scheherazadesghost

🤷🏽‍♀️This thread is going about as well as the other did. Erasure and closure likely incoming. My apologies to @anomaly, but hopefully you're getting a sense of how these things can go in the wild.

I've been to that rodeo, and never again for free, because there is a lot of emotional labor involved, as you can see from all the pushback. And I don't do this online with strangers. Call me crazy, I guess.

I didn't imply "uneducated over all," I implied not educated in DEIBJ. There's a huge difference. To engage in basic DEIBJ, curiosity is a better first approach than detraction and bad faith. Also, one can have a less formalized, non-academic education and still show buyin and curiosity, to further my point. And I never said one shouldn't question motives or bring up unaligned points. But this work is best done with basic, respectful buyins in place. This thread doesn't have it overall, as most detractors are not displaying those signals by any stretch of the imagination. I've also never said people are wrong here. I've merely brought up opposing points of view. There's a huge difference. Edit to add: This is a good example of unwanted cross talk, attempting to paint my addition to the discussion as close-minded and holier than thou, which is far from the truth. Some people know more than others about DEIBJ, that's a fact. Plenty of you know more about a lot of things than I do, which is great. If some don't want to accept that, fine, but that doesn't change the facts. It doesn't make me smarter or better overall, and I never claimed as much. It just means I know more about DEIBJ.

I don't have to do anything here aside from following the rules, which I'm actually pretty good at. But fear not, I'm not bent out of shape. I'm standing firmly in the work, as I have worked in it, and my own lived experience which precious few can refute. What's likely perceived as "being bent out of shape" is merely that and nothing more. The "angry woman of color" fallacy is real and present on DCP and in the real world, but it's a fallacy. Telling someone what they are and aren't ready for is not a great way to start a dialogue. You're repeating yourself and this perspective and that's fine. I'm not trying to stop you and couldn't even if I wanted to. I'm merely saying I disagree and sometimes explaining why. I don't have to agree with you and you don't have to agree with me. Not sure how many times I have to say it but: I'm not here to please everyone. I'm here to stand in my truth and let the chips fall. If they fall away from me, fine, I won't go chasing after them. I'm dedicated, but not that dedicated. Moving forward in this thread, if I engage, I'll be clear that I'm not interested in cross talk and won't respond further. My goal is to share outward to interested parties, not grapple or engage with folks who still have learning to do or who are engaging in bad faith. I recommend that OP consider doing the same.

OP, be forewarned: This space still isn't ready for these discussions, so, other than try to support OP in their efforts, I'm probably not going to be countering the fallacies I'm reading here further. Weathered professionals enter into that depth of work and are appropriately compensated for the labor among populations who already demonstrate buyin... I'm not a glutton for punishment in predominantly white, heteronormative spaces anymore, and DCP is very likely just that, given that the drum corps activity has historically been so... and given the likely average age cohort here. OP will likely find more success in other spaces, among the members, families and staff that need them the most. Spaces like this can be auxiliary. It's great to announce here, but catering to this audience could lead to spinning one's wheels rather than focusing on ideal audiences.

Safeguarding and DEIBJ work intersect. It seems they are often mistaken as interchangeable by both (1) newer groups taking action to build improvements in those areas and (2) folks with less experience or knowledge on those matters. However, they are different disciplines, with different strategies, goals, and outcomes. Neither are a pipe dream and very much worth pursuing. Neither should be left to the legal system alone to resolve. Both disciplines are actively practiced by industry experts throughout the world all day every day.

You can't please everyone doing this work, especially those without experience or with only bad experiences. It involves conflict management and compromise, things that our legal system leads society to believe aren't possible. You especially can't please everyone if you're committed to supporting equity deserving groups. Those groups' needs are specialized and nuanced, so, in turn, supporting them requires specialization, at least in the beginning. I don't like to think of this work as "capturing" anyone. People are going to be turned off from the sheer newness and difference of it anyway. To stand firm in what one knows to be true and right in their documented lived experiences is crucial. Doing so will always turn someone off. So be it. You can't please everyone in a democracy. But you can uplift those who deserve equity. Nobody is stopping you.

Not all DEIBJ efforts are created equal, so to speak. My corps is another good example if you ask me. That doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, as there are plenty of positive examples to pull from and model after.

Pah, utopian. I'm not naive or a young adult anymore, thank goodness. I said I'd love for that to be the case, not that I expected it. Doesn't mean I won't maintain my meager lighthouse that may help others navigate the storms who have faced comparable barriers as me. I watch XMen97(lulz) and care deeply about other survivors and people of equity deserving groups. Ah well, I'm likely incredibly sensitive to pushback against this work because I've lived it and endured the repercussions. Minimally, pushback against a young person's efforts to improve this area is unbecoming. Pushback on any young person's efforts to improve our world is unbecoming.

