Jump to content

Madison Scouts now officially co-ed


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, skevinp said:

54 pages in with lots of testaments to brotherhood, bonds, fraternity, and so forth.  But I have still not seen anyone identify any virtues of those things that are specific to being the same gender.

Are you implying that there are no benefits to intrasexual peer bonding? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Eleran said:

I can propose one virtue:  elimination of the distractions caused by romantic entanglements and attentions (for the most part).

That's a matter of orientation, though.  Would you really prevent gay males from participating?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HockeyDad said:

Now I get it. 

What do you get? That I hold a union card (a Ph.D.) as an expert in the field of certain kinds of study?  That I believe in expertise in helping to determine the accuracy of speech on subjects which one has studied in detail and been deemed by their peers as an expert in (i.e., the faculty who served on my graduate committees and voted their confidence in my particular skill set)?  That I am certified to teach at the collegiate level and produce knowledge through the peer-review publication process?  If that is what you get, then cool!  Thanks for understanding and championing the academy.  But, if you are speaking sarcastically, please explain more concretely what, exactly, it is that you now "get" after I identified myself as a member of the academy to help qualify my claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HockeyDad said:

Now I get it. 

I had the same thought HD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ndkbass said:

The alumnus who told me this also told me positive stories such as you are describing.  The biggest difference was sexual orientation versus race.  The positive stories all had to do with racial solidarity.  The negative stories all had to do with homophobia.

I can say from first hand experience, homophobia doesn't end in a coed corps

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skevinp said:

I'm not implying anything.  I'm giving people the opportunity to substantiate their claims rather than merely restating.

Some suggest health and social benefits of male peer bonding including increased pain threshold, lower stress, increased altruism, social bonding with others, and increased loyalty.
Interesting article below talks of "bromances" but it's extrapolated from studies on rat group "stress-bonding" producing increased oxytocin levels in the subjects. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-mentally-strong-people-dont-do/201604/the-surprising-benefits-the-bromance

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NewToPosting said:

As a guard guy who grew up in the 80s and 90s, it was FAR more often that I couldn't be a part of a colorguard because it was all-female (starting with my high school).  

I know that things changed rapidly, but please don't forget that it wasn't always easy for males to participate in guard...other than an all-male corps (which is why I marched in one of them after auditioning for a coed guard).

I would argue that young men still don't get as good a training on guard as young women, simply because there were (still are...at least in the south) programs that frown upon males in the guard.  

Not trying to combat, just want to add a little perspective.

not just the south

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, skevinp said:

I'm not implying anything.  I'm giving people the opportunity to substantiate their claims rather than merely restating.

I think you are getting at something important here.  The only benefits people point to are actually negligible in my opinion since they can be, and are, achieved in coed organizations.  People are free to self-segregate.  But why is there a need to do so in the first place?  Why does masculinity need to be cultivated on its own, amongst men only, rather than alongside of the rest of the spectrum of gender identities?  It is different for masculinity than femininity since we live in a patriarchal society.  And patriarchy does negatively impact men, too.  Patriarchy limits the perception of what is appropriately masculine.  That is one issue I take with male-only spaces, since it is going to implicitly or explicitly delineate what "being male" is.  And, in regards to Madison, is one reason I think their decision is great.  When I was in the corps, the displays of masculinity varied greatly, but we all ate the same food, breathed the same air, rode the same busses, and performed/practiced on the same field.  I feel like I learned a great deal about my own ideas of masculinity, but I also did in coed corps as well.  I would not say I learned more in Madison than a coed corps, but maybe others feel like they did or would.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

I can say from first hand experience, homophobia doesn't end in a coed corps

Oh for sure.  Neither does racism end in an integrated corps.  Since both issues are epidemic societally, I have noticed it everywhere I have been in one form or another.

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...