Quote:
Originally posted by James
Maybe we should divide the topic up into hazing for men and hazing for women.
Despite years of political rhetoric the sexes are not the same and we don't look at the world the same.
However, the default viewpoint is being more and more skewed towards a feminine perspective.
What women think is hazing, men may very well think is just normal comraderie.
PErsonally I think its hazing to force active members to buy craft boxes and make all kinds of little gifts for sisters. Its like they are elves or something.
|
At first blush, this seems like a decent idea. Considering it a little further leads me to think that all we're disagreeing on is what constitutes hazing. I think that virtually all of us agree that our respective HQ's rules go too far. Most of us are willing to admit that the HQs go too far because collegians will exploit the hell out of any kind of loophole HQ leaves for them.
The discussion has considered whether the sole motivation for the existance of these RM policies and prohibitions against hazing is essentially a CYA move by our respective organizations in terms of limiting their liability. Some of our organizations were founded 'against hazing' (and in a sense, mine was), but some of the things in our RM policy such as the prohibition on scavenger hunts seem questionable. It could simply be that our insurance company wrote the rules based on the types of insured losses they had protected the organization from in the past. Many disagree with the notion that our hazing rules are financially motivated, but I'll respectfully have to simply agree to disagree there.
That isn't to say that they shouldn't be followed. Knowing the reason behind the rule isn't really important. When we gave our oath to our respective organizations, most of us (it seems safe to assume here) gave an oath to abide by the rules of our national governing body. If our national governing body says that we can't send kids out on a scavenger hunt, then we are oath-bound to not do that. In that sense, we are honor-bound to do as HQ requires (except in extreme circumstances) whether we agree with the motivation behind their reasoning or not.
I agree with your notion that men and women both have different social norms within their respective GLO's. I don't think that's even at issue.
Unless you're arguing that bows and toes or the elephant walk are just normal male comraderie, then I'm not sure where you're coming from.