include pharmaceuticals and therapy. How are they not coping mechanisms? Rubbing dirt in it, drinking alcohol, or any other form of self-medication or coping may not actually be healthy in the longterm, and may not be as appropriate as therapy or medication. That would depend on an individual's brain and blood chemistry and the appropriate consultation and recommendation of/from trained professionals, among other things. Also, homosexuality and pedophilia are entirely different things, and should not be conflated. Pedophilia involves issues of consent (since a minor cannot legally consent), and is not limited to same-sex attraction whereas homosexuality does not involve those same issues of consent (outside of sexual violence and assault, which, unfortunately, occur in every subset of humanity) and is limited to same-sex attraction. Also, science, like any academic argument, is constantly a space of contestation like this very forum and thread are. Nothing is set in stone. Even major accepted theories like relativity, etc. are always being amended or challenged or updated or critiqued. That is the nature of the game. Academia is simply a long running conversation where people seek truth(s). So, challenging an established fact is not actually outside of the norm for general society or scholarly communities.

The DSM is not the best source for that. Prior editions listed homosexuality as a disease, and you cannot find that in there anymore. Transmen and transwomen are not sick or mentally ill. They are people like you and I. Also, it is not simply "how the youth have been taught about gender," but also (if not more) about how those who have been oppressed are actually claiming their right to exist. It is also very much relevant to this thread since it concerns the corps we are discussing, and the membership past, present, and future.

Please do! Or throw your hat in the ring for ED!

This, this, and more of this! One of my favorite memories from marching Devs is that at every retreat, if a corps you were a part of in a prior season was announced, you could come to attention or show respect (at least in the battery we did this). I thought it was really cool, and it was something that vets only explained once we were on the field for retreat (the first time in Atlanta if my memory serves correct). There was also plenty of story sharing and just general appreciation of other people's experiences from other corps and years of marching. Only real place I experienced that sort of camaraderie. Excited to see what this week holds for everyone! Thanks to this year's iteration of Devs for making the season so enjoyable (and to the other corps as well)! Do it up! #ISmellSmoke

I disagree with MikeRapp's claims there, and with your ideas as stated in support of Rapp's claims. No one is erasing history. It is all online or archived in various other places. It is also still alive since so many people carry it in their veins and brains. It is quite different for a group that serves an underrepresented, marginalized, or minority group (GSUSA) than it is for a group or organization that serves the dominant majority like Scouts BSA. So, the argument failing to work for Scouts BSA is not the same as when GSUSA makes that claim even though they may appear to be identical because we do not live in a matriarchal society nor have women dominated societal norms for the last 5,000 years. Men have, and we still live in a heteronormative patriarchy where non-disabled cisgender heterosexual white men are predispositionally privileged by society, especially in the modern West where Madison is from, currently operates, and will remain for the foreseeable future. Other people have made similar claims to this effect, but I believe that discussion mainly occurred in the thread on the coed decision.

Hah! Did not know they had a child! That is wonderful news! He was also on the trucks for a few years, could not go any where without seeing him!

I very much disagree with your claims here. Speaking anecdotally, it definitely is not a combination of both for everyone. Also, I do not think you can successfully argue that "Neither works without the other." My first drum corps memories are from before I was a decade old and when I attended shows as a child with my parents who were big fans, in particular my Mom. This includes finals 1994, and a lot of Allentown shows in the years after that before finals 1999. My first memories of Madison, and my subsequent urge to march Madison had no recollection or understanding of their membership policy and its attachment to the corps's identity as some may insist. My first memories are of enjoying the music and the visual energy of the shows, as well as the crowd reaction to the Scouts. That is what made me a fan of the corps growing up, and led me to great interest in the entire activity, and to march with them later on. My first memories are not that Madison was all-male and that the gender identity or biological sex of the membership was the only reason or a part of the reason as to why they were so good or received the crowd reaction that they did. My first memories of Madison as an all-male corps only came after I was more than a decade old and was closer to the age of eligibility to begin marching and asked questions of my parents about wanting to audition, etc.. Madison was never always all-male to me, it only became all-male to me at a certain point, and that had no real effect on the enjoyment level or entertainment factor of the corps. This is an important distinction, I think, because it shows how things are socially constructed and how cultural values and norms, such as gender performance are taught, enforced, and restricted. I had to be informed that Madison was all-male by my parents because my eyes kept only seeing what I perceived to be young men the more I saw rehearsals, lot warm-ups, and closer, repetitive viewing of live shows or DCI finals video cassettes and DVDs before my eventual rabid consumption of youtube clips. You can love the corps, champion its identity, and enjoy the shows all without knowing that Madison is all-male; I know I certainly did and do. And, now that it is more inclusive in regards to membership, that should not change the entertainment factor for anyone (so long as the design and execution is itself entertaining). Madison is still Madison. Sure, a little different, but if the Scouts were to open up their show with a company front and fleur next summer, would anyone seriously notice or care about the make-up of the membership of the corps? I would lose my #### entirely just to see that again (perhaps with dark green tops and white pants with a green stripe, but that is just my nostalgia), and that has absolutely no relationship to the gender, sex, or orientation of the members.

I do not think that your first two claims are actually generalizable in the way that you are expressing because they do not seem to stand as defensible in regards to the universality of the claim you are making. Some alumni insist on doing so, certainly. But not all. I also do not think that their identity was about masculinity. The identity of the corps has not changed. The mission statement, name, etc. have not changed. Only the rules regarding membership (who can partake in upholding or embracing or being taught the identity) have changed. So, I also disagree with you when you say they need "to find their new identity." They need to maybe find a better fiscal identity or administrative identity or staff identity or design identity, but not a corps identity. I do agree with you when you say that "they were dead in the water by playing to the whole 'Superman suit' crowd." This is, in part, due to toxic masculinity and how male privilege makes it hard to acknowledge flaws and issues in gender performance and traditional, heteronormative gender roles that are socialized via patriarchy. Socialization is quite powerful, but it can be critically evaluated and countermanded. If Madison's identity is limited to a rigid, non-flexible understanding of gender identity and performance, in this case what you, and others, call "masculinity" or "male-ism" I think we are missing the larger conversation on gender identity, biological sex, and sexual orientation, and how that history has never been universal in Madison's history, but has constantly negotiated tradition and the times in which it has existed. For sure there was not one idea of masculinity in the corps when I was around it before I was in it, and knowing folks that came before and after me. It was definitely quite varied.