Cadet Protection

[RADIOMAN015]

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  ( . . .)   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.

There is really no question that the actions you propose have a significant discriminatory effect on female cadets.  And only female cadets.

Is "I'm just not comfortable working with female cadets" really any different than saying "I'm just not comfortable working with minority cadets?"

Really?

"I'd rather not work with cadets with any sort of diagnosed disability.  I'm just not comfortable doing so."

Tell me again, what's the difference?  I'm glad you can internally rationalize your actions to avoid having to think of yourself as a misogynist.

But I'll bet a lot of folks who dislike minorities can rationalize their actions (at least to themselves) as well.

However, the significant discriminatory effect on our cadets is exactly the same, no matter what you tell yourself the "real" reasons are.

Well, personally I don't volunteer for/attend any overnight cadet functions (whether it will be all males or a mix of male/females cadets), never have and likely NEVER will -- As a volunteer that is MY CHOICE.  As far as some other very dedicated senior members that support these activities, but want a female senior member present if there's female cadets attending, that's their choice for their comfort level, and I strongly support them in that.  Again female staffing hasn't been an issue and NO females have been excluded from any of our local units (or for that matter wing) cadet overnight activities. 

The volunteers I know that support the cadet program, are not discriminating against anyone.     
You know Ned it's VERY easy for senior member volunteers to "not be/become available" for these cadet overnight activities, especially IF they feel that their comfort level/concerns aren't addressed but are criticized as some sort of discrimination.  Fortunately locally and even at the wing level there seems to be sensitivity to do the right thing to support those volunteers.
RM 

[Ned]

The volunteers I know that support the cadet program, are not discriminating against anyone.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

I hope it makes you feel better.

But even the younger cadets will be able to figure it out after a while. 

You know Ned it's VERY easy for senior member volunteers to "not be/become available" for these cadet overnight activities,( . . .)
RM

And I'm OK with that.  I'd rather have a senior member malinger and shirk their duties than expose cadets to bigoted behavior from seniors who are not "comfortable" working with minority or female cadets.

Really.

[Al Sayre]

I've never seen overnights with female cadets along as a problem.  When I was a Sq/CC we had several overnights with both male and female cadets present, and no female SM.  You simply lay out the ground rules.  We gave the females their own area, mostly for privacy, and made it clear that it was off limits to male cadets.  Beyond that everyone is treated the same. 

The cadets aren't little children, and if you don't think that you can trust them (within reason) then you shouldn't be taking them along on an overnight whether they are male or female.  Just because they're away from mom and dad and out in the woods doesn't mean they can't control their hormonal urges. 

If you're worried about female issues like menstruation etc. it's you that has a problem.  I've made a lot of midnight runs to the local mini-mart in my lifetime (yes, even from a few SAREX's), it's no big deal.  If the clerk (with the greasy hair and 15 face piercings) gives you crap tell him "at least I have someone to buy this for" and watch the look on his face , beside, do you really give a crap what he thinks? 

If you're worried about a malicious or vindictive CPP complaint, then you need to look at yourself and they way you interact with the cadets.  What reason would the cadet have for making one?  Just to get rid of you and ruin your life?  Very few people would go to that length for no reason.  However, if they think you are a food exit portal, and want to get rid of you, then you probably need to look inward...

[Major Lord]

I tip my King! Radioman has convinced me of the rectitude of his position. I have never felt comfortable attending RON activities with Ginger Kids ( Who I have heard from reliable sources, have no souls) and will no longer approach them within 25 feet, lest their freckly evil countenance envelope me in their penumbra of evil. I like this new paradigm of just following our irrationally fear-based prejudices, ( hereinafter referred to as "Comfort Level") it is a much simpler tool for decision making than critical thinking or rationality! Standby for my 93 thesis which I will nail to the door of Maxwell Alabama in the dead of night, denouncing other evil practices.

Major Lord

[NCRblues]

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  ( . . .)   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.

There is really no question that the actions you propose have a significant discriminatory effect on female cadets.  And only female cadets.

Is "I'm just not comfortable working with female cadets" really any different than saying "I'm just not comfortable working with minority cadets?"

Really?

"I'd rather not work with cadets with any sort of diagnosed disability.  I'm just not comfortable doing so."

Tell me again, what's the difference?  I'm glad you can internally rationalize your actions to avoid having to think of yourself as a misogynist.

But I'll bet a lot of folks who dislike minorities can rationalize their actions (at least to themselves) as well.

However, the significant discriminatory effect on our cadets is exactly the same, no matter what you tell yourself the "real" reasons are.

Well, personally I don't volunteer for/attend any overnight cadet functions (whether it will be all males or a mix of male/females cadets), never have and likely NEVER will -- As a volunteer that is MY CHOICE.  As far as some other very dedicated senior members that support these activities, but want a female senior member present if there's female cadets attending, that's their choice for their comfort level, and I strongly support them in that.  Again female staffing hasn't been an issue and NO females have been excluded from any of our local units (or for that matter wing) cadet overnight activities. 

The volunteers I know that support the cadet program, are not discriminating against anyone.     
You know Ned it's VERY easy for senior member volunteers to "not be/become available" for these cadet overnight activities, especially IF they feel that their comfort level/concerns aren't addressed but are criticized as some sort of discrimination.  Fortunately locally and even at the wing level there seems to be sensitivity to do the right thing to support those volunteers.
RM

You have never attended an encampment?? Or any overnight activity?

Again I have to ask, why are you even in CAP anymore?

[sarmed1]

You have never attended an encampment?? Or any overnight activity?

Again I have to ask, why are you even in CAP anymore?

