Connect with us

Culture and Religion

It would be funny if it wasn’t sad: Girl Scouts embrace gender roles to keep Boy Scouts out

Published

on

The Boy Scouts have abolished themselves by removing the “boy” from the “scouts.” This prompted the transgender-friendly, liberal, feminist Girl Scouts to suddenly squeal in protest because gender roles, apparently, are good. Who knew?

Mourning the end of the Boy Scouts

The Boy Scouts of America are now no more. The executive Scout council has voted, unanimously, to allow girls to into the Cub Scout program. We can expect that they will be allowed into full Scouting very soon, and to earn the coveted Eagle. While I was only a Cub Scout for a short time, I have seen one brother serve as a Life Scout, two brothers take their Eagles, with a third well on the way. And here is some what I’ve seen.

My younger brother Mark, experienced his own rite of passage, partially through the Scouts. Mark attended the Scouting camp at Boundary Waters. At that camp he and others traveled by canoe and foot. When on foot, they had to carry their boats on their backs. Mark told me that, at one point, he carried a boat virtually alone, and had no choice but to continue to walk. That experience taught him that the lesson of endurance in adversity. A lesson we want boys to learn, but don’t want them to suffer for. My brother later took that lesson into the Army’s Ranger School, where he suffered again, and succeeded again.

I’ve also seen my brothers learn, albeit with difficulty, lessons of self-reliance, leadership planning and more. I think what made all of this possible is the boys-only nature of Boy Scouts. In a boys-only environment, competition and cooperation are possible. They’re able to sort themselves into the natural order of leadership, which their abilities incline them.

When you introduce girls into a male environment, it changes things. Yes, I know, Cub Scouts haven’t reached puberty, but they will. And when the new girl Boy Scouts become young women, all the hormonally driven issues that plague us when we are teens will plague the Scouts.

What will the Scouts do, I wonder, if they catch Scouts involved with each other? What will the explanation be should a young woman become pregnant by a fellow Scout on a camping trip? How will the endless issues be handled when young men and young women are in close quarters with each other?

The obvious answer is that they cannot be ‘handled’ by the Scouts exccept by barring girls, which they no longer have the spine to do. If the U.S. military cannot handle these issues in a sane way, the Scouts cannot either. But besides bemoaning the end of the Scouts, and prophesying what may come, what makes this really hypocritical is the reaction of the Girl Scouts. The Girl Scouts have been progressive, so much so that no conservative mother known to me allows their daughters to be involved in Girl Scouts past about age 12 or so.

Hypocritical Girl Scouts embrace gender roles

As soon as the BSA announced their contradictory goal of allowing girls into the Boy Scouts, the head of the Girl Scouts let loose a volley.

So when men’s only groups exist they’re sexist old boys clubs, and must be hounded out of existence. And when girls only groups are threatened, then we must reverse ourselves and say that gender specific groups are good, but only for girls, because…men suck.

In what is being called a strongly worded letter, the Girl Scouts, and their spokesman, are accusing the BSA of trying to appeal to Millenial parents by letting girls in. The GSA spokesman cited research which supports gender-specific training, that is, girls having their own groups is a good thing.

Peak 2017: Girl Scouts angry over competition from … – Hot Air

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/24/peak-2017-girl-scouts-angry-competition/We have the famously progressive, pro-choice-supporting Girl Scouts squaring off against the famously conservative and religious Boy Scouts over gender identity and integration. I’m so old that I recall when people demanded that the Boy Scouts expand their membership to more protected categories, and when boycotts and marginalization were the only appropriate responses to male-only clubs and organizations. Wouldn’t it be better for girls to have a choice in scouting organizations?

Buzzfeed reported the letter saying, “For more than 100 years, our organizations have worked in a respectfully and complimentary manner, and we have been mutually supportive of one another’s mission to serve America’s youth. It is therefore unsettling that BSA would seek to upend a paradigm that has served both boys and girls so well through the years by moving forward with a plan that would result in fundamentally undercutting the Girl Scouts of the USA/”

They further reported:

“It’s a potentially dangerous and bad idea,” the spokesperson said, citing research supporting “single gender programming” which says that girls learn best in an all-girls environment when it comes to scouting.”

