Female Support??

[abysmal]

Question:

Our Deputy Commander for Cadets is a mother of one of our cadets.
She has sold her house and is moving to another state.
Our Cadet Squadron has  25% female cadets.
When she leaves we will have NO adult Female Support.

None of the regulations I have read thus far address the issue of female presence at meetings or activities. But our commander has made it 100% clear that he will NOT hold any cadet meetings without an adult female in attendance. Be it a member or otherwise.

I need a reality check here.
What are the real implications of having female cadets and no female senior members???

[Pylon]

The regulations do not prohibit having female cadets at a CAP activity under the supervision of all-male Senior Members.  However, that having been said, it's not something that is very encouraged either.

Personally, any activity where I have female cadets, I would want, at bare minimum, one female Senior Member if not more.  There are a number of good reasons why, some of which should be obvious to a reasonable person.  It's just a good idea.

Would I completely halt holding squadron meetings until we could find a female SM recruit to stand-in?  Probably not, unless there were other circumstances.  However, I would say this is a great opportunity to begin a Senior Member-targeted recruiting drive.  Your squadron is down to only 2 SMs on the cadet side anyhow, so a SM recruiting program would be a benefit regardless.  Just a suggestion:  School teachers and school staff (aides, office workers, counsellors, etc) are all good candidates!  Hit your local school teacher's lounges and main offices with some litterature about the Senior Member program and maybe a stack of letters from your unit about the program, about your current need, and the benefits of Senior Membership. 

[BillB]

At a Squadron meeting for example, there needs to be one senior that have completed CPPT. For a overnight activity, there needs to be 2 seniors. National RECOMMENDS one be female. Most wings also go along with the recommendation and make it a requirement. CPPT is rather fuzzy on when the two seniors are required, basically just mentioning overnight activities. So if the squadron has a clean up day, only one senior is required according to one interpretation of the reg. Another interpretation is that two seniors need to be on scene. They can be one male and one female, two male or even two female. It's one of the grey areas of the reg.

[abysmal]

Would I completely halt holding squadron meetings until we could find a female SM recruit to stand-in?  Probably not, unless there were other circumstances. 

Thus far over the last 6 months, when we did not have a adult female present, the commander sent all the cadets home and would not allow a meeting to take place. He is totally adamant about it. Seems extreme to me, but he is probably paranoid for good reason.

But it does seem to be HIS choice with no real regulations requirements to back him up...

[Pylon]

But it does seem to be HIS choice with no real regulations requirements to back him up...

Yes, it's his choice to do so.  Unless your Wing or other higher HQ has a requirement stipulating so, it's his choice.  However, as Squadron Commander, his choice might as well be regulatory.  It's his way or the highway. 

[abysmal]

But it does seem to be HIS choice with no real regulations requirements to back him up...

Yes, it's his choice to do so.  Unless your Wing or other higher HQ has a requirement stipulating so, it's his choice.  However, as Squadron Commander, his choice might as well be regulatory.  It's his way or the highway. 

Bigger than life.
As for me, I am just trying to understand the realities of the situation.
Eventually there is going to come that night that he is not there, and I will have to make that same decission....

[abysmal]

Yes, it's his choice to do so.  Unless your Wing or other higher HQ has a requirement stipulating so, it's his choice.  However, as Squadron Commander, his choice might as well be regulatory.  It's his way or the highway. 

Did a little more searching and found this.
==============

ARIZONA WING CIVIL AIR PATROL               
Wing Supplement 1
United States Air Force Auxiliary                   CAPR 52-10
Luke Air Force Base, AZ  85309-1175          
1 June 2004


Cadet Programs
CAP CADET PROTECTION POLICY
CAPR 52-10, 22 December 2003, is supplemented as follows:


1.   Para 4.  Commander Responsibilities.

d.    (Add)  If one (1) or more of the overnight cadets are female then one (1) of the two (2) senior members must be a female.

JOHN J. VARLJEN, COL, CAP
Commander
===========

Seems to be in keeping with what you mentioned before.

[arajca]

Unless your meetings are overnight activities, that policy doesn't apply.

I suggest making a list of the questions you are asking here - and the others you haven't asked yet - and schedule a meeting with your commander. Just the two of you. Ask him the questions and the reasoning behind his answers if they don't make sense to you. If you have ideas to improve the unit bring them up, along with as much detail as you have to back up your ideas.