Not that I agree with RM's stance on this, but just as a point of consideration; Cadet Programs is one part of CAP, despite the more common practice it is not the only part, people do join this program with no intention of ever working with cadets, and to some extent in practice never have to.  More over they may choose to limit their volunteerism to participation that does not include having to work with or generally supervise cadets.  (M or F)

However I would say that if you choose to work with one sex of cadets you have to work with both.  You are equally likely to get in trouble with both sex's at an activity ( ie Dude that creepy old senior member was looking at me in the shower when he was in to use the latrine..... vs that creepy old senior member touched my breasts.)

mk

[lordmonar]

I got nothing wrong with someone who does not want to work with cadets.......just like I got nothing wrong with people who don't want to do ES or AE.

But as Ned said.....we cannot discriminate against female cadets (or seniors).

[jimmydeanno]

The issue is larger than a female cadet at a cadet oriented activity.

Assume that the wing is involved in a mission that runs over multiple days, people are staying overnight, etc.  Two cadets, one male, one female, show up with relevant qualifications.  The guy at the door looks around and sees that there is no female senior member and tells the female cadet that he doesn't feel comfortable with working with her, sending her home, while welcoming the male cadet who arrived with her.

That senior member may be an "ES only" senior member, but to assume that you can deny a qualified member participation because you "never had the intent of working with cadets" is unrealistic and violates our policies.  There are a lot of senior members who's primary function doesn't involve working with cadets, but with half of our membership comprising them, there are chances that RM will end up in the comm room, "alone" with a cadet working the radios.

[lordmonar]

Granted.....and HE is free to sign out of the mission base and go home.  He is not free to send the cadet home.

[Eclipse]

Granted.....and HE is free to sign out of the mission base and go home.  He is not free to send the cadet home.

Unfortunately, though, in many cases that equals the same result - end of activity.

[lordmonar]

Granted.....and HE is free to sign out of the mission base and go home.  He is not free to send the cadet home.

Unfortunately, though, in many cases that equals the same result - end of activity.

If the mission fails because one person drops out.....then there are command issues beyond people's comfort level with the CPP.

[Eclipse]

I don't disagree whatsoever, but that doesn't change the practical reality of a small squadron with 2 active seniors and 1 female cadet.

[ol'fido]

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  ( . . .)   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.

There is really no question that the actions you propose have a significant discriminatory effect on female cadets.  And only female cadets.

Is "I'm just not comfortable working with female cadets" really any different than saying "I'm just not comfortable working with minority cadets?"

Really?

"I'd rather not work with cadets with any sort of diagnosed disability.  I'm just not comfortable doing so."

Tell me again, what's the difference?  I'm glad you can internally rationalize your actions to avoid having to think of yourself as a misogynist.

But I'll bet a lot of folks who dislike minorities can rationalize their actions (at least to themselves) as well.

However, the significant discriminatory effect on our cadets is exactly the same, no matter what you tell yourself the "real" reasons are.

Well, personally I don't volunteer for/attend any overnight cadet functions (whether it will be all males or a mix of male/females cadets), never have and likely NEVER will -- As a volunteer that is MY CHOICE.  As far as some other very dedicated senior members that support these activities, but want a female senior member present if there's female cadets attending, that's their choice for their comfort level, and I strongly support them in that.  Again female staffing hasn't been an issue and NO females have been excluded from any of our local units (or for that matter wing) cadet overnight activities. 

The volunteers I know that support the cadet program, are not discriminating against anyone.     
You know Ned it's VERY easy for senior member volunteers to "not be/become available" for these cadet overnight activities, especially IF they feel that their comfort level/concerns aren't addressed but are criticized as some sort of discrimination.  Fortunately locally and even at the wing level there seems to be sensitivity to do the right thing to support those volunteers.
RM

I was going to really respond to this statement, but every response I could come up with but this one VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV  violated the CT rules on profanity or personal conduct on the board.

ARE YOU FRIGGING KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DakRadz]

I wonder when RM hits the level of "too far."

Much like politicians (merely a comparison, let us leave specifics OFF of CT), RM has constantly pushed the envelope of accepted behavior on this site. Many people on this site see a post and think, "Oh, that's just RM being himself," yet when a new member (especially cadets)  posts or states something similar to ANY one of the many ridiculous claims RM has made, they are ripped, chewed, and thoroughly sure of what not to do here on our board.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with that- new cadets can push the envelope when first posting (I did). But tell me, why is it still acceptable for RM to say such things?

Examples: I will only use myself as an example- I know I screw up here sometimes, and I'm not going to bash others.
Heck, this is even fairly recent.

Entirely out of my lane, however....

It's nice to see a new topic for flaming. I knew you communication types had it in you.

But how many of you are authorized to wear the communication patch on your BDUs?

This is me posting something completely irrelevant. Looking back, no, I should not have posted. Did this last week.
What happened?
SarDragon corrected me, everyone else ignored it, and the thread went on. 1 post telling me to knock it off. Nothing more or less.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13812
RM posts this. He got 22 replies and 500+ views.
Out of the 22, 8 were either actually related to the topic, or were RM posting. That's still 14 posts, all either continually feeding the topic while at the same time they ALL said, "This is irrelevant to CAP."



Am I the only one that sees this problem?
I am not addressing RM. I am addressing the CT population.
So, are we going to continue?
My plan is that from this point on, I will not reply to RM's topics. I will not acknowledge his existence. I am tired of this board which has actually helped me further the growth and leadership of myself and TWO of my squadrons being polluted by garbage.

How many have the self-control to ignore him? That seems to be the consensus. No one agrees with his statements that I've seen.
So? Integrity. Prove you actually mean what you say. I'm done with RADIOMAN. I refuse to let that mean I am done with CAP Talk.

Radz.

[Major Lord]

Every life serves a purpose: if only to set a bad example.....

Major Lord