No point in countering this with my personal view of the competitive aspect of this activity bc that's not the point. As I mentioned in a previous comment, group competition =/= individual competition. Simply, you can have the former AND something closer to equity much more easily than the latter and equity. Further, superficially altering individual competition for limited membership and jobs =/= equity in auditioning, hiring, job succession and the policies and procedures that guide them. Equity is not one strategy. It, and the overall DEI approach, in good faith, make up an entire industry and field of praxis not easily explained here. Especially to anyone in this thread who may be approaching it in bad faith. If you want to whittle down the entire industry and school of thought to "getting rid of group competition" this conversation won't get far. I feel for anyone working for greater DEIBJ in this activity. I've done it in another field and... well... it can severely tax one's mental and physical health. It's one of the most charged and divisive subject matters in our country at the moment. Not easy work.

Comments above are exactly what I was talking about. 👍🏽

This is the liminal, challenging space that diversity experts work within. It is one that even you note as an ideal, and therefore not currently existent in most spaces. Regarding competition, that is only one aspect of this activity. Workplaces are another that would benefit from this effort. Also, competing isn't, not should it be, one on one. When groups are competing, there is space for this work within the individual groups.

You don't recall our first interactions on this board regarding DEI ending in hidden comments and closure? Those were my first discussions here and were definitely too hot to handle apparently. Pepperidge Farm remembers. Also, now-deleted comments on this thread were edging in the direction I indicated. Jokes aside, I'd love for the community to have matured regarding their ability to have these discussions. They're important. 🙏🏽

The core definition of equity, under the DEI lens rather than the financial one, doesn't change that much based on context. According to McKinsey & Company: "Equity refers to fair treatment for all people, so that the norms, practices, and policies in place ensure identity is not predictive of opportunities or workplace outcomes. Equity differs from equality in a subtle but important way. While equality assumes that all people should be treated the same, equity takes into consideration a person’s unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal." Currently, one's identity is highly predictive of opportunities and workplace outcomes in drum corps. I imagine unwinding that is part of the vision here. Not sure how much further this conversion can go honestly. Detractors will try to get this thread shut down, despite it appearing to be a survivor's best effort to improve adverse conditions they experienced firsthand in the activity.

However I can be a support for this effort, I will. Congratulations on this step and I wish you strength and stamina in supporting other vulnerable populations in the marching world!

You mean it's more complicated than black or white? 🫠 Say it ain't so!

It's been a chicken-or-egg scenario since long before I marched.

FWIW, I have full faith in the new personal trainer (also an alum from the 90s.) If either of you have concerns, I'd develop a relationship with her. I guarantee that all she wants is to ensure your daughter and other members are injury free, or at worst, can manage injuries safely through the summer and recover with the most ease possible.

I'm happy to welcome your daughter to the corps (and colorguard especially,) FWIW, and wish her a safe and enjoyable summer. It sounds like she more than deserves it. Thanks for sharing these fun tidbits about the show/announcement. That said @lawdn, are you a recurring "Star" donor? Pretty sure those folks are in on a private FB group with more content and updates than the rest of us. Perhaps they're sworn to secrecy though?

Yeah! Like this one:

Sort of, but with less disgust. Many of us here are stakeholders both in Vanguard and the activity as a whole. All of us care about it. You don't have to care about it the same way I do. In fact, that we do so in different ways is actually a good thing. https://www.liveabout.com/stakeholder-2502118 I'm positive they agree with you. Good work. A great way to regard alumni. Nice personal jab. You claimed something false and I pointed that out. My legal name and rep are attached to this account. Anything positive you'd like to say about my corps to change the topic?

Sigh. Yes, it's what's stakeholders do: provide feedback to public, charity nonprofits. All day, every day, all over the country. They don't need feedback? Don't make me laugh. And yes, I have run a nonprofit. And I've been in contact with leadership past and present at this one regarding an remarkably wide array of topics, including positive ones. You could just as easily start guessing how well they'll do in competition or what their show will be instead of whatever it is you're doing now. No one is stopping you or anyone else from doing so.

Whatever will the poor drum corps with a multi-million dollar bingo operation and countless dedicated fans do about a few folks on the internet providing critical feedback? /s Honestly... Anyway, folks just have to wait less than two weeks and there will be plenty more to talk about. Until then, we're pretty easy to avoid.

We didn't ever need figure head to perpetuate that mindset.

Completely agree except for the tiny adjustment I made in bold. Sure there are plenty that donate time, but they are rarely critical of the org either due to lack of expertise or because you simply can't get far being critical.