Reading it again now, perhaps I could've articulated the point more clearly.
Basically BSA excludes homosexuals because homosexuality is deemed "deviant behavior" or some such. Given that, I find it hypocritical of BSA to make any exclusion (especially based on sexual perference or behavior) when members of the organization appear in so many headlines revealing sexual deviancy in the ranks (e.g. child molestation, pedophilia, child pornography, etc.).
In a way it's like the Catholic church condemning homosexuals while at the same time covering up the actions of a few sexually deviant members of the priesthood. Where does hypocrisy begin?
Point? If an organization is going to take a stand against "sexual deviancy" then it should be sure that none of its members are behaving in a way that is deviant. Here I'm defining child molestation/pornography/etc. as sexual deviancy (not many sane folks would debate that). But I'm not defining homosexuality as deviant (and there a lot of folks would rise to the debate, I'm sure).
The BSA moves quickly to kick out anyone who they percieve could tarnish their reputaion. Molesters, homosexuals, whoever. I don't see how this can be considered hypocritical.
On the other hand, even if they expel a member, I'm not sure that their behavior is necessarily exemplary, in that they may not turn him over to law enforcement, in order to keep the story quiet. But I would say that in the last ten years at least, they do get the law involved.
If an organization is going to take a stand against "sexual deviancy" then it should be sure that none of its members are behaving in a way that is deviant.
It sounds like what your're saying is that they shouldn't discriminate against one form of percieved deviance until they remove all the others. But since one can never be sure who is a child molester until they're caught, it doesn't make sense to ban the kiddie porn perusers until they get all the molesters. They don't prioritize. Molesters go. Gays go. Atheists go.
And I'm not saying this to defend their actions, I'm just saying that they're acting logically given their beliefs. You can say that their beliefs are wrong, but I don't think you can say their polices don't match their beliefs.
I don't know about nationwide or historically, but right now, in the area where I live, Girl Scouts is a truly wonderful organization. Badges are earned by community service and experiences that most girls would never get otherwise. Girls gain skills, confidence, and independence that will truly help them and society as they grow into women. I'm extremely grateful for R's participation in a great troop, coordinated by three troop leaders and with input and involvement of every mom of every Girl Scout. I plan the meeting for the end of May!
I'm surprised by this response. I thought you'd say, the best organization for Boys. But you really don't think Girl Scouts are that good for girls?? Oh my god, you have no idea what you're saying.
I've worked with a few girl scout leaders, and some of them hate trying to work within that organization. Some recognize some other faults. I overstated it when I said that "very few" would disagree, but I still think there's a big difference. I know the organization, and I know what effort goes into it. I know what the boys go through and are required to learn, and I know that the GS leaders I've heard from say it's a much more structured and in-depth program.
I could certainly say that Girl Scouting is better for girls than Boy Scouting is for girls, but there are branches of Scouting under the BSA that are coed.
Oh, ok, I just read this and now know the basis behind your comment. But now I'm wondering if you're talking about your local scout leaders' experiences. I think that there is great variation throughout the country. And I do know that locally, girl scout leaders think that the Girl Scouts seems to be a stronger, more effective organization - right here, right now.
Did you mean stronger and more effective than the Boy Scouts?
On the National level, I don't think you can beat the BSA. They're good on the council level. Our district leadership is not so hot. Some of our district members kick ass.
Some of the things I've heard complaints about the Girl Scouts seemed to be organization-wide. But maybe it was council level. I can't remember the specific examples, but I heard horrors stories about things the girls weren't allowed to do (some for safety reasons), that our boys learn as first year scouts. The leaders in question gave up Girl Scouting in absolute frustration.
Yes, a troop leader told me that locally the Girl Scouts is a far better organization, in her opinion.
From the little I know, it seems like Girl Scouts is very effective at giving girls leadership experience that they might never otherwise get. I think it truly fosters self-esteem, particularly for teenage girls at a time when they might otherwise start losing any self-confidence they may have had as younger girls. And this in itself is vital in contemporary American society.
I'm not sure if she was a member of both. But my question remains whether the opinions of those you spoke to were limited to your area or were expressed about scouting in general, nationwide.
I wanted to be a cub scout instead of a brownie...
I think I am so into nature and being independent thanks to the scouting programs. My parents didn't have the time or interest in the stuff the scouts did.
I think the Boy Scout's is a rich white people thing personally. i'd rrather have my kid learn that stuff from me, or with me. Organizations like it support a lot of things I don't value-like gawd, and stuff.
While troops can vary, and I can empathize slightly with the fear that homosexual males are also pedophiles (Not necassarily true obviously, but I can understand where the uptight whiteys get it from. Damn bibles.) I have never met a single Scout Leader I'd trust with my kids-and not just in a sexual way. (Which would honestly be the last of my concerns until I had reason to think otherwise) I just don't trust a lot of people to begin with, let alone christians. (Yes, I absolutely discriminate based on anyone of the thirteen protected discrimatory harassment catergories. Fuck politically correct.)
I don't know why you'd think it's a rich white people thing. Wealth has nothing to do with it. I guess blacks don't get into camping like white people do, but there's more to it than camping, and there are a lot of urban troops.
I'm sure there are parents out there who teach their kids all (or most, anyway) of what they can learn in scouting, but they're uncommon. If you're one of them, good for you. I'm not saying that all kids need scouting, but I think most can benefit.
I'm also not saying that all troops are ideal. Most aren't, come to think of it, but some do what they're supposed to do, and excel.
As far as religion goes, not all troops have any kind of religious orientation at all. I was in my troop for over twenty years, and I can count on one hand the number of religious servies or religious-themed activites we did. If a boy wanted to do that sort of thing, we were supportive, but through all the various leaders, we almost never suggested it.
