[7099] in APO-L
Re: Men and BSA
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phillies Phan (John Given))
Sun Oct 31 00:35:29 1993
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 00:33:10 EDT
Reply-To: "Phillies Phan (John Given)" <GIVEN%DICKINSN.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: "Phillies Phan (John Given)" <GIVEN%DICKINSN.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
> Recently, Lee Correll wrote:
>
> > Fourth area of service: Service to the Nation as a Participating Citizen.
> >
> > My interpretation of this statement: it is a part of my responsibility as
> > a US citizen to protect above all else the rights of individual citizens,
> > and citizens as a group.
> >
> I concur fully with this statement, however....
>
> > ** brief lecture mode on **
> >
> > I will concur that "...They said 'men'; they meant 'men'." However, as
> > time goes by, the definitions of words change. "Men" used to mean "white
> > landholding males"; they were the only ones who had a say in government,
> > and the only ones to vote. Obviously, "men" in the same context today as
> > far as the US Constitution et al, means "men and women," with no
> > commentary on race, religion, sexual orientation, what floor of their
> > apartment building they live on or whether or not they throw paint at
> > police officers. Therefore, your statement "...actually refers to all
> > human beings is invalid" is can certainly be interpreted to be incorrect.
> > Further, the Toast Song itself refers to "Men of Alpha Phi Omega"; not "to
> > all human beings."
> >
> I grant you that words change meanings. "I feel pretty, and witty and gay"
> from West Side Story certainly had a different meaning merely 30 years ago
> than it would today. But is it really fair to change the meaning of a word so
> that we label someone something that they are not. True, the authors of the
> US Constitution meant "landed white men" when they said "men," and the word
> "men" there has since been interpreted to mean people regardless of wealth,
> race or gender. But is the last item fair? Male slaves may have not had land
> and they may have been black, but they were still men. So interpreting "men"
> to include them is not a problem. But why make the term apply to women, who
> are not men? Is that not simply a subtle statement that men are superior to
> women and therefore it is OK to label women with the term which applies to
> their superior counterparts?
>
> > Do you understand why the '92 National Convention REMOVED those items that
> > were there? Among other reasons, to prevent using a list such as you have
> > used above. Further, the first amendment to the constitution provides for
> > the right to peaceably assemble. Read that "I can get anybody I want
> > together and we can form a group." You may believe that it is "downright
> > wrong" to discriminate on the bases listed above - let me add one to show
> > you that the issue is not so cut and dried. The Sweet Adelines are groups
> > of women (sexual discrimination here, folks) who must be able to harmonize
> > and solo with the other members of the group (vocal discrimination here).
> > Being a Philadelphia Phillies fan, what would happen if the team were
> > forced to accept an individual with a physical disability who wanted to
> > play left field? Is this discrimination? No. It is the RIGHT of an
> > organization to determine their own membership. Alpha Phi Omega's bylaws
> > provide for this right as well. So if BSA is wrong, bad news, so are we.
> > (Article III, Section 2 (1) "...who are selected by that chapter..."
> > (Article III, Section 2 (2) "...to the satisfaction of their chapter..."
> > (Article III, Section 2 (4) "...approved by the chapter..."
> >
> > Are we next, John?
>
> Yes, I do understand why the National Convention removed the list, and I
> applaud their effort because we cannot always be sure to include every
> possible form of discrimination. But, Lee, you missed my point. I said that
> I believe that it is wrong for a group to discriminate against anyone because
> of who the inately are. The cases you present base their membership selection
> on ability in a certain area, not on a basic human trait. The Sweet Adelines
> are looking for people who can harmonize as sopranos or altos. If a man were
> able to do this, then I would hope that he would have a chance to join the
> group. The Phillies need people who are skilled in playing baseball. And in
> fact, they do have a handicapped player-- their right fielder Jim Eisenreich
> has Turrett's Syndrome. There is a major difference between gender/race and
> vocal/athletic talent. My singing ability (or, rather, lack of singing
> ability) does not define me, but the fact that I am a white, 21-year-old,
> Irish man does.
>
> > ** lecture mode off **
> >
> > I apologize for having this turn out as a flame, but it seemed as though
> > you were trodding upon some of the fundamental rights given to us as
> > citizens of the US. It surprised me, since you usually tend to have
> > rather insightful comments on the items discussed here.
> >
> No apologies necessary. I enjoy being challenged in my opinions, and I hope
> that some people will read our banter and think their opinions through more
> carefully.
>
> > Lee Correll
> > Yes, I have a title but it doesn't matter here
> > lcorrell@cap.gwu.edu
> >
> John Given
> yeah, who cares about titles anyway?
> given@dickinson.edu
>
> >
> > cc: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
> ditto