The members here can give you alot of information and point you toward more, but we cannot tell you why things are the way they are in your unit. Only your commander can.

[abysmal]

We do talk quite a bit.
More than it might appear from all the questions I ask here.
I am just trying to get as much understanding of things CAP in general as possible.

[salassa72]

Wow, this is news, to me.  When I was a cadet (I am female)
we had NO female senior members at all.
There were only 2 or 3 female cadets in my squadron.

In the Squadron today, there are 3 female seniors and one male senior.

The population of female cadets is still only about 3 or 4.

[abysmal]

Lots of changes have taken place over the years.
But you will find yourself very welcome.

[salassa72]

  
Thank you.

I am very happy to be here again!

[abysmal]

Its different to be sure, but its still a whole lot of fun to be out there with the Cadets.

[srg9832]

I know no one has commented on this in a long time but for those asking the question about a regulation like this it is against the Civil Air Patrol non-discrimination policy . Talk with your wing IG and if that don't work region and if that don't work contact nationals. The phone list is here: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

I also want to ask the question as to why it is a good idea to have a female senior member there. It does not add any more protection than having a second senior member. A regulation such as this does not account for people of the same gender being together nor does it account for the likelihood that second senior runs off with a male cadet or female. Adding a female does not add any extra protection with the exception of maybe making the female cadet feel more comfortable. In most instances it allows both seniors to be female, and then what would you do with the male cadets?

Bottom line is the CPPT is there so that members are educated to not put ourselves into a situation where become compromised. If you feel uncomfortable then you are likely wrong in the way you interact with cadets.  More than likely if someone who has this type of rule they have been in, or heard of a senior's story, where the senior put themselves in a compromising position but claimed that is was because of gender. That or if you were the senior, you don't understand that what you did was wrong. You blame the action of what the cadet did in order to rationalize how you acted. (See chapter 7-9 of the old "Leadership 2000 and Beyond Volume 2" Book for cadets.) Trust me I've seen many accusations in my wing and in the end the senior did something stupid and wouldn't admit they did anything wrong. It's the case almost 99% of the time. As someone said on this forum once, "Lets stop treating cadets like they are an IED" and treat them as equals (regardless of rank) with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

~7

[Flying Pig]

Would I completely halt holding squadron meetings until we could find a female SM recruit to stand-in?  Probably not, unless there were other circumstances. 

Thus far over the last 6 months, when we did not have a adult female present, the commander sent all the cadets home and would not allow a meeting to take place. He is totally adamant about it. Seems extreme to me, but he is probably paranoid for good reason.

But it does seem to be HIS choice with no real regulations requirements to back him up...

Commanders destroying their programs through lack of knowledge.  Nice.  Sounds like your Group CC needs to be contacted.  Yes, your Commander can do what he/she wants, but when their decsions negatively affect others because they are mis-informed or afraid, it needs to be dealt with.  If your CC is that scared of cadets, they dont need to be in command.  Their fear and mis information is affecting your "career". 6 months in the life cycle of a cadet is an eternity.

In many cases with CPPT, where people place their own interpretation about needing a female, I would point out that if you REQUIRE a female senior to deal with a female at a local activity, you probably need to be contacting mom and dad.  Just because your  a chick, doesnt give you any more leeway in dealing with female cadets.  Last I checked, most female cadets dont need assistance from adults to shower or get dressed.  Is it more convenient so you dont have to deal with issues like PMS?  Sure it is. But.......
I was at an activity and was the asst medical officer (being an EMT)  I talked with a female cadet regarding what turned out to be "that time of the month" and nothing more.  She agreed that sitting out of PT that morning was an acceptable cure.  I had the 18 yr old female cadet commander with me during the conversation. We were out of hearing range so it was private, but within site of the entire activity.  I called the parents, explained what had happened, and we charged on.   And on the opposite side of the coin, we have commanders cancelling the cadet program on meeting nights because no female SMs want to join.  Oh well.  I guess I dont have  a dog in this fight anymore.

[Flying Pig]

Oh wow....I just realized this thread is almost 8 yrs old   Sorry....

Wow...srg...how far back did you go to find this one?

