The oldest youth group in the US has undergone a ‘sex-change’ operation of sorts by declaring itself a ‘gender neutral’ outfit. Such a move does a considerable disservice to both American men and women.
Founded in 1910 by the American media magnate and explorer William D. Boyce, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) provided a rite of passage to adulthood for over 100 million young men throughout its history.
According to biographer Janice Petterchak, Boyce structured his organization around particular ‘character-building’ attributes – like civic duty, patriotism and self-reliance – that he believed were crucial for “making men.”
William D. Boyce is certainly turning in his grave today.
In keeping with these extreme PC times, which got a generous dose of lunacy following revelations of (male) sexual impropriety in Hollywood – most famously on Harvey Weinstein’s casting couch (which I believe should be donated to the Smithsonian Institute to commemorate the soft spot where Liberals lost their collective mind) – the Boy Scouts of America got the memo that it’s time to adjust their sails to a Category 5 cultural storm.
Thus, lest anyone think them racist or sexist or whatever, America’s largest youth club has dropped the obscene four-letter word ‘Boys’ from its logo, opting instead for the emasculated sounding ‘Scouts BSA’. The makeover, however, will be more than just cosmetic. Starting next year, girls will be accepted into the fraternal camping clan.
In fact, over 3,000 girls have already been granted membership in the Cub Scouts, a branch group for children ages 7-10. Meanwhile, the Boy Scouts, meticulously ticking all the compulsory PC boxes, has also affirmed its open-door policy to that infinitesimal segment of the US population that identifies as ‘transgender.’
“We wanted to land on something that evokes the past but also conveys the inclusive nature of the program going forward,” said Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh. “We’re trying to find the right way to say we’re here for both young men and young women.”
Personally, I think the newfound craze for vilifying and terminating male-only organizations has a lot to do with the ongoing inquisition against men, and more often than not living white men, who are now being held accountable for every historical crime committed by their deceased ancestors.
From slavery to colonialism to female oppression, white men are now viewed as public enemy number one. The situation has gotten so out of control that even historical monuments to long-dead white men are being removed from main squares across the country. If that fails to convince you that something is rotten in the land, then a quick look at a lecture syllabus from any number of liberal universities just might do the trick.
“There are whole disciplines in universities forthrightly hostile towards men,” explains Professor Jordan Peterson in his bestselling book, 12 Rules for Life. “These are the areas of study dominated by the post-modern neo-Marxist claim that Western culture in particular is an oppressive structure, created by white men to dominate and exclude women."
The unspoken message behind this critical focus on white men and their troubled past is that they can no longer be trusted to assemble in private without a female chaperone. Everything from “misogynist” male-only golf clubs to the innocence of the Boy Scouts is perceived as fertile breeding ground for the next big male screw-up. And here is where things get downright hypocritical and stupid: As hirsute males are now under extreme societal pressure to open their cigar rooms to women, the women themselves are under no such obligation to return the courtesy and invite the ungodly males into their private spaces.
The Girl Scouts of America, for example, will continue selling their cookies and meeting behind closed doors without any smelly boys around. And the hypocrisy does not end there. The exclusion of males is now acceptable in the upper reaches of polite society as well.
“Since the explosion of movements like Lean In, Me Too and Time’s Up, more women are seeking male-free environments where everything is tailored to a feminine (and mostly feminist) agenda, from networking to working out,” Marilisa Racco wrote in the National Online.
Racco believes that advocates for male-free zones will argue their case on the premise that “women have long been denied equality” and now the women should be free to host private female-only clubs where they devise strategies, I'm guessing, to smash through that glass ceiling put in place by mean old white men.
There are some glaring problems with this approach. First, such an agenda that wants to hit the pause button on male progress so “women can catch up” is not only dangerous to the ongoing functioning of society, it is insulting to the millions of intelligent, hard-working women out there. There are far too many smart and savvy females who do not need any sort of special favors from men to advance themselves.
Second, such a strategy employs the same discriminatory measures that the ‘old male network’ used against women and other minorities for centuries. Yet the PC caravan that hopes to make everyone equal overnight seems perfectly fine with that.
As it stands, American society is now in the midst of a great experiment, where the internal ‘hardware’ of the male and female species is being unnaturally reconfigured: knock the men down a few pegs on the ladder while lifting up the women (who, it must be said, really only joined the Western workplace in the aftermath of World War II). Does it surprise anyone that we are now witnessing the rise of bizarre movements where boys, for example, are being encouraged to wear female fashions, while pre-schoolers too young to lace up their own shoes are expected to understand their ‘sexual identities’? Is that how we're expected to 'balance the scales'?
How long can a nation that insists on turning biological fact into fiction in order to create an artificial equality be expected to survive? Not very long, I would guess.
In any case, a backlash is rising on the part of many men who are feeling a bit resentful about their new status, which is increasingly one of unemployment, sinking wages and even suicide. This demographic, which continues to hear tales of ‘male privilege,’ fail to see how that stereotype bears any semblance to the reality of their lives.
In fact, aside from testosterone-fueled spectator sports, like boxing, rugby and football, is there still a need in this high-tech world for ‘male traits’? Mother Nature has been tamed to the point of destruction, the roads and seas have been made largely safe for passage, while even warfare has become a detached, surgical affair that has made the swashbuckling warriors of yesteryear redundant.
All things considered, this seems to be the worst possible time for the Boy Scouts of America, which served for over a century as a ‘rite of passage’ for millions of young boys on the arduous road to manhood, to decide to change gears and recruit females.
There comes a time in the history of every nation when a particular movement, failing to understand the will of the people, pushes the boundaries of acceptability too far, thus endangering the very society it wishes to help. It appears American society has reached that point with the emasculation of the Boy Scouts. The Liberals have crossed the cultural red line, I would say, and it is high time for some sort of push back.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.