No More Boy Scouts
link
I'm not the biggest fan of single-sex organizations...but I'm against people doing things for stupid reasons. E.g.: giving up on the 'boy' in 'Boy Scouts' on account of "transgender" nonsense. So I don't have any big problem with the Boy Scouts accepting girls. But I am pissed off that they're doing it largely for the idiotic reasons that some girls pretend to be boys. If the fact that people can pretend to be x's is sufficient to force an organization for x's to stop being an organization for x's, then that's the end of any organization that's exclusive in any way. Though, weirdly, no one seems to think that pretending to be a doctor is enough to make you eligible to join the AMA...
Ah, well. People are pretending that the magical ability to be what you pretend to be is limited to sex (and also pretending to mean that it's "gender"). So at least the madness is contained to one kind of thing. Considerations of consistency apparently aren't strong enough to override the crazy leftist desire to accommodate every whim of people claiming to be sexual minorities. So that keeps it contained, in a way...but prevents considerations of consistency from forcing people to admit how nuts it all is. Progressives, as it turns out, don't actually care about truth very much. Not being a meany who does mean things like meanly acknowledging the mean fact that, for example, Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is a dude is way more important to them. Denying plain facts they're actually chillingly good at; resisting leftist groupthink...not so much. But it's conservatives who are anti-science! And also: doubting the alleged consensus of climatology, when none of us understand a damn thing about it, is the paradigm of irrationality. Whereas denying the plain evidence of our senses with respect to elementary facts about human biology that we understand well...that's totally cool.
Honestly, progressivism is even more antirational than conservatism is. I don't understand how it gets away with pretending otherwise.
I'm not the biggest fan of single-sex organizations...but I'm against people doing things for stupid reasons. E.g.: giving up on the 'boy' in 'Boy Scouts' on account of "transgender" nonsense. So I don't have any big problem with the Boy Scouts accepting girls. But I am pissed off that they're doing it largely for the idiotic reasons that some girls pretend to be boys. If the fact that people can pretend to be x's is sufficient to force an organization for x's to stop being an organization for x's, then that's the end of any organization that's exclusive in any way. Though, weirdly, no one seems to think that pretending to be a doctor is enough to make you eligible to join the AMA...
Ah, well. People are pretending that the magical ability to be what you pretend to be is limited to sex (and also pretending to mean that it's "gender"). So at least the madness is contained to one kind of thing. Considerations of consistency apparently aren't strong enough to override the crazy leftist desire to accommodate every whim of people claiming to be sexual minorities. So that keeps it contained, in a way...but prevents considerations of consistency from forcing people to admit how nuts it all is. Progressives, as it turns out, don't actually care about truth very much. Not being a meany who does mean things like meanly acknowledging the mean fact that, for example, Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is a dude is way more important to them. Denying plain facts they're actually chillingly good at; resisting leftist groupthink...not so much. But it's conservatives who are anti-science! And also: doubting the alleged consensus of climatology, when none of us understand a damn thing about it, is the paradigm of irrationality. Whereas denying the plain evidence of our senses with respect to elementary facts about human biology that we understand well...that's totally cool.
Honestly, progressivism is even more antirational than conservatism is. I don't understand how it gets away with pretending otherwise.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:48 PM
6 Comments:
I have to say, a lot of girls would want this. Girl Scouts sell cookies. Boy Scouts at least occasionally actually go hiking and winter camping, etc.
Yeah, I don't think it's a bad idea--and until this, I didn't realize that BSA > GSA.
It's the dumb reason that got it started, and the jihad against all-male organizations to which I object.
It's about damn time, I don't care what the reason is. The Eagle Scout award is far more prestigious (e.g., in the military) then the girl scout equivalent. And it's good to see the Boy Scouts opening up. I returned my Eagle Scout Award years ago when they openly discriminated against Gays and Atheists. Ironically, they wouldn't take my name off of the list even though I stated specifically I was an atheist. I did remove it from my resume. I'm not quite ready to claim it again...but at least the organization is getting there. Finally.
Boo for being anti-gay and anti-atheist...but is the prestige of being an Eagle Scout really a good reason to admit girls? There are plenty of other opportunities for girls to distinguish themselves.
Again, not that I'm the biggest fan of sex-segregation.
It really does make a difference in the military (or used to). I forget what the recruiter told me, but I remember i'd come in at a distinct advantage for earlier promotion. And it looked really, really good on a resume.
Side story: My scout master tried really hard to get us finished as quickly as possible. In his words "After they turn fifteen, boys become Girl Scouts". Funny and um...true. So many never finished due to being...well, teenage boys.
That's a hilarious line.
And, yeah, Eagle Scout is impressive everywhere, I'd think. I think I got a grand total of like two merit badges.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home