Has the possibility of having a female assume a a leadership role just as a Yellow or a Red ever been considered? If not, why not? I understand the importance of having certain people in certain situations (I for one shudder at the thought of Jayci wielding a chainsaw...for more reasons than one), but if being in those leadership roles primarily, if not entirely, taps into one's ability to lead, than why hasn't a female ever been considered for such a role within the organization? For such a role, I believe that the person most able to lead and offer innovative ideas to make the organization would be the best person for the job. Again I ask, has such an idea ever been considered?

...Incoming...

I learned how to use one this year, thank you very much! I think my sisters did too.

edit for typos

[This message has been edited by WH08PsyJayci (edited 4/15/2007 11:30p).]

but you're a girl!

eh, i think it just takes practice--i learned a lot from following squirrel around this year bc i asked questions about everything and his method of sawing things, etc. not that i trust myself either...

now, those things get incredibly heavy--and i think that's where i'd run into trouble. oh yeah, and that inexperience thing too, i suppose.

why am I not surprised at the lack of input on this question?

Tough questions = no answers.

First:
Square, you asked the question at 10PM on Sunday... Those of us with jobs (damn near everyone that posts on TX Ags) has work to do first thing in the morning...

Second:
I know this is a troll message that you have asked to try to stir up **** and I shouldn't reply, but this is a valid question that I have wondered myself before I actually experienced the situations I describe below.

Now as for leadership.. There have been female leaders, just not reds.


EDIT: my comments were chopped up to make them sound sexist.

This was not my intent and anyone who knows me knows that I am anything but sexist.

I should not have commented on this topic due to my position on the BOD. For those girls that misunderstood what I was trying to say, I am sorry.

I suggest the non-leadership continue to debate this issue and 'fix' it if they see it as a problem.

[This message has been edited by slim-jim (edited 4/16/2007 6:25p).]

[This message has been edited by slim-jim (edited 4/16/2007 6:26p).]

[This message has been edited by slim-jim (edited 4/16/2007 6:27p).]

quote:

---

I know this is a troll message that you have asked to try to stir up **** and I shouldn't reply, but this is a valid question that I have wondered myself before I actually experienced the situations I describe below.

---

No, this is not intended to stir up all you angries, it's a legitimate question. I even asked Jayci, with no intentions of getting her stirred up. you even agree it's a legitimate worthwhile question.

Next, I think your laundry list of generalizations about women being weak and generally spineless when it comes down to making a big decision is down right offensive. There are countless numbers of women in big time roles throughout this campus and country doing a fine job at maintaining resolve and making well thought out decisions. I'm not twisting your wrods, I'm only replying to the statements you gave, which again, you seem to almost be admitting that these statements could be construed as sexist. And you're 100% correct.

So there's one vote for the "women don't have a sound ability to make 'big' decisions and will likely fold under pressure" idea, any others?

Good work bossman.. I didnt say they couldnt make big decisions,

[Edited]

Almost the same thing, but not quite.

[This message has been edited by slim-jim (edited 4/16/2007 6:28p).]

so they can make big decisions, but that they would fail to follow through?

I give up. I gave the reasons I believed that more women are not in top leadership positions in the past.

You get hung up on dissecting my words.

[This message has been edited by slim-jim (edited 4/16/2007 6:30p).]

I know that purely statistically, the likelihood of a woman becoming a red pot is very small simply because the lack of involvement of women in bonfire, especially in upperclassmen. It seems as though once she has either taken her turn as a chair, most of the time the girls are too burned out or disinterested to return the following year for more than a couple visits. I can really only think of five or six girls that were out there this year consistently that were upperclassmen--and this is not including OC bc I barely know any OC girls.

Maybe this provides as some explanation.

Another reason I believe there have been no female red pots has to do with the lack of respect (as a leader) that she would receive in the bonfire environment. Because it has been historically men forever and ever, a female would really stir up a lot of opposition. It is a similar case in the TAMUG Yell Leader elections, I think a couple years ago. It had nothing to do with the lack of ability to lead yells or excite the student body, it was just historically unheard of, and traditionally a male.

Not to say that I agree with this; I see this as a flaw in the organization.

[This message has been edited by Ellemenoquo (edited 4/16/2007 2:20p).]

Slim, I'm not dissecting your words, I'm merely responding to them. You even agree how what you wrote could be taken as overtly sexist and very non-PC. Others will and have agreed with this, I assure you.

Why is it that women are allowed and chosen to lead the government and hold top corporate jobs all across the country, yet they lack the necessary skills to be a top leader in Bonfire. I think the organization could benefit greatly from having a different sort of perspective on things like logistics and fundraising. Or maybe their dumb she-minds can't comprehend such things and they should leave that to you strapping, brilliant, simply better men.

quote:

---

most of the time the girls are too burned out or disinterested to return the following year for more than a couple visits.