Wait, aren’t boys-only, and men-only, groups a bad thing?

The Takeaway

Women-only gyms are a good thing, because–women need a space to be safe from men. Okay, I can wrap my testosterone-warped brain around that one. Women want women’s groups, gyms, clubs etc, go ahead, civil society is free to form itself into the groups needed by its members. But on some campuses, men’s groups are blocked. In the UK, men’s only golf clubs were forced to open up to women years ago, to the detriment of wives who must now pay for 2 full memberships instead of 1. But wait, I see it now.

The key part of the GSA’s complain isn’t to do with gender-specific groups, but with ‘fundamentally undercutting the Girl Scouts of the USA.”

So when men’s only groups exist they’re sexist old boys clubs, and must be hounded out of existence. And when girls only groups are threatened, then we must reverse ourselves and say that gender specific groups are good, but only for girls, because…men suck.

If this weren’t so sickening I’d be amused. But seeing the legendary Boy Scouts of America prostrate themselves before the forces of the Left is nothing short of a sorry end to a noble institution, which impacted the lives of countless boys and men, including me.

We’ve learned two things from this sorry episode.

  1. Eventually the Left ruins everything,
  2. When ideology meets cash, cash wins.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA proof that she’s at least 1/1024th Native American. Twitter responds appropriately.

Published

on

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA proof that shes at least 11024th Native American Twitter responds appr

There’s a strategist in Senator Elizabeth Warren’s ear who thought it was a good idea to release results of a DNA test showing a likelihood that one of her very distant descendants was Native American. The advice taken. The results were predictable.

The test shows she is at most 1/32nd Native American if she is six generations from her Native American ancestor. That’s her best-case scenario. At worst, her ancestor was as far back as ten generations which would make her 1/1024th Native American. To put that into perspective, if she were to honor her heritage by engaging in 1/1024th of a four-hour Native American Sweat, she’d be in and out of the lodge in 14 seconds.

Elizabeth Warren releases results of DNA test on Native American ancesty

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.htmlThe inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/1024th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

Undergoing the test and releasing the results reveal how seriously Warren is taking the attacks from Trump, who has been able to effectively caricature and diminish his national foes via nicknames and conspiracy theories. Trump pushed then President Barack Obama into releasing the long form of his birth certificate to prove what most knew was already true: He was born in America.

This publicity stunt was designed to let everyone know she’s serious about running for President in 2020. She wanted to be able to call out President Trump on his promise to give $1,000,000 to charity if she could prove Native American heritage. He won’t pay, of course, which will get plenty of headlines calling him a deal-breaking scoundrel, but was it really if for her to be the focus of even more jokes on social media?

Here are some of the reactions on Twitter. You decide:

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Katherine Timpf on fighting political correctness

Published

on

Katherine Timpf on fighting political correctness

National Review reporter and Fox News contributor Katherine Timpf often discusses political correctness. She talks about it so often that one might think it’s a subject she enjoys, but in reality it’s simply a problem she passionately wants to solve.

In American society, it is way too easy to offend. People do not want to hear that their perspectives are wrong. That’s apparently some form of violence. They don’t want to hear an opposing viewpoint. That’s allegedly a form of oppression. Many on the left feel entitled to express their opinions in any way they see fit and also to prevent others from sharing their opinions if there’s a difference in worldviews.

The hypocrisy of political correctness is thick.

As Timpf recently pointed out on National Review, it’s a problem that doesn’t have an easy solution, but trends are pointing to positive movement against the specter of political correctness.

Political Correctness: Study Finds 80 Percent of Americans Think It’s a Problem

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/political-correctness-problem-according-to-80-percent-of-people/I could go on for pages and pages, but you get the point: Writing about political correctness sometimes makes me feel as if everyone has gone mad, and I’m very glad to see that this doesn’t seem to be the case. Instead, a strong majority of people apparently agrees with me. A strong majority believes that political correctness has gone too far, and probably would agree that we need to be careful to protect our ability to speak freely in this country.

