Jump to content

2011 Phantom Regiment Guard


Recommended Posts

Getting back to the whole idea of what constitutes discrimination, I don't think body type should be part of the criteria for being accepted into a color guard. I agree with the "equal merit" idea, and if a person who auditions is overweight, but can spin and dance as well as others who are accepted, then I think that person should be accepted, too.

I'm with you on this. Ironically, some of the most obvious examples of corps putting image aside in favor of merit are male. Crown's African-American guard soloist this year (and several recent years) stands out for his tall and broad body type, which didn't make him any less excellent and even thrilling.

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of rationalization going on here. That's because rationalization is required when trying to justify discrimination based on gender, which is the fact in these cases.

The fact is Phantom discriminated against men in its approach to guard this year. The fact is that choice to discriminate made programmatic sense. Much as we put men in men's roles on stage and women in women's, Phantom put women in this role where Juliet was the theme. No complaint.

What you can't do is use this year as justification into the indefinite future. As soon as the program is gender neutral, we're back to preference, which ought to be based on merit, not gender.

Cavies and Scouts are all male corps and not legally obliged to be anything but. So what? The law may protect them from attempts to cease discriminating based on gender. That's irrelevant to the fact that they are discriminating. That's a fact no reasonable view can dispute.

If you ask me, corps that choose to discriminate in this way would do better to select programs that allow them to justify this discrimination (at least in part). Cavies Samurai or 007 are examples of programs that make the case for discrimination more valid. Even Mad World might pass muster. Extraordinary with its allusion to the XY chromosone is a stretch too far, if you ask me. Madison trying to summon the 9-11 narrative without women is incongruous. Better to attempt the Cossack Brotherhood or even El Relampango if you're going to be all male. Don't get me started on Carmen.

So what I hope is that Phantom's choice for 2012 will reflect the program and not discriminate arbitrarily. Ditto for Cavies and Madison who do best when they emphasize their more manly attributes anyway.

HH

You keep using the word "discriminate" and I'm still trying to grasp what you're talking about. I could see if there were no other opportunities for men to be in a color guard. That's discrimination. But as we all know, there are plenty of opportunities out there. And I'm quite sure the men in last year's Phantom guard knew far in advance they were not going to be used in the 2011 show, so they had ample time to go see if they can get into another guard. As for the all-male corps, Cavies and Scouts aren't discriminating against women. They are Boy Scouts units which is the reason for them being all male.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many throw out the discrimination word to try and validate their point. The Boy Scouts don't allow women/girls into their troop, nor do the girl Scouts allow men/boys into theirs. Let's save the "discrimination" cries for legitimate discrimination cases.

Maybe next year Phantom does their interpretation of " La cage aux folles".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, if a high school theatre department chooses to cast nothing but girls in the female roles, and nothing but boys in the men's roles, are they "discriminating", or are they simply making a choice in terms of the ways they cast their production?

PR decided to 'cast' this year based on their desire for an all-female guard. They can decide that "all girl guard" should again be part of their persona indefinitely, and they won't be 'discriminating' against men anymore than anyone else in the entertainment world does when they use gender as one of the characteristics involved in casting choice.

"Discriminate" is a loaded word, and it behooves folks to be a little more, em, 'discriminating' before it gets presented.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep using the word "discriminate" and I'm still trying to grasp what you're talking about. I could see if there were no other opportunities for men to be in a color guard. That's discrimination. But as we all know, there are plenty of opportunities out there. And I'm quite sure the men in last year's Phantom guard knew far in advance they were not going to be used in the 2011 show, so they had ample time to go see if they can get into another guard. As for the all-male corps, Cavies and Scouts aren't discriminating against women. They are Boy Scouts units which is the reason for them being all male.

This is fundamentally a very simple concept: Any group that excludes someone based on gender only is discriminating. The availability of alternatives might accommodate the victim of discrimination; they don't change the fact of discrimination.

But as I said, that doesn't mean that legally Cavies and Scouts can't choose to exclude women. Our law allows for some discriminatory practices to continue in the interest of certain private and public priorities.

By the way, the Boy Scouts thing isn't really a justification any more. BSA does allow young women to participate formally in its activities geared toward high school and college kids.

