Toxic effeminacy kills the Boy Scouts

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimG

Guest
“Less than a year after the Boy Scouts of America decided to invite girls to join, the organization announced that it will refer to its older youth program as “Scouts BSA” starting in February 2019.

Toxic effeminacy/feminism arose from Equality. Equality destroys whatever it touches, like an acid which gains in strength as it dissolves. Equality is the belief that the holder of Equality should be superior to those who do not hold to Equality.

As proof of this, look to the Girl Scouts. Are they also dropping “Girl” and merging with the newly created “Scouts”? No, sir.”

Toxic Effeminacy Kills The Boy Scouts – William M. Briggs
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Yes I have…
 
Excellent point. I’m offended. Outraged even. Remind me to sue our local Girl Scout troop. “Girl Scout Cookies help support discrimination.” Now there’s a tabloid headline for you. Also, one totally in line with the hysteria that’s so much at home in today’s media.
 
i have a friend who has been involved in Boy Scouts for many years and he said they have welcomed girls for a long time. i had no idea.
i am not sure what they were able to do, but he said it has gone on for sometime.
 
Can boys still be boys in the new scouts, or do they have to become the effeminate metrosexuals society today so adores?
 
Last edited:
As a father with two sons currently in Boy Scouts, I can assure Chicken Little that the sky is not falling. The blog article cited in the OP is an exercise in illogic and absurdity:
… knife skills will have to be tossed. Camping won’t be allowed in actual woods; sites will be mandated to be within so-many feet of sanitary bathrooms. Cell phones will be a must. Matches are out. Somebody might get hurt.

Somebody is probably working on an app right now that simulates camping. This will be used by those unable to go on real camping trips, and those too frightened or too shy.

There will be badges for Getting Along, another for Sexual Orientation Awareness, or for some euphemism along those lines. Maybe they already have them.
Every word of that passage is made up. I had to check the date to see if it was written for April Fools Day.

While the blog article is mostly lies and caricatures, it does serve as a good example of how not to discuss recent changes in the Boy Scouts program. We could take a different approach, and look up the facts and discuss it like reasonable people.

I would be happy to examine every aspect of the Boy Scouts programs and try to identify the parts that are inappropriate for individual girls or for groups comprised of both boys and girls. I don’t see any problem with girls learning how to tie knots, start and tend camp fires, use pocket knives safely, perform first aid, prepare for the weather, hike, pitch a tent and sleep in it, cook on a camp fire or portable stove, and clean up the camp site before leaving. What about learning a code of honor, teaching skills to younger members of the group, taking on roles of leadership and responsibility, and performing community service? Any problems so far?

I am starting to wonder what Boy Scouts do that is actually boy specific. Can you guys help me out? Where, in the Boy Scout programs, is there anything that applies only to boys, or is inappropriate for girls?

The only thing I can think of is that maybe, just maybe, there could be something that can only be accomplished in an all-male group. Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
Full disclosure here: In my sons’ Boy Scout troop, there are no girl members, not yet, anyway, and the boys generally seem to be opposed to the idea of girl members. I mean, they know rules are rules, and they will abide by those rules, but they would prefer to keep it all boys.

However, several of the Boy Scouts have sisters and mothers who come and hang out at some of the Scout activities including hiking and camping. The boys don’t seem to mind that.
 
Last edited:
I think given a choice of reasonable inequality vs unreasonable equality, I would choose reasonable inequality.
 
I mean, they know rules are rules, and they will abide by those rules, but they would prefer to keep it all boys.
I have heard no hint of the BSA mandating changes in the various troops, at the troop level, only allowing some new changes, so I think there is nothing to fear. An not, the Boy Scouts are neither dead, nor effeminate.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So what? Life goes on 🤫
 
Full disclosure here: In my sons’ Boy Scout troop, there are no girl members, not yet, anyway, and the boys generally seem to be opposed to the idea of girl members. I mean, they know rules are rules, and they will abide by those rules, but they would prefer to keep it all boys.
Well, right now the change authorizes the creation of female troops of scouts, but does not authorize mixed-gender troops. That’s a good thing, IMO, because it reserves the space for boys to learn and grow within a male environment and to interact with male role models while discussing and learning lessons about what it is to be a good man. The same should go for female scout troops.
 
Last edited:
“Toxic effeminancy kills the Boy Scouts.”

It’s also been killing off male vocations for decades now.
 

Today Boy Scouts. Tomorrow - the Priesthood.
Too bad. All many a meek American man can retort with is " yes dear "
( or else )
 
Last edited:
it reserves the space for boys to learn and grow within a male environment and to interact with male role models while discussing and learning lessons about what it is to be a good man.
That’s what I was looking for, a good argument for all-male groups.
 
What it was:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

What it will be:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top