---

Perhaps they're too burned out because many of the fine gentlemen out there share the same idea about women as slim does...

If the issue is that women would not garner the same level of respect as the boys out there currently running it, maybe that's not a refelction on women as a whole, but rather a reflection on the mindset/culture of the organization and the attitudes of its members that harbor and creat such a culture.

[This message has been edited by SquareOne07 (edited 4/16/2007 2:55p).]

Ok, Square... to your initial sentiment.... I... I agree with you and it is a valid question. (omg, I just threw up a little in my mouth)

well thank you, it's a funny feeling I'm sure.

But what do you think about what I'm actually asking here too? I honestly and sincerely am curious to see what those with a great deal of involvement either past or present have to say regarding the matter.

[This message has been edited by SquareOne07 (edited 4/16/2007 5:28p).]

Actually Terry, I see this as a very legitimate question.

And I see Jim as probably the most qualified to answer it.

Well, as an overview, a few things have to be understood.

Neeley (until last year) was the only effectively active All-Girls dorm at Student Bonfire... and their crew only pulled 15-20 or less on average and MAYBE 30-40 at best. While Moses, Walton, Crocker, and (for basically all practical purposes) the Corp are All-Male crews and literally pull (I'd day) 60-70% of ALL Student Bonfire members. In the middle you have Hart and Schumacher (to a certain extent) which are co-ed and have male and female leaders, but are a drop in the bucket in comparison. The only fair representations of large female participation are OC and FHK.

I know very little about OC (but I do know that they DID have a female Yellow (Disney) in '05 so they potentially might be the least biased, so should I say the closest yet to achieving the upperleadership role) so I can't really speak for them. I myself though cut under FHK, and very much believe in the structure they use for their size and relative gender proportions, so much so I modeled Lechner for next year after them.

I feel as though it is the responsibility of the individual dorm to promote their own male and female sophomore leaders (chairs, chiefs, and yellows) and should be purely based on their freshman performance. This is something I feel IS actually being done appropriately inside existing co-ed dorms. This is in itself a leadership promotion.

I believe what you are inquiring about (reds or browns, because greens are female dominated already), is an issue we have yet to tackle. I feel like any female worthy of the position should be in the running. In my very little experience, no female sophomore leader I have seen has excelled enough to deem a red or brown. But let's be quite honest here, the odds are stacked severely against them. Here's a few of the issues they will face and skills they must have.

1. When it happens, they will be the first, a pioneer into a whole new realm of Bonfire that quite directly effects all the members of the organization. The magnifying glass will be on them constantly. Any and all people with even the slightest inferiority complex or cauvenistic attitude will be at a hairpin trigger and she will have to be able to deal with the constant abuse.
2. She will have to overcome the overwhelming shadow cast be larger dorms and their crew chiefs. Straight up fact: Most reds and browns have come from all-male dorms, because let's face it... Crocker as a dorm for example is impressive. They pull A LOT of folks and because of that their leaders have to be and tend to be of a higher caliber simply to keep everything organized. I can say that I honestly would depend on and feel safest with the Crocker chiefs leading my crew in my absence, and this sentiment comes directly from their reputation and the skill I have seen them showcase. At the end of the day, whoever gets the most attention or has the best reputation usually gets the pass down.
3. Because of #2, the first female will HAVE TO be an overachiever. To overcome any stereotype, you simply have to be nearly flawless. As a sophomore leader, she will have to ask questions before situations arise, give informed opinions when asked, accept opinions contrary to her own from higher leadership and try to make them work regardless, work tirelessly and efficiently (and ask and expect the same from her crew), and constantly ask for work from the Reds and Browns after completely her tasks perfectly. Really chomp at the bit, but not overaggressive or annoying.
4. She has to have a strong, bad ass swing, a loud voice, take no **** from anyone below, give no lip to anyone above, be precise, calculated and composed, be exact and honest, be wise but know when to listen, be strong and brave, and be understanding. She will have to be what is asked of every red pot, to be the symbol of what Bonfire is and stands for, and never relent from this cause.

Can I say all the Reds and Browns live up to this, no, but it is what is expected of them and if a woman came along with these skills there is no stopping her, and I honestly believe that.

Such an accomplishment is a lot to ask and is completely unfair, but these guidelines would make any candidate, male or female, a prime choice for a Red or Brown, it is living up to them.

Excellent post. I agree with you on so many points there. I think it's unfortunate that people who don't fit the typical "bonfire" mold aren't really given a look at. Like I've said, I think that somebody with a different "out of the mold" perspective could have some really great ideas to offer. I understand the role of Green is a female position only, but from what I've gathered, it seems that position is diminishing into a role player out there responsible for not only far less than that used to be, but far less than what they are capable of. All in all, my take on this is that I think some girls would be a great addition into the upper leadership for a good number of reasons.

