vferrera

Madison Scouts now officially co-ed

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, TRacer said:

Excellent analysis for a term that was likely made up by someone with a 7-year degree in humanities in order to sound like an academician, yet those of of us who already know how to * really * think know it’s just a load of (c)rap. 

Why, yes; I AM enjoying my current headspace, thank you. 🤡

Thank you for implying that the rest of us are stupid.  Perhaps "intelligence signaling" will be the next new term.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Thank you for implying that the rest of us are stupid.  Perhaps "intelligence signaling" will be the next new term.

on DCP???  

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Thank you for implying that the rest of us are stupid.  Perhaps "intelligence signaling" will be the next new term.

I’ve seen worse on this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few points in no particular order:

  • The argument that 21/22 corps being coed is good enough boils down to the claim that a little bit of discrimination is OK.  As long as you base the argument in the idea that women should not feel bad about having only one door closed to them, then you should at least be honest with yourself that you are defending discrimination.  It's been said many times on this thread but it bears repeating: would you be OK with 21/22 restaurants in your town being integrated?
  • I'm more receptive to the argument that a single-gender corps offers such unique benefits to its members that it justifies the exclusion of others.  I wish I'd seen more of that on this thread.  But honestly most of the time this comes up the values I hear about (teamwork, fraternity, etc.) seem familiar to me as a veteran of a coed corps.  I also wouldn't take seriously any argument for a single-gender corps that did not incorporate robust recognition of trans rights, an issue on which the Scouts had not previously distinguished themselves.
  • A number of posters have advanced the idea that these corps are private organizations who can behave as they please, and the rest of us should mind our business.  This claim is groundless.  While I believe in the importance of autonomy in the nonprofit sector, the tax benefit they receive as nonprofits justifies public scrutiny -- especially when it comes to issues involving discrimination.  
  • I'm generally skeptical of all-___ anything (guards, corps, whatever), but I'd push back against the idea that all-male is necessarily equivalent to all-female, etc.  For me the difference is the historical connection between single-sex male organizations and power.  My guess is that this is the comment people will jump all over, but I don't think you need to be buried deep in academia to understand that relationship.  That said, I'd reiterate that I'm still not pleased by the reappearance of all-female guards.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Thank you for implying that the rest of us are stupid.  Perhaps "intelligence signaling" will be the next new term.

Well hell a new term for what I do daily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crest99 said:

Just a few points in no particular order:

  • The argument that 21/22 corps being coed is good enough boils down to the claim that a little bit of discrimination is OK.  As long as you base the argument in the idea that women should not feel bad about having only one door closed to them, then you should at least be honest with yourself that you are defending discrimination.  It's been said many times on this thread but it bears repeating: would you be OK with 21/22 restaurants in your town being integrated?
  • I'm more receptive to the argument that a single-gender corps offers such unique benefits to its members that it justifies the exclusion of others.  I wish I'd seen more of that on this thread.  But honestly most of the time this comes up the values I hear about (teamwork, fraternity, etc.) seem familiar to me as a veteran of a coed corps.  I also wouldn't take seriously any argument for a single-gender corps that did not incorporate robust recognition of trans rights, an issue on which the Scouts had not previously distinguished themselves.
  • A number of posters have advanced the idea that these corps are private organizations who can behave as they please, and the rest of us should mind our business.  This claim is groundless.  While I believe in the importance of autonomy in the nonprofit sector, the tax benefit they receive as nonprofits justifies public scrutiny -- especially when it comes to issues involving discrimination.  
  • I'm generally skeptical of all-___ anything (guards, corps, whatever), but I'd push back against the idea that all-male is necessarily equivalent to all-female, etc.  For me the difference is the historical connection between single-sex male organizations and power.  My guess is that this is the comment people will jump all over, but I don't think you need to be buried deep in academia to understand that relationship.  That said, I'd reiterate that I'm still not pleased by the reappearance of all-female guards.

