Re: Female on Campouts
rmorehead (rmorehead@NLS.NET)
Fri, 22 May 1998 15:29:05 -0400
The nature of some of the replies I've received on my post invites me to
visit the subject one more time, after which I will fade quietly back into
lurkerdom. While I can definitely benefit from the exchange of ideas here,
I've no doubt that I've sufficiently prejudiced the group towards myself as
to make anything I might share in the future suspect.
Two things bother me greatly in the replies. First, everybody appears to
have stopped reading my post to Mr. Dorsey immediately after my preface (the
"MAN of character" part). If that's the case, let me repeat the part that
was ignored:
>That being said, it's important for your purposes for me to
>point out that the national organization does not share my viewpoint.
>Long-standing BSA policy is that women can hold ANY adult scouting position
>and councils, districts and troops may not deny their involvement on the
>basis of their gender. If her intentions are honorable, as you said, and
>she passed such screening as exists in other ways, I'm afraid your boys
will
>just have to bite the bullet and get used to the idea of a woman being
>around.
As you can see, I made it a point to give Mr. Dorsey the "party line."
The second thing that bothers me, and it bothers me bad, is the pervasive
idea, even from my dear friend and scoutmaster, that I have somehow said
women are inferior to men or are incapable of performing the duties of scout
leadership or enduring the rigors of hiking and camping. I defy anyone to
go to my post and copy me the part where I said that. What I got is the
type of knee-jerk, politically correct false assumptions one can expect
these days whenever one breeches the idea that there may, in some instances,
be some value in a separation of the sexes. What I REALLY said was that a
woman cannot model manhood; and she can't. She can model good citizenship,
she can tell boys what she believes good men are, but she cannot SHOW a boy
what it means to be a man. She is singularly unqualified in that regard.
I cringe whenever I hear the word "equality" tossed about because most of
the time, the user has no idea what he or she is saying. We've bought into
the patently absurd idea today that "equal" means "identical". What is
wrong, exactly, with acknowledging and celebrating the obvious differences
between the sexes and seeing value in the idea that they should get away
from each other now and again and learn from their own? Unfortunately, in
today's culture, if you confess belief in this idea, you are branded a
chauvinist, tarred and feathered. Are the women truly afraid that people
like me want to turn the BSA into an MSP training camp (Yes, my goal is to
take the lads and teach them to drink beer, belch, scratch their crotches
and watch pro wrestling -- "Get me another brew, wife!")?
The PC camp has countered with "what difference does a leader's gender
make." I'll tell you. For several thousand years (several hundred thousand
years if you prefer a non-biblical measure of human history) there were
rights of passage a boy had to endure to be considered a man. Our own OA
rituals are watered-down simulations of some of these rites observed by the
Indigenous-American tribes. These were important and significant
observances where the men of the tribe or community took the boys in
tutelage and showed them how to be a man, making them useful and productive
members of the community. The women had similar rites for the daughters,
although they tended to be less ritualistic. Such same-sex associations are
still practiced in many parts of the world (the "Men's Huts" of Yap in
Micronesia come to mind).
As Western culture became increasingly industrialized, circumstances eroded
at these "rites of passage". Replacing it were various forms of hazing in
social clubs and military services (the U.S. sea services "Shellback" ritual
is a good example). The importance of the practices was remembered, but
only survived in degraded and corrupted forms.
Then came Baden-Powell with a brilliant idea: revive the idea of placing
boys with men in challenging circumstances so they can learn how to be men.
This was the closest we'd ever come in modern society to renewing those
ancient and effective customs of modeling PROPER masculine behavior.
But in the last several decades, atrophy on the part of many men and
activism on the part of many women has removed this best of all instruments
of exclusively male association for our boys. While it remains the finest
youth organization in America, the reason I continue, it is less effective
now because of this than it once was.
I've been asked how boys will be taught to respond to women in authority if
we don't allow female leaders in scouting. Well, a woman doesn't have to be
present in uniform for a boy to be taught to respect women. Plus, doesn't
the boy have many women as teachers? I've been given a litany of examples
of women who can "out-camp, out-hike, and out-spit any man in these parts!"
Good for her. I know many women like this. I've been left gasping
trail-side by some. As I've stated already, her fitness is not the reason I
would prefer her excluded. The reason is much more esoteric and I regret
the loss of something we once had.
The question on everyone's mind now: "Will this nut pursue this and make
trouble for us all?" No. Only a fool fights a battle lost 20 years ago,
and it's clear from all sides I stand alone. I was only sharing, and later
clarifying, my personal opinion. I prefer now to quietly mourn for what
once was and work diligently in what is.
YIS
Bob Morehead
ASM, Troop 381
Copley, Ohio
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City |