Slim, way to edit the hell outta your post. If you didn't think they were sexist, you wouldn't have changed them, I'm glad you saw otherwise.

I think it is silly that girls can't be reds and browns. Also that guys can't be greens. That said we had a female Yellow in '05 (whoop). So it is not unprecedented.

Honestly, we were very open when it came to choosing who we wanted this year as Greens--and I know we joked a lot about looking at guys, but we really weren't joking. I think it more or less came down to the reputation of a Green Pot (the way it is now, not in Thomas's day) and finding a guy that would actually take the secretarial work over swinging an axe or running a saw.

Good post though, Sno

[This message has been edited by WH08PsyJayci (edited 4/16/2007 10:12p).]

I think a person's abilities should be matched up with what they are best as, regardless of their sex entirely. I could possibly see that happeneing one day Jayci.

I think that it may be awhile, but it's down the road somewhere. Definitely.

In 2001, when Unity Project (the first name for Student Bonfire) was formed, there were two women involved who would be considered (today) to be Reds. Joyce and Sarah both planned, raised money, put expenses on their own credit cards, swung axes, and helped in overall planning. When the off-campus Bonfire movement pulled together a bunch of the northside dorms; these women still worked behind the scenes but weren't as visible as Mac and Luke.

In 2002, Lukes girlfriend (now wife) wore his grey pot on a regular basis and deserved to have one of her own.

It can also be argued that the head green pot, in charge of money, event planning, sales, accounting, business affairs, and a myrad of other stuff did the job of a red because there is now a red dedicated to doing just these activities. That would add Kerri, Ashley, and Amanda to the list.

Sure, the title of Red pot is a very respected one and should be treated as such (for all the work those that wear it do), but you can't neglect the efforts that women have taken in the off-campus Bonfire history. I'm sure that if any of the women listed above had reallly wanted a pot, they'd have had a rock-solid case to wear one.

-------------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a Soldier.

quote:

---

It can also be argued that the head green pot, in charge of money, event planning, sales, accounting, business affairs, and a myrad of other stuff did the job of a red because there is now a red dedicated to doing just these activities.

---

If these were the responsibilities of the greens, then why were those responsibilities transferred?

Square, I know you know the greens personally, how about you ask them.

[This message has been edited by slim-jim (edited 4/17/2007 2:34p).]

why don't you go ahead and take a shot at fielding the question?

quote:

---

why were those responsibilities transferred?

---

Experience, stream-lining, lessons learned, reporting, and less "static" among the layers of leadership.

If you'd like to examine the organizational charts throughout the stages of off-campus Bonfre, I'd be happy to go over them with you in person at first cut next semester. I just typed up a huge discussion about it, but would rather just go over it in person.

-------------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a Soldier.

so basically, taking away responsibilities from the greens (the girls) just makes everybody lives a little easier, right? I'm not meaning to sound inflamatory, that's just what you said. Some responsibilities went from the greens to the reds for the reasons you listed right there.

But hey, those girls are pretty good at making sammiches and checking people in.

Don't get me wrong. I love Bonfire... I love my sisters and I love some of the guys I worked side-by-side with... but there are some things that I wish would change.

As an old Green (which, btw, was on the same level as the browns formally even if it wasn't accepted as such), I am saddend that the responsibilities were taken away... but I knew it was inevitable.

The Greens arguably were never really able to exercise the power that was given to us anyway. (And it didn't help that some certain few slacked on responsibilities...) We constantly had to run ideas by the Greys before carrying them out... and the Greys were too busy worrying about building it to take some of the ideas seriously. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but it's true.

Regardless, someone needs to worry about event planning and someone needs to worry about building the hell. And those someones need to do their jobs well.

As far as leadership goes -- I don't ever see a female Red or Brown. Not as long as the culture persists. There's a culture of female subordination in Bonfire -- because of the extreme conservative mindset AND the filth that is promoted and/or tacitly approved.

Stereotypes form social norms. Women serve men in various ways so the men can work. Women aren't strong enough or smart enough to do the necessary work.

I've recently done some research on power and influence as a function of gender in my master's program. In male-dominated organizations, women fight up-hill battles. If a woman actually gets into the role, it's a matter of time before she's ridiculed.

There would have to be a MAJOR cultural shift for women to assume top leadership roles, which is something that I don't see happening anytime soon... especially given the men that were in leadership positions during my time. I was actually told by one of the Greys that women can't be leaders.

It sucks, but unless women begin to stand up for themselves -- AND have support from male leaders in doing so -- I don't see it happening. There's research to back such information.

I just wish I would have recognized so much of this when I was in a position to do something about it.

