Female Support??

[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