crest99 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I find the tradition argument unsettling. Is this to say that co-ed corps lack some essential quality that the Cavaliers and the Scouts manage to uphold by maintaining their membership requirements? Is this to say that corps who have given up various membership restrictions over the years are worse for the wear? No one has been willing to come out and pinpoint what exactly these corps gain through fraternity besides fraternity, and no one has explained to me how exactly that is different from the bond I shared with members of my co-ed corps. Would any of you honestly have the arrogance to walk up to a female member of the Boston Crusaders' hornline, or a male member of the Phantom Regiment color guard, and tell them that their presence detracts from the corps? Would any of you who have supported these two corps be willing to go back to your posts, replace all mentions of women with "blacks," "jews," or any other ethnic minority, and repost? Does the parallel between the two not disturb you? The question of equal opportunity is also more than a little upsetting. Separate is inherently unequal. Or at least that's what the Court said in their unanimous decision in Brown. Does anyone want to argue against Brown v. Board of Education? What was that about again? Educating the nation's young people? I am sensitive to the legal distinctions between public institutions, employment, and private organizations, but nonetheless, I happen to think that we would be better off applying that principle as broadly as possible. I also suspect that many of you might be hesitant to walk in a woman's shoes in this situation. Lay aside red herrings about feminism and liberalism and all that. Let's say that you are a woman and you want to perform with either the Scouts or Cavaliers purely on the basis of performance excellence or some other organizational virtue, and not to unseat any type of hierarchy simply for the sake of it. Let's say that even among 700 auditionees, you are the 7th best trumpet player (I believe the Cavies audition mainly, if not entirely, on music), and you get along great with the boys and the staff all weekend. And then your caption head tells you that while you've met all the requirements, they can't let you in because you are a woman. How would that make you feel? Would that not upset you at some deeper level? Is that something you would wish on someone else? If you were a caption head, is that something you would be willing to tell a woman? Can you imagine many other situations in which you could imagine yourself saying that to a woman? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 But you, too, are putting words in the mouth of the people defending that tradition. I daresay that until you've been involved in such a group, you don't understand the unique bond that results--not better or worse than that of a coed group, but different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crest99 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 But you, too, are putting words in the mouth of the people defending that tradition. I daresay that until you've been involved in such a group, you don't understand the unique bond that results--not better or worse than that of a coed group, but different. I asked for such an explanation, and my post was almost entirely in the interrogative form. A justification that is intelligible only to the initiated strikes me as rather weak. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I find the tradition argument unsettling. Is this to say that co-ed corps lack some essential quality that the Cavaliers and the Scouts manage to uphold by maintaining their membership requirements? Is this to say that corps who have given up various membership restrictions over the years are worse for the wear? No one has been willing to come out and pinpoint what exactly these corps gain through fraternity besides fraternity, and no one has explained to me how exactly that is different from the bond I shared with members of my co-ed corps. Would any of you honestly have the arrogance to walk up to a female member of the Boston Crusaders' hornline, or a male member of the Phantom Regiment color guard, and tell them that their presence detracts from the corps? Would any of you who have supported these two corps be willing to go back to your posts, replace all mentions of women with "blacks," "jews," or any other ethnic minority, and repost? Does the parallel between the two not disturb you? You know who else wanted women in the Cavaliers? Hitler, that's who. Who is the racist now? But seriously, nobody is trying to take anything away from co-ed corps. The Cavaliers and Madison are not better or worse than the Cadets or Crown because they don't have any female members, they are just DIFFERENT. Being different is OK. They don't hate girls and they aren't being sexist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lnavis Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 By far the most far out reasons to join a corps. I have a ###### and I can do what I want. Well nobody cares what you want or how you feel. That is the problem with being PC. You have to be nice to everyone. BS. I don't believe that females should be in the Cavies or the Scouts. I also think that if they really are a fan then leave it at that. If any female wants to challenge and sue , it's their right. But then I say....Burn in hell. kilties let females in...........oopps not the right move. If all you want to do is march and play music, there are plenty of other corps. Get over yourself you're not worth it. RF Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I asked for such an explanation, and my post was almost entirely in the interrogative form. A justification that is intelligible only to the initiated strikes me as rather weak. Chris Hardly. Are you saying that there is nothing in life that cannot be explained in terms intelligible to everyone? On the contrary, life is filled with such experiences. The general drum corps experience itself is one, and the experience unique to each corps, regardless of its membership makeup, is another--the true depth of experience, its impact upon the human soul and psyche, is virtually impossible to put into words. The list of such life experiences would be very long. I've been a part of an all-male organization (not a drum corps) and I can say for certain that there are definitely qualities carried by such a group that a similar group with a coed makeup (which I have also been involved in) could not duplicate. Are such experiences therefore illegitimate because not everyone can have them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Oh, my. What a boring, paltry, trite, homogenized world we would live in if everyone thought this way... I don't get your point. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lnavis Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 All corps discriminate if they have tryouts. Only the best make it in right? That is discrimination too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScribeToo Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 You know.. this discriminatory.. women being left out.. archaic line of commentary is starting to really wear on me. I'm an opera singer. There is a whole world of competition and scholarship opportunity out there for classical singers.. and in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those privately funded, independently organized competitions, there exist rules and limitations that may include or exclude me based on any number of things. Some competitions are only open to people under the age of 30 (I'm 38), Some competitions are only open to Mezzos (I'm a Soprano). Some competitions are only open to German speaking males between the ages of 17 and 27. Some are limited to specific repertoire (Handel or Mozart, for example.. my voice is Verdian) Sure I would LOVE the opportunity to compete in those competitions.. but you know what? I DON'T QUALIFY. I'm not being discriminated against. I'm not disenfranchised. I'm not having all doors of opportunity closed to me as a result of those competitions existing. I just don't meet the qualifications to compete. Period. Single gendered corps are exactly the same way. NO WOMAN is denied the experience of a TOP, DIV I, MULTI-CHAMPIONSHIP HOLDING DRUM CORPS by being disqualified for membership in an all-male corps. I think it's more disheartening for people to say and truly believe that if something is different, it must therefore be better and everyone must have access to it. It's not BETTER. It's DIFFERENT. I daresay the same experiences can be found in ANY NUMBER OF OTHER CORPS around the country and world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I daresay that until you've been involved in such a group, you don't understand the unique bond that results--not better or worse than that of a coed group, but different. The unique bond isn't the issue. If unique bonding were the deciding factor, we'd be lending credence to all sorts of malicious and hateful groups who can claim a bond. Neither the Cavies nor the Scouts belong in that category, of course. Still, you can't use the bond as justification as if it transcends everything else. You could even argue (as someone here has) that claiming that bond as unique justification devalues the similar bonds that evolve in coed corps. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts