It was only a matter of time before Eagle Scout Mike Rowe was asked about girls joining the Boy Scouts (see Boy Scouts Will Now Admit Girls and After 108, Boy Scouts to Get New Name After as Girls Join Group). Mike’s not opposed to girls having a division of their own in the Scouts.
As I read it, The Boy Scouts are launching a separate program that serves girls. Yes, The Girl Scouts are pissed, and the reason is clear – they don’t want the competition. But respectfully, is that argument even remotely persuasive? Competition is good, even among organizations that have similar goals. Especially now, with 90 million kids in this country unaffiliated with any youth-based organization. So I’m not opposed to building a program within Scouting for girls. But I am very worried about the future of Scouting in general.
I didn’t interpret the original Boy Scout story the way Make did. Mike says the Scouts are forming a new division for girls. I thought boys and girls were going to merge like a jar of peanut butter and jelly. If that is the case where girls will have their own division, fine. Basically the Girl Scouts, only with a different name. Also, more fun. Though with fewer cookies. Life is all about trade-offs.
The Girl Scouts had the opportunity to change. Provide these girls with something they wanted aside from shilling carb and sugary delights. Alas, they didn’t.
But Rowe was more concerned about the downward spiral of the Boy Scouts. Specifically how detrimental it is for boys to not have a place that helps them build character. Or learn how to be men.
In my opinion, this kind of attrition can only be explained by an increasing lack of relevance, or, the perception of irrelevance. Unfortunately, in situations like this, there’s no difference between perception and reality. And right now, there’s a perception that The Boy Scouts have gone soft. That’s the real tragedy, Sharon, because I can’t think of anything more needed in our country today, than a youth organization that offers kids the same experience I underwent in the basement of Kenwood Church. Why? Because our country’s current obsession with “safe spaces” is destroying character faster than the Boy Scouts of today can build it.
Bazinga, he’s right. It gets better:
Obviously, we want our kids protected from the hazards of a dangerous world. And clearly, the world we live it is a dangerous place. But safety is not the purpose of our existence, and this whole idea that kids need to be protected from fear, distress, discomfort, and disappointment is far more dangerous to the future of our country than anything I ever encountered in Scouting. You can’t build character in a “safe space.” You can only build dependence and entitlement, and you don’t have to look very far to see the results. Pardon my rant, but the stakes are high.
No argument from any of us. At least once a day, we’re writing about those stakes. Also, the results of “trying” to build character in a leftist safe space. Not to be confused with spaces for just boys or just girls. Trying to build character in a safe space free of reality is like trying to build a Lincoln Log cabin in actual space.
If you’re going to build character for boys, girls, or gender queer, non-conforming baby drag queens, eliminating actual societal conditions like fear, distress, discomfort, and disappointment, sets kids up to fail. Kids will then channel their energy into eating soap, identifying not as humans but as their front loading washer. Always the gentle cycle.
Kids need to be prepared for adulthood. Of which, unless abject tragedy strikes, they’ll spend most of their lives. Safe spaces aren’t real. They should be abandoned for actual reality. A crappy as it may be.