What it boils down to, is that I was on the inside and on the front lines. I know what the organization is capable of, and it's a pretty damn good thing.
I thought that Boy Scouts had to do something regarding religious activities in order to get a particular badge. I read of some conflicts with agnostic and athiest parents over this. I'd be glad to know it's not true.
The boys can earn religious emblems. Any church that wants can submit requirements for an award that anyone who follows that religion may earn. They're pretty basic requirements, and they're never required under any circumstance. In my twenty years in scouting, I bet our troop didn't hand out half a dozen of them.
You may be thinking of religiouis activities in general. Most troops will have a sunday morning "church" service, when they're on an outing. Such an ecumenical service would be required, and some kids would balk. But to believe in a god is a requirement. On the rare occasions we held such services, the kids who didn't believe or didn't care to participate were asked to show some respect and sit quietly. It's like the homosexual thing, don't make a stink about it, and nobody cares. If you're in the right troop, anyway.
Hm, maybe I'll find out more about what I had heard. It was something about needing a particular badge to move up to the next level. If this kid didn't meet requirements related to religious participation, he couldn't advance in the Scouts, and it was a real problem for his agnostic mother (more than for the Scout himself!).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
Basically BSA excludes homosexuals because homosexuality is deemed "deviant behavior" or some such. Given that, I find it hypocritical of BSA to make any exclusion (especially based on sexual perference or behavior) when members of the organization appear in so many headlines revealing sexual deviancy in the ranks (e.g. child molestation, pedophilia, child pornography, etc.).
In a way it's like the Catholic church condemning homosexuals while at the same time covering up the actions of a few sexually deviant members of the priesthood. Where does hypocrisy begin?
Point? If an organization is going to take a stand against "sexual deviancy" then it should be sure that none of its members are behaving in a way that is deviant. Here I'm defining child molestation/pornography/etc. as sexual deviancy (not many sane folks would debate that). But I'm not defining homosexuality as deviant (and there a lot of folks would rise to the debate, I'm sure).
That help?
no subject
The BSA moves quickly to kick out anyone who they percieve could tarnish their reputaion. Molesters, homosexuals, whoever. I don't see how this can be considered hypocritical.
On the other hand, even if they expel a member, I'm not sure that their behavior is necessarily exemplary, in that they may not turn him over to law enforcement, in order to keep the story quiet. But I would say that in the last ten years at least, they do get the law involved.
If an organization is going to take a stand against "sexual deviancy" then it should be sure that none of its members are behaving in a way that is deviant.
It sounds like what your're saying is that they shouldn't discriminate against one form of percieved deviance until they remove all the others. But since one can never be sure who is a child molester until they're caught, it doesn't make sense to ban the kiddie porn perusers until they get all the molesters. They don't prioritize. Molesters go. Gays go. Atheists go.
And I'm not saying this to defend their actions, I'm just saying that they're acting logically given their beliefs. You can say that their beliefs are wrong, but I don't think you can say their polices don't match their beliefs.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I could certainly say that Girl Scouting is better for girls than Boy Scouting is for girls, but there are branches of Scouting under the BSA that are coed.
no subject
no subject
On the National level, I don't think you can beat the BSA. They're good on the council level. Our district leadership is not so hot. Some of our district members kick ass.
Some of the things I've heard complaints about the Girl Scouts seemed to be organization-wide. But maybe it was council level. I can't remember the specific examples, but I heard horrors stories about things the girls weren't allowed to do (some for safety reasons), that our boys learn as first year scouts. The leaders in question gave up Girl Scouting in absolute frustration.
no subject
From the little I know, it seems like Girl Scouts is very effective at giving girls leadership experience that they might never otherwise get. I think it truly fosters self-esteem, particularly for teenage girls at a time when they might otherwise start losing any self-confidence they may have had as younger girls. And this in itself is vital in contemporary American society.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think I am so into nature and being independent thanks to the scouting programs. My parents didn't have the time or interest in the stuff the scouts did.
no subject
While troops can vary, and I can empathize slightly with the fear that homosexual males are also pedophiles (Not necassarily true obviously, but I can understand where the uptight whiteys get it from. Damn bibles.) I have never met a single Scout Leader I'd trust with my kids-and not just in a sexual way. (Which would honestly be the last of my concerns until I had reason to think otherwise) I just don't trust a lot of people to begin with, let alone christians. (Yes, I absolutely discriminate based on anyone of the thirteen protected discrimatory harassment catergories. Fuck politically correct.)
no subject
I'm sure there are parents out there who teach their kids all (or most, anyway) of what they can learn in scouting, but they're uncommon. If you're one of them, good for you. I'm not saying that all kids need scouting, but I think most can benefit.
I'm also not saying that all troops are ideal. Most aren't, come to think of it, but some do what they're supposed to do, and excel.
As far as religion goes, not all troops have any kind of religious orientation at all. I was in my troop for over twenty years, and I can count on one hand the number of religious servies or religious-themed activites we did. If a boy wanted to do that sort of thing, we were supportive, but through all the various leaders, we almost never suggested it.
What it boils down to, is that I was on the inside and on the front lines. I know what the organization is capable of, and it's a pretty damn good thing.
no subject
no subject
no subject
You may be thinking of religiouis activities in general. Most troops will have a sunday morning "church" service, when they're on an outing. Such an ecumenical service would be required, and some kids would balk. But to believe in a god is a requirement. On the rare occasions we held such services, the kids who didn't believe or didn't care to participate were asked to show some respect and sit quietly. It's like the homosexual thing, don't make a stink about it, and nobody cares. If you're in the right troop, anyway.
no subject
no subject