[coudano]

i was just glad to see that it wasn't about bras

[Major Lord]

I think that the irrational fear of the Squadron Commander, which violates the rights of all female Cadets to participate in activities, reflects massively on the psychological make-up of the squadron commander. Of course its desirable to have Female Senior Members at activities! ( Hey, how many Senior Member Males really want to discuss tampons  or inspect female cadet living quarters?) The implication that male members cannot be trusted is a logical fallacy that presumes female members can be more trusted, an implication that can be demonstrated as preposterous. What next? Ban homosexual Senior Members from CAP activities? Any Senior Member , Commander or otherwise, implementing a discriminatory policy such as this should be suspended until such as time as they can articulate a hazard overriding any Cadet's right to participate fully in the program in any way.

The spectre of sexual abuse, or the blind fear of accusation, is in my opinion, insufficient cause to discriminate against Cadets, regardless of gender. A prudent S/M coordinating an overnight activity should make duly diligent attempts to recruit Female and Male Senior members, but our real protection lies in policies (and commons sense) that minimize or eliminate fully private contact between Cadets and Senior members: In other words, have a witness! If you need to establish a conversation with a cadet that requires a degree of privacy ( You may have to for instance, discuss medical issues, bedwetting, etc) that would be offensive or embarrassing to the cadet, don't do it behind closed doors without a witness, and make sure that you remain in another S/M's visual field at nearly all times.

One of the finest human beings I know, a serving Air Force Officer, and former CAP Officer was at the Air Force Academy during the time of the sexual scandals a few years back. As
a result of the witch hunt that followed, and the resulting irrational responses, she spent most of her remaining time at the Academy at "the back of the bus" segregated due to her presumed helplessness at the hands of evil males who will prey on any female that strays from the pack. ( In fact, she is a Crossfit Junkie and darn near write the book on Krav Ma Gra, and I would not attack her in less than platoon force if I cared about living) In a seminar, she was asked about this, and she felt that the entire USAF had abandoned her by tearing her away from her team; Men she called her brothers, who now had to see their friend and "brother in Arms' from a safe distance, as an outsider, an endangered species, a sensitive minority too timid to stand up with the "Real" Officers. For God's sake, lets not let that poisonous mindset infect our organization.

Major Lord

[Eclipse]

I know no one has commented on this in a long time but for those asking the question about a regulation like this it is against the Civil Air Patrol non-discrimination policy . Talk with your wing IG and if that don't work region and if that don't work contact nationals. The phone list is here: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

It is not a violation of non-discrimination (or anything else) if a unit cannot find a senior member comfortable with chaperoning a mixed-gender activity,
and all the IG's, directives, and training in the world will not change that.

Misinformed CC's and staff harboring wives tales are one thing, but at the end of the day, we can't force a member to do anything outside their personal ORM.

[Major Lord]

I know no one has commented on this in a long time but for those asking the question about a regulation like this it is against the Civil Air Patrol non-discrimination policy . Talk with your wing IG and if that don't work region and if that don't work contact nationals. The phone list is here: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

It is not a violation of non-discrimination (or anything else) if a unit cannot find a senior member comfortable with chaperoning a mixed-gender activity,
and all the IG's, directives, and training in the world will not change that.

Misinformed CC's and staff harboring wives tales are one thing, but at the end of the day, we can't force a member to do anything outside their personal ORM.

Well, you could try waterboarding........


Major Lord

[Eclipse]

I know no one has commented on this in a long time but for those asking the question about a regulation like this it is against the Civil Air Patrol non-discrimination policy . Talk with your wing IG and if that don't work region and if that don't work contact nationals. The phone list is here: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

It is not a violation of non-discrimination (or anything else) if a unit cannot find a senior member comfortable with chaperoning a mixed-gender activity,
and all the IG's, directives, and training in the world will not change that.

Misinformed CC's and staff harboring wives tales are one thing, but at the end of the day, we can't force a member to do anything outside their personal ORM.

Well, you could try waterboarding........

Man, we had a great opportunity to do that with the kids this year - a CAP friend had us as visitors at a semi-private beach area in Lake Forest on
a day with clear skies and pretty strong winds, the surf was about 1-3 ft, and we all had our snorkels and and were psyched to be out there until
the sun went down, unfortunately the beach was red-flagged.  Would have been awesome, though.

[Major Lord]

Not to hijack the thread, but when we had our 3 day water survival portion of the Cadet Survival School, at times, it did look a little like waterboarding.....
Note to cadets: Knowing how to at least dog-paddle is a good thing to know before signing up for a water survival course, for both male and females!