 

People are making noise about forcing Cavaliers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful opinions all around. Tradition is a very hard thing to let go of, even when it's not your tradition to covet. I never marched Vanguard, but still I still grumble at the thought of seeing them shed their traditional Aussies and tunics. I shake my head in a "goddamnamps" manner any time a speaker fails or throws obnoxious feedback during a show. And don't get me started on all the dancing and lunging and whatnot that every corps and marching band does (and most do badly). But the older I get, the more I accept the fact that if you don't evolve, you dissolve.

As for Madison ... I have mixed feelings. I relish in the memories of seeing Madison live for the first time in 1992 and competing against them in the years that followed. THAT will always be the image in my head of who they were and are. Like a photograph, I can frame it and reminisce all I want. But their growth shouldn't be stunted just because we want to hold on to our ideals of who they were. Imagine if we did that to our children. Yeah, I know, many parents would love to keep their little ones little forever. I would, too. But just because your kid grows up doesn't mean that child you loved isn't still in there. In fact, it is that child and the path they traversed, no matter how smooth or rugged, that paved the way for the adult they grew to be.  

Madison Scouts will always be Madison Scouts. What's between their legs will not define who they are, nor should it. On a personal note, my daughter will be attending UW-Madison this fall as a Freshmen and I really hope she considers auditioning for the corps. Nothing would make me prouder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, crest99 said:

Just a few points in no particular order:

  • The argument that 21/22 corps being coed is good enough boils down to the claim that a little bit of discrimination is OK.  As long as you base the argument in the idea that women should not feel bad about having only one door closed to them, then you should at least be honest with yourself that you are defending discrimination.  It's been said many times on this thread but it bears repeating: would you be OK with 21/22 restaurants in your town being integrated?
  • I'm more receptive to the argument that a single-gender corps offers such unique benefits to its members that it justifies the exclusion of others.  I wish I'd seen more of that on this thread.  But honestly most of the time this comes up the values I hear about (teamwork, fraternity, etc.) seem familiar to me as a veteran of a coed corps.  I also wouldn't take seriously any argument for a single-gender corps that did not incorporate robust recognition of trans rights, an issue on which the Scouts had not previously distinguished themselves.
  • A number of posters have advanced the idea that these corps are private organizations who can behave as they please, and the rest of us should mind our business.  This claim is groundless.  While I believe in the importance of autonomy in the nonprofit sector, the tax benefit they receive as nonprofits justifies public scrutiny -- especially when it comes to issues involving discrimination.  
  • I'm generally skeptical of all-___ anything (guards, corps, whatever), but I'd push back against the idea that all-male is necessarily equivalent to all-female, etc.  For me the difference is the historical connection between single-sex male organizations and power.  My guess is that this is the comment people will jump all over, but I don't think you need to be buried deep in academia to understand that relationship.  That said, I'd reiterate that I'm still not pleased by the reappearance of all-female guards.

 

This is a thoughtful and well-penned response, although I disagree in that I feel not allowing people to have the freedom to choose what is the best fit for them (coed or all-male/all-female) is, in itself, being exclusionary.  Why is it that an all-female group would no doubt garner a lot of support and an all-male group garner all the "discriminatory/exclusionary" etc response?  Can't we just allow there to be a diverse array of choices for people and be happy there are unique opportunities for those who wish to seek them?  I also marched a coed corps, gender has nothing to do with performance on the field.  I know plenty of guys who went to Scouts for the brotherhood and fraternity- the "magic" of that experience.  They benefited from the all-male aspect.  Why is this discriminatory when there are lots of great options for females in DCI?  I just find this all very contradictory.

“There’s something magical about the feeling of an all-female guard,” said Lydia Marshall, head drum major of the Crossmen. “When it clicks in DCI, it is one of the most empowering and inspiring things that you can see. It is absolutely incredible to share the field with those ladies and be in the show with them.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Terri Schehr said:

I’ve seen worse on this thread. 

I mean, I guess he could have said not to worry my pretty little head about it.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skevinp said:

I have heard people say that the Cavies guard is neat because they can do some more athletic things as a result of being all male, and I don't remember a lot of people saying it was toxic.

That one guy was bounced from the flomarching broadcast team because he implied that women had less stamina than men in the final stretch of tour.  He was given a firm “see ya” and shown the door. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.