glory Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 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. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that we accept your assertion that there is no discrimination and that the Scouts and Cavies offer something fundamentally different by virtue of their single-gender orientation. And let's suppose for the sake of argument that other corps agree with the assertion that this all-male formula provides something special for the member and fans; they envy the formula so much that five additional corps in the top 12 convert to all-male membership, leaving just five coed corps. Would you still argue that no woman is being denied the opportunity? If we're willing to tolerate the situation where the numbers are small, will we tolerate it where the alternative opportunities are small too? HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 And I would argue that such a claim is baseless. You're claiming implication of beliefs where no such beliefs have been stated, and assigning malicious intent to groups with no such intent. Still, you can't use the bond as justification as if it transcends everything else. Why not? It's the reasoning being used here to support the existence of all-male corps alongside coed corps. The uniqueness of that particular experience would seem to be key in defending its existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Let's suppose for the sake of argument that we accept your assertion that there is no discrimination and that the Scouts and Cavies offer something fundamentally different by virtue of their single-gender orientation. And let's suppose for the sake of argument that other corps agree with the assertion that this all-male formula provides something special for the member and fans; they envy the formula so much that five additional corps in the top 12 convert to all-male membership, leaving just five coed corps.Would you still argue that no woman is being denied the opportunity? If we're willing to tolerate the situation where the numbers are small, will we tolerate it where the alternative opportunities are small too? HH But that's not the situation. We're not debating hypotheticals, we're debating the actual current state of the activity and two groups in particular in relation to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_the_hydra Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Neither the Cavies nor the Scouts belong in that category, of course. HH Exactly . . . in a case-by-case basis analysis, unique bond would hold up. In this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_the_hydra Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 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 This situation would never happen because women know they are not considered for membership. There is no circumstance in which I woman would audition for either corps all weekend and expect membership, only to have a caption head remind them that they are, in fact, a woman auditioning for an all-male corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_marie15 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 (edited) Let's suppose for the sake of argument that we accept your assertion that there is no discrimination and that the Scouts and Cavies offer something fundamentally different by virtue of their single-gender orientation. And let's suppose for the sake of argument that other corps agree with the assertion that this all-male formula provides something special for the member and fans; they envy the formula so much that five additional corps in the top 12 convert to all-male membership, leaving just five coed corps.Would you still argue that no woman is being denied the opportunity? If we're willing to tolerate the situation where the numbers are small, will we tolerate it where the alternative opportunities are small too? HH If all that happened you'd have 7 top 12 corps auditioning all males...those 700 auditionees in the talent pool for cavies doesn't seem so big when you're spreading them between 7 corps does it? It's not possible. Either the corps would see the futility of it and allow girls to audition, or they would go down in placement due to poor talent and not full numbers and the other 5 corps would step up. Look. We all know about drum corps. We all love drum corps. There are traditions and aura's about each corps that makes them have a unique identity. We know about these traditions and auras, they help us decide where to march. Love classical music, go to Phantom. Love to be innovative, go to Cadets. Want to march in a fraternity like atmosphere? Go to Cavies or Madison. Want to play screamin sop solos go to BD... It's not that Cavies and Madison have something totally radical to distinguish them from the other corps. Every corps has something different to offer the activity. They're not detracting anything for girls by not letting them audition, they're adding a bonus for the men who do. I'm sorry, I just think this argument is getting ridiculous. It's a personal way of looking at the issue, half-empty or half-full. If we get someone to come on this forum (a girl). And she states that the only place she's ever wanted to march was Cavies and she can't and she's heartbroken, then we'll talk. But that's not going to happen and I'll tell you why. Because presumably she has seen the Cavies, at least once, more times if she's 'heart-broken', and she understands that the aura and the personality of the corps is based on the fact that they perform with all male members. What she will do, is find a nice place to give them a run for the money, like Phantom, Cadets, SCV, BD etc, and maybe find a boyfriend who wears gears. Perhaps I would be more lenient towards someone who didn't understand the activity, but I would say 98% of DCP'ers do, and therefore we understand about corps, and why people choose to go where they do. Cavies and Madison are all male because despite the the turnover to co-ed by most corps in the 70s and 80s, they had enough talent and success to keep their fraternal, boyscout bonds and have created it into a show design look and feel that wins championships. ::edited for spelling:: Edited November 16, 2006 by megan_marie15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badmatchespartdos Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 What are the benefits of an all-male setting? That you can talk about boobs freely without feeling ashamed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 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?The opportunity to experience drum corps at it's pinnacle? No.. as I pointed out earlier, since DCI's inception, co-ed corps hold more titles than single gender corps. The opportunity to march locally? No, again.. the "locality" of any drum corps is as close as your nearest airport anymore.. and just because you live close by is no guarantee you will make the corps anyway. Even so, another HIGHLY COMPETITIVE co-ed corps exists at about the mid-point between Cavaliers and Scouts on the map.. not to mention all the other corps in a decent distance who are ALSO highly competitive and co-ed. 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 Stef: Your picture looks like Winnie Cooper from the Wonder Years. ###### is tradition. ##### is tradition. All else....modifications of tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Uh, what are we debating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScribeToo Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Stef:Your picture looks like Winnie Cooper from the Wonder Years. Thanks, Tom! That's downright flattering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts