Girls in cavaliers & Scouts?

[Dave]

Come on Big Dog. Why can't we just be people. And make music together and make memories together. Why can't the Cavaliers and Scouts create an all-people tradition?

Last I checked, all their members were people. They just happened to be male people.

[bdjazz93]

When I watch The Cavaliers or Scouts I see a group of performers. I rarely think about them being all-male. Why can't people move past this simplistic view of gender?

Well, if that is the case, then it wouldn't bother you that it was an all male or all female corps. There are just as many all female corps out there as all male, if not more. I think your arguement is ridiculas.

The the Girl Scouts wanted to start an all female corps like the Boy Scouts did, let them have it. I honestly wouldn't be able to view the Scouts and Cavaliers the same way if they allowed women in there corps. If a lady happens to live in the Northen IL or WI area and wants to march a corps, they can go to Phantom or something.

In my case, I loved the Cavaliers. A lot of my friends are Cavaliers, but I wanted to be a Blue Devil, so I flew out there. Every person in drum corps has that option.

The Cavaliers and Scouts have the upmost respect (as do many others) in the drum corps world. Each corps has a style, tradition and respect toward each other. You will not find many people to side with you on this topic. I hope those two corps always remain all male corps...it is who they are. ^0^

[Michael Boo]

...There are just as many all female corps out there as all male, if not more...

If there are any all-girl corps left after Bandettes went on hiatus, they aren't involved with DCI. I don't know of a single one at least in this country or Canada.

[glory]

But is the "harm" real or perceived? Particularly when considering that the MAJORITY of corps competing at all levels are NOT all-male. What opportunity is any woman being denied by being excluded from marching with Cavaliers or the Madison Scouts?

... snip ...

Morally, ethically, religiously, whatever.. I don't see the error of an all-male (or all-female) corps existing in this day and age. In fact, I think it's a rarer opportunity for the young men who participate to have a single-gender experience such as this.. Some people thrive in a co-educational environment.. some do not.. some gather benefits from a single-gendered environment that could never be gathered for them outside of that experience.

Morally and ethically, is it more appropriate to deny them that experience for the sake of being politically correct "with the times" than it is to avail that experience to them?

Stef

My opinion, the harm to prospective women is more perceived than real. But likewise, I'd argue that the benefits of all-male Cavies and Scouts is more perceived than real too. Whether it's pain, distractions, alternatives, auras or whatever, I'd suggest there's a lot more hyperbole in this discussion than substantive harm or benefit in fact. I'm guilty too.

That said, let's get down to what's right and wrong:

• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without women. Sound reasonable enough?
  
• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without Jews. All of a sudden it's not sounding so reasonable anymore.
  
• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without African-Americans. Not sounding right at all.
  

Who would argue that the Cavies, Scouts or any other corps could legitimately exclude Jews, Catholics, African-Americans or any other class of people? No one associated with this activity, I'd say. Is there something fundamentally different about excluding women? It's not sexuality because all of us know that sexuality doesn't magically take a hiatus from Rosemont or Madison. It's not capability because we also know that talent and motivation can use either bathroom. It's not sexual orientation because they're not screening for that.

So what is it? My contention is it's an archaic identity construct. From a time when it was acceptable, even desirable to exclude Jews and African-Americans, identifying yourself as all male was ordinary and fine. It wasn't malicious then, and it isn't now. You invite only men, then you tout the advantages and joys of men alone.

I'll go so far as to concede this segregation might have been and continues to be a positive opportunity for those can participate. Within the rare atmosphere they created, those invited to breath could thrive. Why shouldn't they?

Because it's not fair. You could have argued in the early 19th Century that the concentration of capital and leisure afforded by the slave economy of the South had great benefits for the plantation class. With money and time, they could be great scientists and artists. Their work product would anure to the society as a whole, including even the slaves that underpinned their affluence. No. No one in his right might would argue that the benefits to the slaveholder justified the holding of slaves.

I'm back to hyperbole, but who would argue the benefit to the men justifies the exclusion of women solely because they're women? We can agree it's good for the men. We can agree the women have alternatives. We can agree the harm is more perceived than real. Can we agree it's just not fair to say we'll take the Hispanics and the Asians, but not the Irish? Why not women too?

HH

[jake_the_hydra]

My opinion, the harm to prospective women is more perceived than real. But likewise, I'd argue that the benefits of all-male Cavies and Scouts is more perceived than real too. Whether it's pain, distractions, alternatives, auras or whatever, I'd suggest there's a lot more hyperbole in this discussion than substantive harm or benefit in fact. I'm guilty too.

That said, let's get down to what's right and wrong:

• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without women. Sound reasonable enough?
  
• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without Jews. All of a sudden it's not sounding so reasonable anymore.
  
• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without African-Americans. Not sounding right at all.
  

Who would argue that the Cavies, Scouts or any other corps could legitimately exclude Jews, Catholics, African-Americans or any other class of people? No one associated with this activity, I'd say. Is there something fundamentally different about excluding women? It's not sexuality because all of us know that sexuality doesn't magically take a hiatus from Rosemont or Madison. It's not capability because we also know that talent and motivation can use either bathroom. It's not sexual orientation because they're not screening for that.

So what is it? My contention is it's an archaic identity construct. From a time when it was acceptable, even desirable to exclude Jews and African-Americans, identifying yourself as all male was ordinary and fine. It wasn't malicious then, and it isn't now. You invite only men, then you tout the advantages and joys of men alone.

I'll go so far as to concede this segregation might have been and continues to be a positive opportunity for those can participate. Within the rare atmosphere they created, those invited to breath could thrive. Why shouldn't they?

Because it's not fair. You could have argued in the early 19th Century that the concentration of capital and leisure afforded by the slave economy of the South had great benefits for the plantation class. With money and time, they could be great scientists and artists. Their work product would anure to the society as a whole, including even the slaves that underpinned their affluence. No. No one in his right might would argue that the benefits to the slaveholder justified the holding of slaves.

I'm back to hyperbole, but who would argue the benefit to the men justifies the exclusion of women solely because they're women? We can agree it's good for the men. We can agree the women have alternatives. We can agree the harm is more perceived than real. Can we agree it's just not fair to say we'll take the Hispanics and the Asians, but not the Irish? Why not women too?

HH

Mostly for reasons I mentioned earlier which you didn't respond to, at least in this particular case of DCI- not in the grand social-justice hyperbole which you are proposing.

[jake_the_hydra]

OK. When I want to hang out with the dudes, I'll go grab a beer with them and watch the game. However, when performing or preparing for a performance, gender is the last thing on my mind when thinking about my fellow members.

Awesome. . . continue to do so.

The Cavaliers or The Scouts being all-male affects you how?

[badmatchespartdos]

Awesome. . . continue to do so.

The Cavaliers or The Scouts being all-male affects you how?

I would just like to see females having the opportunity to join them.

[horn_star]

That said, let's get down to what's right and wrong:

• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without women. Sound reasonable enough?
  
• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without Jews. All of a sudden it's not sounding so reasonable anymore.
  
• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without African-Americans. Not sounding right at all.
  

Well, you've successfully played on widely accepted feelings about the historical discrimination of Jews and African-Americans, but unfortunately your three step process is meaningless. Let's eliminate the subversive play on emotional predispositions and reverse the perspective. Your logical fallacy becomes obvious:

• It's any man's right to spend his summer in a corps without Caucasians.
  

How about a real world example: The Contemporary African American Music Orchestra excludes musicians on the basis of skin color. Regardless of my musicianship, I could never become a member of this ensemble. Why? Because this ensemble chooses to seek the experience of making music with people of the same racial heritage. There are countless special groups, in music and elsewhere, comprised of "minority" individuals who exclude the "majority" from their endeavors based on race (or some other inherent physical trait). Could a private group, in this case a performance group, choose to exclude Jews or African-Americans or Caucasians? Of course! Is it wrong? Absolutely not! So long as there is a seperate equal opportunity available to the excluded party. These groups exist to provide a different experience. If there was nothing new to be discovered by sharing with those in common, these groups wouldn't exist in the first place.

In the end, I'm really just wondering whether you're playing devil's advocate here or you're really trying to develop a legitimate position. If it's the latter, then I must address your comments about the "exaggerated benefits of the archaic all-male institution" (please forgive the quick paraphrasing): I don't think anyone (at least not anyone who was a member of an all-male corps) is trying to argue that the experience is fundamentally "better" without females. Rather, the experience is different, and this difference to some people is a desirable one. Men and women are socially different creatures, and as such, you simply cannot successfully argue that the experience is not different in nearly every non-performance aspect (and I think for most of us, those are the most important aspects).

Granted, I never marched in a co-ed corps, but from your arguments it's apparent that you never marched in an all-male corps either.

[toddschultz]

I would just like to see females having the opportunity to join them.

And this should have some bearing on what decision a corps makes about the make up of its members, because people on DCP think it should be so?

I just don't think that argument should or would go over very well.

[ScribeToo]

There are countless special groups, in music and elsewhere, comprised of "minority" individuals who exclude the "majority" from their endeavors based on race (or some other inherent physical trait). Could a private group, in this case a performance group, choose to exclude Jews or African-Americans or Caucasians? Of course! Is it wrong? Absolutely not! So long as there is a seperate equal opportunity available to the excluded party. These groups exist to provide a different experience. If there was nothing new to be discovered by sharing with those in common, these groups wouldn't exist in the first place.

I really don't have anything to add.. I just thought this was worth highlighting and repeating.