CrunchyTenor Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Then, there was a time, long ago, that Regiment had an all-male guard... Garry in Vegas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 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. Correct. Where the role is female, females are better suited for the role. I said as much when I said "no complaint" about this year. This year is a case where Phantom designed a guard to suit its program design. So, we agree that gender preference in the guard should depend on the role of the guard from program to program. That being the case, we should agree as well that in cases where the design doesn't specifically represent something exclusively female that it would be discriminatory to exclude men. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cop Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 As soon as I heard who was on PR's guard staff I knew they had the smarts to go all female. And was very happy when I heard there would be a Rockford File on the 50. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd Glasgow BB Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 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 no she would not be discriminating if she was casting for a show called "attack of the 50' woman". This gets back to a previous post of mine. if a corps decided to do a show about South African apartheid would they hire a white guy to play Nelson Mandela? I ask because following your logic white guys should have as much chance of getting the part as a black guy. Would you expect Hollywood to cast a woman as iron man or a man as the princess bride? I think your understanding of discrimination and exclusion is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamMan Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 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 have your head way out in front of your skis on this. Please stop this nonsense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Seriously y'all... Disregarding that I stated clearly that I have no complaint with what Phantom did this year is just stupid. I'll say it again anyway. It made sense to have females portray the Juliet role in this case. What doesn't make sense is to say that Phantom can exclude men from the guard going forward just so the guard can be all-female. That is discrimination. Excluding candidates on the basis of their gender alone is discrimination. All this about roles and casting is beside the point in as much as we have no idea what Phantom is planning the next year and the years after that. If they are going to reprise On Air or Harmonic Journey, to name just two, you can't possibly claim in general that they wouldn't be discriminating next year if they chose a less qualified female just because she wasn't a man. That's not to say such a choice wouldn't be legal. It's just saying what it is. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamMan Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Seriously y'all... Disregarding that I stated clearly that I have no complaint with what Phantom did this year is just stupid. I'll say it again anyway. It made sense to have females portray the Juliet role in this case. What doesn't make sense is to say that Phantom can exclude men from the guard going forward just so the guard can be all-female. That is discrimination. Excluding candidates on the basis of their gender alone is discrimination. All this about roles and casting is beside the point in as much as we have no idea what Phantom is planning the next year and the years after that. If they are going to reprise On Air or Harmonic Journey, to name just two, you can't possibly claim in general that they wouldn't be discriminating next year if they chose a less qualified female just because she wasn't a man. That's not to say such a choice wouldn't be legal. It's just saying what it is. HH If a drum corps wants an all female drum line & all male horn line, I'm pretty sure that legally they can do this. You can call it discrimination all you want. Guys cant work at Hooters either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakedEye Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 All this about roles and casting is beside the point in as much as we have no idea what Phantom is planning the next year and the years after that. If they are going to reprise On Air or Harmonic Journey, to name just two, you can't possibly claim in general that they wouldn't be discriminating next year if they chose a less qualified female just because she wasn't a man. HH Well, since the Harmonic Journey show had an all-female guard, adding guys to it in a reprise would would only escalate your perceived discrimination by taking away spots that should "rightfully" go to girls. STOP THE INSANITY!!! Seriously, this is turning into the king of Molehill Mountains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifuarian Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Seriously y'all... Disregarding that I stated clearly that I have no complaint with what Phantom did this year is just stupid. I'll say it again anyway. It made sense to have females portray the Juliet role in this case. What doesn't make sense is to say that Phantom can exclude men from the guard going forward just so the guard can be all-female. That is discrimination. Excluding candidates on the basis of their gender alone is discrimination. All this about roles and casting is beside the point in as much as we have no idea what Phantom is planning the next year and the years after that. If they are going to reprise On Air or Harmonic Journey, to name just two, you can't possibly claim in general that they wouldn't be discriminating next year if they chose a less qualified female just because she wasn't a man. That's not to say such a choice wouldn't be legal. It's just saying what it is. HH The gender discrimination is bad enough, but don't even get me started on Phantom's egregious age discrimination. Year after year I keep getting turned away, when I'm clearly a better candidate than all those baby faced amateurs they insist on putting on the field. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKBari Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Seriously y'all... Disregarding that I stated clearly that I have no complaint with what Phantom did this year is just stupid. I'll say it again anyway. It made sense to have females portray the Juliet role in this case. What doesn't make sense is to say that Phantom can exclude men from the guard going forward just so the guard can be all-female. That is discrimination. Excluding candidates on the basis of their gender alone is discrimination. All this about roles and casting is beside the point in as much as we have no idea what Phantom is planning the next year and the years after that. If they are going to reprise On Air or Harmonic Journey, to name just two, you can't possibly claim in general that they wouldn't be discriminating next year if they chose a less qualified female just because she wasn't a man. That's not to say such a choice wouldn't be legal. It's just saying what it is. HH No it's not discrimination. By it's very nature alone, drum corps is an exclusive organization because as a performing arts group they can and do pick and choose who their members are based on their needs for a particular performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.