That’s certainly encouraging, but it still doesn’t make me feel entirely better. After all, the small, PC-obsessed mob can sometimes be very powerful. Once it decides that someone or something is racist or sexist, that conclusion can carry a lot of weight. It can ruin careers and lives. It can remove perfectly good, innocuous words from acceptable speech, because even the people who might not see a problem with those words don’t want to risk being accused of racism or sexism for using them. The only answer is to keep fighting, to keep exposing and mocking such overreach when it occurs — and to take solace in the fact that so many people have awoken to its dangers.

Keep fighting the good fight, Ms. Timpf.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Reason: Socialism fails every time

Published

on

By

Reason Socialism fails every time

If Socialism Actually Worked, the Left wouldn’t have to Lie about it.

John Stossel has a new video featuring Gloria Álvarez who knows the truth about Socialism. She passionately decimates all of the Left’s lies about what is truly organised evil.

Socialism has become cool in America, under the nice name “democratic socialism”.

Gloria Álvarez knows better, because she’s from Latin America and studied socialism there. She says: watch out! Socialism has a clear track record of wrecking every country that implements it.

Cuba tried socialism. Things got so bad that tens of thousands fled the island on dangerous, makeshift rafts. Others paid lots of money to be allowed to leave.

After Cuba, the next Latin American country to get totally immersed in socialism was Venezuela. For a while, things seemed to work okay thanks to the country’s oil wealth; Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and used to be the richest country in Latin America.

Celebrities like Michael Moore and Sean Penn visited Hugo Chavez and praised his socialism.

Venezuelans were happy, too. A former mayor in Venezuela’s capital city told Álvarez: “People were clapping so hard. They were like, ‘Oh, finally there is somebody here making social justice.'”

But eventually socialism led to a mismanagement of the economy that was so bad that money started to run out. The government just printed more, so much more that it led to million-percent inflation.

But some still defend socialism, saying that what happened there “isn’t real socialism.” Bernie Sanders says: “when I talk about Socialism I am not looking at Venezuela, I’m not looking at Cuba. I’m looking at countries like Denmark, like Sweden.”

But Denmark’s prime minister says that’s a mistake: “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” he clarified.

In Scandinavian countries, government regulates business less than America’s government does. Scandinavian countries don’t even have a minimum wage.

Real socialism looks more like Cuba and Venezuela.

Álvarez hopes people look at socialism’s track record before implementing it anywhere else.

If the stakes weren’t so deadly serious, the Left’s absurd contradictions on this subject would be quite amusing. The video had several celebrities trying to claim that normal government functions are somehow ‘socialism’, without explaining how this is the case. Other Leftists will claim that certain socialist regimes weren’t actually socialist, but were really ‘Right-Wing’, again without explaining how this is the case. However, those supposedly non-socialist, ‘Right-Wing’ regimes had normal government functions – road, liberties etc. So by the lights of the first contention, wouldn’t they be socialist?

But let us put this as succinctly as possible:

If Socialism Actually worked:

The Left wouldn’t have to falsely claim that normal government functions are ‘socialism’.
The Left wouldn’t have to Lie about the definition of the word.
The Left wouldn’t have to pretend that Scandinavian countries are socialist.
The Left wouldn’t have to lie, claiming that totalitarian Socialist regimes are supposedly ‘rightwing’.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need ‘revolutionary terror’.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need Tanquetas’ or ‘Ballenas’ to keep the people in line.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need secret police and torture to suppress dissent.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need barbed wire or mine fields to keep people from leaving.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need concentration camps, gulags or ‘re-education’ camps.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need firing squads or as ‘Che Guevara’ put it, the ‘pedagogy of the wall’.

The Takeaway.

If the organised evil that is socialism [Or it’s 40+ alternative labels] didn’t defy basic human nature, being a functional system, there would be no reason for the nation’s Socialist-Left to Lie about it. If it had actually accomplished something useful – aside from 100+ Million dead – it’s proponents could simply sell it without all of the falsehoods and outright lies. Those who advocate for that collectivist system – while claiming they aren’t it’s advocates – could simply be honest about what they want to impose on the rest of us.

Compare this to the entirely workable – but never claiming to be perfect – system of economic Liberty.
Those of us who are advocates for freedom have no need to pretend that systems of economic Liberty are something else. We have no need to make false claims or pretend it something that it is not. We only need to sell it on it’s great achievements, something the advocates of socialism can never do.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report