Girls in cavaliers & Scouts?

[glory]

The virtues or vices of the WNBA are not an imperative for DCI, the Scouts or the Cavies, which can and should be measured on their own merits. There are many compelling reasons why a qualified female should be afforded the same (that’s same, not similar) opportunities as a comparable male. There are many fewer compelling reasons, if any, why she should denied that opportunity.

HH

[JayM]

The virtues or vices of the WNBA are not an imperative for DCI, the Scouts or the Cavies, which can and should be measured on their own merits. There are many compelling reasons why a qualified female should be afforded the same (that’s same, not similar) opportunities as a comparable male. There are many fewer compelling reasons, if any, why she should denied that opportunity.

HH

Have you marched in an all-male corps?

[jfmello]

The virtues or vices of the WNBA are not an imperative for DCI, the Scouts or the Cavies, which can and should be measured on their own merits. There are many compelling reasons why a qualified female should be afforded the same (that’s same, not similar) opportunities as a comparable male. There are many fewer compelling reasons, if any, why she should denied that opportunity.

HH

Point taken (generally). However, neither the Scouts nor the Cavaliers, as private organizations, are under any moral or legal obligation to provide that opportunity. As private organizations, both the Scouts and Cavaliers have the right to self-determination; to set their own goals, and, under the laws of the US, the by-laws of DCI, and moral constraints, to attempt to achieve those goals.

[jake_the_hydra]

The virtues or vices of the WNBA are not an imperative for DCI, the Scouts or the Cavies, which can and should be measured on their own merits. There are many compelling reasons why a qualified female should be afforded the same (that’s same, not similar) opportunities as a comparable male. There are many fewer compelling reasons, if any, why she should denied that opportunity.

HH

Changing either corps' gender policies would fundamentally change both corps.

Women who would join either corps after some sort of rule was implemented to force the corps to admit women against their will (which won't and shouldn't happen anyway) would end up joining a different corps altogether.

Mystique, aura, presence, look, identity, tradition- these are all significantly altered when someone changes something that significant about a corps, and almost everyone agrees that being all-male contributes to this for both corps.

A woman who joins either corps changes the fundamental nature of the corps, and the corps ceases to be whatever it was that the woman intended on joining in the first place. Not necessarily for better or worse (certainly both in at least a few ways, in my opinion, worse, but only because of social reasons, NOT competitive reasons), but the outcome is certainly different.

Again, this is not to say that women couldn't do it as well, just as The Bandettes didn't try to tell people that men couldn't do it as well . . . but letting women into either corps seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY changes the mission and social environment of that corps, and that fraternal experience, which is so unique in this world, would be gone. Members of those corps could still do the drum corps activity, sure, but for being men without the kinds of social distractions that arise in the presence of young and attractive women, they would have to turn elsewhere. Men act differently around women.

Such a change is unfair to both alumni and current members of both organizations, and maybe even the fans. I seriously believe that letting women in to either corps would at least temporarily seriously damage the corps' social network, as well as the members' understanding of what that corps means to them.

I know it would for me.

Again, this is not to say anything against women or their ability to compete in DCI . . . co-ed corps CLEARLY have the overall winning record of the DCI era (Blue Devils+Cadets= 20 championships, Cavaliers + Madison=9, and that's with a pretty recent tremendous catch-up run).

Edited November 15, 2006 by jake_the_hydra

[glory]

But doesn't it make for a more interesting conversation to discuss the moral, ethical, creative, etc., issues rather than the legal ones? People cheat and harm under the protection of the law all the time. Doesn't mean we should.

HH

[glory]

Changing either corps' gender policies would fundamentally change both corps.

I used to think so. In the 80s and well into the 90s, I thought the all-male complexion of Cavies and Scouts resulted in a uniquely male product. I don’t think that’s the case anymore, and I’ve come to wonder if it ever was.

It’s convenient to say they’re more athletic and aggressive because they’re all male as if BD or Phantom didn’t have those attributes when they wanted to. The masculine attributes are surely present in Cavies and Scouts. They’re there because the creative team accentuates them, just as it can diminish them too. I have no doubt that either corps could play feminine if they wanted. It’s a matter of creative talent and artistic execution.

And so it goes that coed corps can have the personalities they choose too. Gender is irrelevant, as it should be.

HH

[Piper]

"Welcome my friends to the show that never ends......"

[jfmello]

But doesn't it make for a more interesting conversation to discuss the moral, ethical, creative, etc., issues rather than the legal ones? People cheat and harm under the protection of the law all the time. Doesn't mean we should.

HH

That's why I said the Scouts and Cavaliers were under no moral or legal obligation. The right to self-determination is a moral right, and one that both private citizens and private organizations would be loathe to give up. This right may be a part of 'core' morality. Laws of the land and by-laws may limit this right in specific ways, but if the right is not limited for some overriding reason, exercising it is just one way of having freedom.

Edited November 15, 2006 by jfmello

[bluecoats88]

But doesn't it make for a more interesting conversation to discuss the moral, ethical, creative, etc., issues rather than the legal ones? People cheat and harm under the protection of the law all the time. Doesn't mean we should.

HH

The moral, and ethical discussion is that women have the opportunity to march a top level DCI Div I corps without having to change the fraternal aspect of either of these 2 corps. If there was no option (ie, BD, Cadets, Bluecoats, SCV, etc...) for women to march top level DIV I corps, then I would be for the integration of women into all male corps. But since they have the ability to do so then these corps have no moral or ethical obligation to change their organizational by-laws to allow women to join their fraternal organization.

This is just like many other fraternal organizations which to this day remain all male (ie, College Fraternaties, The Knights of columbus) since their are other options for women to participate in the same type of organizations.

Edited November 15, 2006 by bluecoats88

[jake_the_hydra]

Gender is irrelevant, as it should be.

HH

wrong. Can you seriously deny that the social nature of The Cavaliers and The Scouts would change significantly if they weren't all-male?

It definitely would. I'm not saying it would be "better" or "worse" in any absolute sense, but it would not be what it is right now, which is the way members, alumni, and probably most fans prefer.

And did you read past that first line of my post? Because you didn't address anything I said after that.

Edited November 15, 2006 by jake_the_hydra