mobrien Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Finally, I'm curious: does anyone have an argument that doesn't appeal to tradition or legality in favor of exclusion of women from these two corps? For the same reason that no one should be asking why Dairy Queen isn't selling motorcycles along with Dilly Bars. Adding a new product would add nothing to the basic formula that Dairy Queen has worked with for the last umpteen decades. Cavaliers and Madison "sell" their identity as all-male corps. That's a huge part of their appeal both to the prospective members and to audiences. It informs their programming choices in very positve ways. Changing that identity would be akin to asking them to completely lose the successful business identities they've formed for themselves over the years, and in pursuit of what? Becoming just like every one else? Edited July 23, 2012 by mobrien 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) You argue that these corps are "excluding women". I'm confused by this. I take that to be the fact we are discussing, not an argument. If a woman wants to be part of The Cavaliers or Madison Scouts, she is not allowed to even try out, correct? Or do you just object to my use of the word "excluding" which I am not trying to use perjoratively. They disallow women? They admit only men? Doesn't matter to me how we phrase it. You argue that their practice is not "morally right". I did no such thing. Please re-read my post. I took great pains to avoid making that assertion. Which is weird, because no matter how hard I try, I'm never going to be able to compete in women's soccer because I have a male body. I REALLY REALLY want to play women's soccer, but I'll never be able to unless I undergo some sort of surgery. They're excluding me based on gender traditions and legality. Does that seem right to you? I think it's obvious why separate sports leagues that exclude males make sense given that physical performance requirements in most sports would mean that the vast majority of even the most talented women would still be excluded from competition at the top levels. In other words, in order for a significant number of women to be able to compete in professional soccer, there *must* exist a league that excludes men. Not sure what that has to do with drum corps, in which women are equally capable performers in the skills being judged. There are a number of sports in which women and men compete on an equal playing field with no need for separation. None of this has anything to do with the question at hand, though. We aren't talking about separate competitive leagues or classes that are male-only or female-only. Edited July 23, 2012 by skywhopper 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Coffey Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 What they are doing now, in this current era, puts them at a competitive disadvantage. It's just one they have been able to overcome most of the time, which is really impressive in and of itself. Is there a difference between no competitive disadvantage, and a competitive disadvantage that does not manifest itself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 When you close off your organization to perspective female members, you are intentionally limiting your pool of potential talent. Drum corps isn't football. Female performers have just as much talent, drive, and ability as male members do. By putting an additional restriction on membership, the Madison Scouts and Cavaliers are making it tougher to field a competitive corps than it is for the corps that allow females. I'm not slamming either organization, as both have a great track record of competitive success in their histories...long histories. I'm also not agreeing or disagreeing with those polices. Fully agree. They are living their traditions, but I too see this as a cost of that tradition. They will never be able to recruit a Bonnie Ott. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Since I'm getting negatived for trying to lay out some philosophical questions for discussion, I may as well just say what I think about it I suppose: I don't think the existence of two male-only corps is a problem for DCI or for the corps themselves. While I agree with Kamarag and Grandpa that there is a theoretical disadvantage in restricting membership, I think the pool of talent is large and varied enough that good design and utilizing your own memberships' specific talents can make up for any lack of absolute expertise the corps impose on themselves with restrictions based on sex. I agree that performance elements that demand particular physical characteristics can be a legitimate design choice that justifies exclusion of performers who don't meet those characteristics. And it's easy to agree that in the guard this can be an aspect of the design. However, I can't really follow that argument through to the brass and percussion lines, who I can rarely if ever tell the sex of from the stands. I mainly just feel a little sad when I particularly enjoy a Cavies or Madison show and I think of my daughter, a huge drum corps fan who aspires to march someday, that she's been pre-emptively excluded from two of the most exciting corps in DCI. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to exclude women. Obviously it's legal. These two corps a small part of the larger whole of drum corps so there's no lack of opportunity for women. And lots of people are emotionally attached to the tradition, including, I'm sure, many women. Given the context in which women who do want to march in top corps are able to do so, I don't think that the policy of selecting only men as members is problematic in any way if it's something the corps leadership feels is important to the corps. I just personally don't connect with the arguments in favor. To me it seems like a pointless rule to stick by these days. Edited July 23, 2012 by skywhopper 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) There are many things in this world that follow a traditionalist way of life. Not just Drum Corps. I believe there are deeply rooted traditions coming from the Boy Scouts. Boys join the Boy Scouts and girls join the Girl Scouts. I would believe there would be a problem if women did not have a chance to join other Drum Corps, but there is a plethora of corps. I am sure there are many organizations that do not allow men in them -- such as the LPGA (ladies professional golf association). Just a comment, women can plan in the mens PGA. My bottom line answer is that they are traditionalists. For clarity sake, on this particular discussion on this thread, The Madison Scouts did admit a female into their ranks, and as recently as 2005 too. Edited July 23, 2012 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon8 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Oh Boy! We honestly have to have this discussion? Both corps have been successful for longer than most of you have been alive.t's the way they are and now we can move on to...WHY IS THERE NO MORE ALL-GIRL CORPS? And I have a question that might actually come before that one... We all know how incredibly difficult it is to start and sustain a new corps in this day and age. What effect (if any) would a new corps being single-gender have on their operational success? Would a new all-girls corps do better (and I am NOT referring to competitive success!) than a new all-boys corps because of a currently unmet need for the pool of new DCI recruits? Or would both have an equally difficult time because it's tough to establish a new corps of any kind as it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 And I have a question that might actually come before that one... We all know how incredibly difficult it is to start and sustain a new corps in this day and age. What effect (if any) would a new corps being single-gender have on their operational success? Would a new all-girls corps do better (and I am NOT referring to competitive success!) than a new all-boys corps because of a currently unmet need for the pool of new DCI recruits? Or would both have an equally difficult time because it's tough to establish a new corps of any kind as it is? If a mixed gender Corps wins the DCI Title this year it will be the 6th consecutive year in a row that a single Gender Corps did not win the DCI Title. My guess, it will be very difficult moving forward for a single gender Corps to win a DCI Title again as times are changing. As for new single gender Corps having future success, I believe it might perhaps be possible in Open Class, but we have passed the day and age where a brand new single gender Corps could start from scrtatch and be competitively successful in the World Class Division. Thats just my personal opinion of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 For clarity sake, on this particular discussion on this thread, The Madison Scouts did admit a female into their ranks, and as recently as 2005 too. Good point, and brings up an interesting thought. Given they've allowed one woman in the corps, does the argument of discrimination become more valid as one could point to that as an inconsistency in their policy? No real opinion on the matter either way, just a thought. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMadMan Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Good point, and brings up an interesting thought. Given they've allowed one woman in the corps, does the argument of discrimination become more valid as one could point to that as an inconsistency in their policy? No real opinion on the matter either way, just a thought. She was not a member. She was a guest performer. 2 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.