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many throw out the discrimination word to try and validate their point. The Boy Scouts don't allow women/girls into their troop, nor do the girl Scouts allow men/boys into theirs. Let's save the "discrimination" cries for legitimate discrimination cases.

Maybe next year Phantom does their interpretation of " La cage aux folles".

Out of curiosity, if a high school theatre department chooses to cast nothing but girls in the female roles, and nothing but boys in the men's roles, are they "discriminating", or are they simply making a choice in terms of the ways they cast their production?

PR decided to 'cast' this year based on their desire for an all-female guard. They can decide that "all girl guard" should again be part of their persona indefinitely, and they won't be 'discriminating' against men anymore than anyone else in the entertainment world does when they use gender as one of the characteristics involved in casting choice.

"Discriminate" is a loaded word, and it behooves folks to be a little more, em, 'discriminating' before it gets presented.

Forget for the time being the gender issue. Suppose instead Phantom hired a new guard caption head who was tall and that she wanted only tall people in her guard because she thought they would look best on the field. So she passed on numerous superior but shorter spinners in favor of height.

She excludes candidates only because of they're not tall. Can't we agree that's discrimination? And if we do, then we agree that using a non-performance criteria for selection is discriminatory.

Again, I'm not saying this is illegal (or even bad practice in certain cases such a programming necessity). All I'm saying is the truth is the truth - excluding men just because they're men is discriminating.

HH

Edited by glory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the word discriminate is being used to describe what is actually the casting of roles in a creative production. In 2005, PR created a role for one boy to play the "Gene Kelly" part, surrounded by a color guard full of females, dressed as flappers, showgirls, etc. (Ironically, this also caused an uproar at the time by people screaming bloody murder that letting any boys at all into the guard was going to destroy the Regiment tradition).

Was it discrimination to say to a girl, "you can't play Gene Kelly?" No, it was casting for a specific role that was being offered. Having a girl in boy clothes play that part wouldn't have been effective at all.

Likewise, other corps with mixed guards have, at various times, divided up their available roles as well. In some shows, an equally male/female split guard was used to have dance pairs, while at other times the same corps would have the gender breakdown more uneven. For a while Cadets always had boys on rifle and girls on saber, though that wasn't rigidly the case this year. It's all about what the creators deem the best way to present their creative vision.

It's also the reason you don't find tall, skinny black men cast as Tracy Turnblad in Hairspray or obese grandmothers as Tony in West Side Story. Directors do get to make some choices to fill the roles, as written. :devil:

Maybe next year PR will do a salute to "300" and this whole situation will be reversed :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you would call it discriminatory not allowing a pedophile to live close to a school? Creating perception doesn't mean it's real.

Now if you want to talk about the little Rascals and the Heeman Woman Haters club you might have a better argument.

The race and descrimination card have been played so often that they are the catalist for the so called "change" that many seek, where everything is permissable and nothing is taboo.

No one here on earth has the ability to judge the heart of man/woman. Just because you think there was evil intent in the heart of the decision makers at Phantom doesn't mean it's true.

Descrimination is wrong, but labeling everything as descrimination is just as wrong.

Edited by Phantombari1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

excluding men just because they're men is discriminating.

Wrong. Not choosing someone for specific positions, role, jobs, etc, because the person does not fit the job description isn't discrimination. If a hospital needs to hire a surgeon, they aren't discriminating if they don't interview non-surgeons for the opening; they're simply hiring based on a pre-set group of qualifications.

If "being a woman" is part of the job description for the guard, then it's hard to argue that they were turning men away just because they didn't want guys in the guard; they didn't accept male applicants because there were no male "jobs" in the guard.

"Discrimination" has a necessarily pejorative connotation. No one was discriminated against in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...No one here on earth has the ability to judge the heart of man/woman. Just because you think there was evil intent in the heart of the decision makers at Phantom doesn't mean it's true.

Descrimination is wrong, but labeling everything as descrimination is just as wrong.

Come on. I don't think there was any evil intent and haven't said anything to suggest that. On the contrary, I said the choice to exclude men in 2011 made programming sense.

But ... BUT ... deciding to have an all-female guard just to have an all-female guard is discriminating because gender, not ablity, is being used as the determinant of eligibility.

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...