Too bad on the thrown flag penalty. What a wasted opportunity!

Major Lord

[srg9832]

I know no one has commented on this in a long time but for those asking the question about a regulation like this it is against the Civil Air Patrol non-discrimination policy . Talk with your wing IG and if that don't work region and if that don't work contact nationals. The phone list is here: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm

It is not a violation of non-discrimination (or anything else) if a unit cannot find a senior member comfortable with chaperoning a mixed-gender activity,
and all the IG's, directives, and training in the world will not change that.

Misinformed CC's and staff harboring wives tales are one thing, but at the end of the day, we can't force a member to do anything outside their personal ORM.

I have been in contact with nationals (Curl Lafond, Gerry Rosenzweid, and they have been in touch with the legal officer and the RMR Commander) and yes requiring female senior members to be on an activity, if there are female cadets present, is against the non-discrimination policy due to many implications. (Maybe I should have clarified what supplemental regulation I was talking about) That is why CAPR52-10 is written the way it is. It is also why CAPR52-10 reads "Supplements to this regulation require NHQ CAP/CP approval with the concurrence of NHQ CAP/GC". If it was never approved by them then it doesn't exist. A commander cannot just make this a rule without consulting legal officers etc.

Here we are not forcing people to go beyond their "Personal ORM" I have no idea why you are talking about this. If a senior is not comfortable planning an activity, that may have a female there, then don't plan it at all. Then again if a senior is not comfortable being around cadets then maybe they shouldn't be a part of the program or... go join the boy scouts I hear it's all male. Then you wouldn't have to worry about harassment or abuse. Or join a senior squadron or better yet if a senior is uncomfortable with cadets they could just do a job on the senior side of the squadron. I'm not being sarcastic towards you guys on this post specifically. I'm being sarcastic at the notion of this sort of regulation and the people who think it's necessary.

This was supposed to be informatory post so that people aren't setting themselves up for a lawsuit. Just recently this would have been the case in RMR if their region regulation was not revoked during national boards last month. I'd say a lawsuit is more important than people trying to protect other people from making mistakes. Others may think differently but as of now any rule or supplement distinguishing between genders, at any activity, is against the non-discrimination policy.

[Spaceman3750]

EDIT: Nevermind, more rumor I've bought into.

[shlebz]

my first sqd i was at i was the only girl, cadet/senior (i believe a couple of the senior members wifes were signed up but they never showed to meetings) i still went to meetings and i turned out fine. <--- well in my opinion haha

[BillB]

Spaceman....Cite please? 52-16 RECOMMENDS one of the seniors be female, iot does NOT require it. An overnight activity has to have a minimum of 2 senior members, Both can be male, both female or one of each. I remember an overnight bivouac where both senior members were female. Does this mean according to your opinion male cadets can not attend?

[Spaceman3750]

Spaceman....Cite please? 52-16 RECOMMENDS one of the seniors be female, iot does NOT require it. An overnight activity has to have a minimum of 2 senior members, Both can be male, both female or one of each.

Yeah, I looked it up right before you posted. I can't find it - more rumors I've bought into.

[Eclipse]

This was supposed to be informatory post so that people aren't setting themselves up for a lawsuit. Just recently this would have been the case in RMR if their region regulation was not revoked during national boards last month. I'd say a lawsuit is more important than people trying to protect other people from making mistakes. Others may think differently but as of now any rule or supplement distinguishing between genders, at any activity, is against the non-discrimination policy.

We don't need more "helping you avoid a lawsuit" threads - the regs are clear.

Let me "help" you with how this works.

Unit CC schedules a bivouac, female cadets sign up, no female seniors attend, Unit CC or other seniors involved are not comfortable

Bivouac is canceled.  No grounds for an IG complaint - commander's prerogative, no grounds for a lawsuit.

Were this in my AOR, I'd have a direct conversation with the CC about EO, however doing so wouldn't change anything, since he's free to
cancel an activity for whatever reason he sees fit.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

We don't need more "helping you avoid a lawsuit" threads - the regs are clear.

Let me "help" you with how this works.

Unit CC schedules a bivouac, female cadets sign up, no female seniors attend, Unit CC or other seniors involved are not comfortable

Bivouac is canceled.  No grounds for an IG complaint - commander's prerogative, no grounds for a lawsuit.