Here's a shorter post that answers the original question:

- Stereotypes influence cultural norms, which exert much influence in power relations and leadership
- Female stereotypes include women being seen as nurturing, fickle and weak
- Male stereotypes include men being seen as strong, authoritative, direct and decisive
- Leaders in Bonfire are arguably picked on their conformity to male stereotypes
- Females that exhibit such masculine traits are not broadly respected because they deviate from the accepted norm -- so even if women are not excluded from the search, they're subconsiously discounted because they don't conform to stereotypes

Ironically enough, women in Bonfire are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If women exhbit the female stereotype, then they don't have the traits to be leaders in a male-dominated organizations. If women exhibit male stereotypes, then they are deviants and they aren't accepted broadly.

If you're interested in gender-power research, I can send you a ton of articles to back my statements.

[This message has been edited by northsidegreek06 (edited 4/17/2007 11:06p).]

quote:

---

than why hasn't a female ever been considered for such a role within the organization?

---

Oh the things that you don't even know...just because none were picked, doesn't mean 0 were considered.

quote:

---

Again I ask, has such an idea ever been considered?

---

Yes

You are discounting that age is a factor, so are "years involved", "years participated", dedication, and attitudes beyond the fire.

I would venture to say Greek is dead on Vin...err nevermind. It has very little to do with the reasons you mentioned and nearly everything to do with what Greek said. It's that girls don't fit into the mold considered necessary to suceed as a leader in Bonfire, and would be received so harshly, like snoball said, that they would be ridiculed endlessly. Girls just can't cut it, look only to Jim's overlty sexist remarks earlier about girls' inability to make decisions and see them through.

Bonfire culture wouldn't accept or tolerate having a female at the top, at least in view of all the workers. She wouldn't be respected, and I sincerely doubt that any of her fellow leaders would push for her to be respected.

I was recently told that "Bonfire is a business" and as such it should make decisions that would put itself in the best position to succeed. I'm not saying that countless bad decisions are being made, but I assure you, excluding females from leadership and phasing out their roles as leaders within the organization is a bad call. A bad business call that will ultimately hurt the business.

Square-- I took this on a few years back (not realizing some of the things that I do now) and got nowhere. It was blown way out of proportion and it was even rumored that I was going to sue bonfire for discrimination -- when in fact, I just mentioned that if someone not as passionate about Bonfire was told some of the things that was said to female leadership, Bonfire would likely see a lawsuit. I'd never sue Bonfire and only said that as a possible outcome from being not being aware of laws (since we are a business).

Granted, I was speaking to the wrong Grey about it... but I know his brothers shared similar sentiments as his.

People in majority positions don't view it as a problem, even if it is. That's a powerful thing to overcome.

I wish the best for Bonfire and I sincerely hope that such barriers will be broken down over time. But it takes work... active, concerted work. I just don't see that happening. No offense to you newbies out there, but undergrads tend to have blinders on -- they can't see beyond the immediate future. That immediate future includes a social norm that women cannot lead Bonfire. I know that is a fact because I've felt it and I've been specifically told that.

Though, I would like to add that when I spoke to Opie about my concerns RE: female leadership back then, he was more open than most to entertain the thought. I think it's great that we have people like him in the BOD.

[This message has been edited by northsidegreek06 (edited 4/18/2007 2:37a).]

Square, do you have to full story as to why some responsibilities have being taken away from the Greens or did Jayci just tell you that was happening and you ran with your own assumptions? It's possible I wasn't told the entire story either but I can tell you it was not a decision based on gender. Keep pursuing your original question, it's valid and a worthwhile discussion, but the current situation with the Greens is not a gender related issue.

To your original question, NSG's points are probably the closest but not the absolute end-all explanation. I know there have been women Crew Chiefs and a few women that have been considered for higher positions and turned them down or did something to cause the decision to be reconsidered.

Case in point, I was going to pick a woman to replace me when I was YP until she started telling crew members that "she had it wrapped up and anything less would be an insult." Wouldn't have mattered male/female there as I saw that as an ego that would not put its crew ahead of itself.

As far as I am concerned, the lack of women leadership is *mostly* a percentages issue. When looking for leaders one should look for someone that has put in the time and work, has the drive and abilities to complete the job, can command respect from those beneath them, and respects those that they lead. Women are just as capable of those traits as men, maybe even more so, but when there is a significantly smaller pool of women, then it follows that there will not be as many with those traits available.

Now, I am sure that traditions play a big role in this too in that most guys would not really know how they would handle interacting with a woman in some of the situations that present themselves, so it's easier for them to just pick a guy.

Make no mistake about it, I'd support a woman leader out there, but only if she deserved the position. I'm totally against picking based on gender, race or whatever just because it's never been done before. I want someone qualified, even if it's an amorphous purple blob.

Scott Coker '92

DDP

[This message has been edited by northsidegreek06 (edited 4/18/2007 11:20a).]