The end of Western Civilization arrived Wednesday, when the Boys Scouts of America announced it was dropping “boy” from its name and will now be known simply as “Scouts BSA.”
The name change is consistent with the group’s change in policy. In October the organization announced it would begin allowing girls to join Boys Scouts this year.
When that announcement was made, there were those who felt sure we were living in the “end times,” but most folks had pretty much forgotten about it until Wednesday, when the world again stopped spinning round upon hearing of the name change.
Like some folks, I had never made the connection between a boy and girl learning to tie knots or build pinewood derby cars in the same room as a sure sign that America had gone — you choose — “sissy” or “communist” or “libtard.”
But a survey of Twitter comments on the name change has shown me there are those who consider this a disastrous turn of events.
State senator Chris McDaniel (Neanderthal, Ellisville), who is running for U.S. Senate on the He-Man Woman Hater’s ticket, jumped into the fray immediately:
“Sadly, the Boy Scouts have surrendered the most essential badge: COURAGE,” he tweeted.
McDaniel’s comments were pretty typical:
— “R.I.P. Boy Scouts, 1910-2018. Yet another institution has come under siege by Political Correctness. Liberalism is slowly decaying everything that was once good in our society,”
— “This is the culture war we face. The goal of the left is to convert men into weak, feckless, cupcakes,”
— “We’re doing our best to raise a generation of boys who will not be able to defend themselves, their families, or their country.”
I waded into the firestorm of hysteria to pose a simple question: What is it about the Boys Scouts’ programs, values and skills it promotes that make it exclusively for boys?
No one gave me a real answer. The closest I got was that boys need time to be with other boys and to learn what it means to be a man. You start brining in girls and it ruins the whole dynamic.
I’ll accept that as a reasonable response – I also believe that boys learn about what it means to be male from being around other boys just as girls learn about being girls from their girl friends.
But if the survival of that dynamic depends on the survival of the Boys Scouts as a male-only organization, we’re already pretty much done for already. There are, after all, only 2.3 million boys currently enrolled in Boy Scouts out of a male under-18 population of 73 million. That means 70 million boys are well on their way to being “weak, feckless, cupcakes who are unable to defend themselves, their families and their country.”
For most boys and girls, there are ample opportunities to self-segregate and learn from each other. That’s always been true and will remain true. Whatever the Scouts do or don’t do with their membership is of little consequence.
Pressed on that, some people responded that girls and boys are different — which wasn’t much of a revelation — and that they should be treated differently.
Blacks and whites are different, too. So are Catholics and Protestants, rich folks and poor folks.
History has shown us what happens when we segregate groups on the basis of those differences. It has never ended well.
The other most common argument — girls have Girl Scouts — touches on another failed experiment in our history — the separate but equal accommodations. Those experiments got it half right. They were certainly separate, but definitely not equal.
Anyone familiar with these two scout organizations understand there are a lot of differences in the programs they offer.
If a child prefers one program over another, where is the harm in allowing access to that program? Should that child be denied that opportunity strictly on the basis of gender?
I cannot imagine that a boy is somehow emasculated by the mere presence of a girl sitting around the same campfire.
It is an archaic idea, one that supports the contrived notion of “boys will be boys” and “girls have their place.”
Many of the gender roles we have held onto for generations are needless, pointless and damaging.
Today, we have women serving honorably in combat units, after all, and women are filling roles that were once considered exclusively male.
And you know what? We are the better for it.
If you can find one program in Boy Scouts that is not suitable for girls, I’d like to know what that program is.
Our Constitution is based on the idea of equality — more specifically, the idea of equal opportunity. As a nation, we believe — or at least, should believe — that while a person may not be able to achieve something, he or she should not be denied the opportunity to try it. That should apply to all races, all religions, all sexual orientations and, yes, genders, too.
When we place artificial limits on what people are permitted to pursue, we are limiting our potential as a nation.
If Boys Scouts are teaching anything that is unsuitable for girls to learn, it’s a sure bet they are teaching the wrong lesson.
Slim Smith is a columnist and feature writer for The Dispatch. His email address is [email protected].
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 41 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.