Were this in my AOR, I'd have a direct conversation with the CC about EO, however doing so wouldn't change anything, since he's free to
cancel an activity for whatever reason he sees fit.

I don't buy it. Change female to {insert race or religion here} in your statement and see how it flies.

Using commander's prerogative to violate EO is still violating EO.

[sarmed1]

Cancelling an activity because you want a female present isnt usually where the problems comes in.  What I have seen in units with this kind of mentality is they tell teh female cadets that they can not participate; and hold the activity with just male cadets and male seniors.     Thats grounds for a Eo complaint.

mk

[Major Lord]

I concur with your statement. Eclipse made the point that Seniors cannot be forced into activities beyond their comfort zone, and for rank and file participants I would agree that they are free to vote with their feet. A Commander has an obligation to obey our nondiscrimination policy, and if he feels that he is too uncomfortable to deal with this, should step down. Sexist and racist policies have no business in CAP, be they overt regulations, or the more subtle technique of using "Commander prerogative" as a pretext to ban females cadets from activities.

Major Lord

[Perez]

I concur with your statement. Eclipse made the point that Seniors cannot be forced into activities beyond their comfort zone, and for rank and file participants I would agree that they are free to vote with their feet. A Commander has an obligation to obey our nondiscrimination policy, and if he feels that he is too uncomfortable to deal with this, should step down. Sexist and racist policies have no business in CAP, be they overt regulations, or the more subtle technique of using "Commander prerogative" as a pretext to ban females cadets from activities.

Major Lord

Agreed. I've seen cases where this directly prevents the female cadets from participating in activities and limits their opportunities. I hope your SQ can make a decision concerning this and that you get your unit meetings rolling.

[CAPC/officer125]

I was under the impression of the following...prove me wrong if this impression isn't correct.
I know the regs say that 2 SMs are required for over night activities. Can be any mix male or female. My impression or thought is that if there isn't a female SM present, there should be a minimum of 2 female cadets and they should be paired up as "battle buddies"/"wingman"/(insert any name for partner you want). This would alleviate possible one-on-one time between a male and female resulting in abuse of any sort, cadet or SM. This is similar to the "rule of 3", isn't it?

[Short Field]

^^^ Don't confuse opinions with regulations or official policy.

[coudano]

I have parents who wont let their daughters come to overnight stuff if there isn't an adult female on board.
I don't have any problem with that policy, but we have had a few cases where the parents kept the girls because we were not able to accommodate.

[CAPC/officer125]

^^^ Don't confuse opinions with regulations or official policy.

I am not...or at least I am trying not to.
My question is: wouldn't this philosophy work as long as if there are 2 SM there? CPP only states 2 SMs, doesn't specify that there *has* to be a female SM if one female cadet is present.

[Eclipse]

1 Senior member for any activity.

2 senior members for overnight.

Gender is a non-factor.

The "philosophies" & "CYAs" are where people start to have issues.

[Major Lord]

I was under the impression of the following...prove me wrong if this impression isn't correct.
I know the regs say that 2 SMs are required for over night activities. Can be any mix male or female. My impression or thought is that if there isn't a female SM present, there should be a minimum of 2 female cadets and they should be paired up as "battle buddies"/"wingman"/(insert any name for partner you want). This would alleviate possible one-on-one time between a male and female resulting in abuse of any sort, cadet or SM. This is similar to the "rule of 3", isn't it?

Your interpretation of the rules is quite correct, and your strategy of bringing in witnesses is sound thinking, although not regulation, with some mixture of cadets, seniors, or disinterested parties as witnesses, problems are less likely to occur. Inherent in your thought process though is that a female battle-buddy  will do a better job of preventing some form of inappropriate contact, but I don't believe the facts bear this out. There are nearly as many female sexual predators as their are male ones, and a Cadet is, in law and in fact, an adult at the age of 20 years, 364 days, and as capable of evil or innocence as any 13 year old Cadet or 65 Year old Senior member. Similar or opposite gender status is not a guarantee of safety in any sense of the word.  My greater worry is about S/M's who are too close in age to Cadets they may be in supervisory contact with, without necessarily having responsible and rational  enough maturity levels to keep from doing something that could be catastrophic, but I don't fear being called an "ageist".

Major Lord