The Press and discriminatory story writing.

And why, oh why, is it that it seems like every time the BSA is in the news or a magazine that the tag line about exclusionary policies is brought up.

Any number of other groups require one to be male only or female only, or this race or that race, there is discrimination all over the place. But the same tag line doesn't seem to be applied every time the other groups are written about. Yet their exclusionary policies don't seem to be a problem.

Without continuing to castigate the BSA! Can someone explain this?

I think you've already stated it -- it's to castigate the BSA. Some people disapprove of what the BSA now stands for, so they criticize the BSA.

Thanks Merlyn, I feel better now .

The BSA represents traditional American values. There seem to be some in this society who want to replace those with radical "progressive" measures.

You should look around the web a bit. I've seen a lot of scouts, even eagle scouts, say they want nothing to do with the current BSA, or at least the current national leadership. Yes, there are supporters of the BSA, but when it comes to mainstream press like the aside in Newsweek, discrimination on the basis of religion and/or sexual orientation isn't popular, particularly against minors.

Okay, but back to what I thought was the point of the thread.

Perhaps I was unclear - When other organizations, which discriminate on one basis or another, are mentioned in news or magazine articles it doesn't seem like the authors of the "responsible", "neutral", "fair - and balanced" press, and journalists feel it is necessary to identify the other organizations discriminatory practices every time. So why do it to one organization and not all.

Seems like the press is being pretty discriminatory to me...

I think first, Gunny, you'd have to provide some examples of the "any number of groups" that discriminate based on gender and race (as official policy) that you referenced in your first post, before we can say whether any of them have also been singled out by the press.

Because I can't come up with any (at least, not any that haven't been castigated by the rest of society, as well). Do you have examples of any, especially ones that have as high a profile as the BSA?

Dan, I had the same question. That line, "Any number of other groups require one to be male only or female only, or this race or that race, there is discrimination all over the place." caught my eye as well.

I would like to know the groups that discriminate on the basis of race that don't get nailed by the mainstream. Even the private men's clubs in some places get lampooned at the very least for their exclusion of women. Gunny2862, I would also like to see your list.

The Scout, I would agree with your assessment of BSA and so-called 'traditional values' IF local option was allowed. In that manner the local membership would truly have direct control of whatever values were to be delivered by the program. Do you think that would be a bad thing?

As it is, the local memberships are dictated to by a central authority. H'mm maybe that IS a traditional value.

BSA can put a stop to this 'treatment' by the press and the general public with the stroke of a pen...the choice is BSA's.

Packsaddle,

Although I dont have a definative list of groups who are exclusionary but arent the PC presses "whipping boy", one that springs to mind immediately is Girl Scouts of America.

They have no program for boys at any age, even supporting programs for male siblings.

While men can technically be adult volunteers they are, in my opinion, extremely limited in role and not typically welcomed. It is also my understanding they can not hold certain leadership positions.

As far as organizations that are exclusionary based on Race, lets go down to the local chapter of La Raza or the NAACP and see what a warm welcome my pasty irish-america self would recieve.

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=55854

Okay, suitably chastened, and/or bring on the whips. I may have been too fast on my mis-characterizations.

My initial thought was specifically focused on the VFW who denied membership to my wife after she had served in a combat zone in SWA, and was still single, although she was certainly "welcome to join the womens auxiliary" after we met and were married by virtue of my own eligiblity.

Apparently they were afraid of dying out or are progressive enough to expand their membership rules - after I did a little research to try and back up my now confounded argument.

My second thought of race only still applies I think, but only in the negative argument, I can't prove that they don't accept/admit white devils to the Nation of Islam.

I don't have enough information on the information provided by erickelly65 but thanks for throwing in.

Humbly waiting for what comes...

Ya gotta remember Gunny, everything you read on the web is true!

It seems to be the way to go to pick on those groups who are stalwarts in their values. The way I look at it, you've got to stand for something or you're gonna fall for anything. The BSA stands for something. And no Merlyn, it isn't discrimination. It is wholesome American values.

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

"The BSA represents traditional American values. There seem to be some in this society who want to replace those with radical "progressive" measures."

I grew up in the 50's and 60's. Some "traditional American values" back then were:

"Separate but equal" schools

Laws against mixed race marriage

"Coloreds only" drinking fountains

Black and Filipino mess stewards (Navy)

Gender restricted occupations (nurses, stewardesses, teachers, ministers)

Blue laws (no businesses open on Sundays)

No liquor by the drink (bottle clubs)

Sen. Joe McCarthy

Philandering Presidents (OK, so that hasn't changed)

My point is that the definition of "traditional values" changes over time. It used to be a sin to expose a woman's ankles. Now you can go to the beach and see whatever you want!

I have asserted before that the BSA's steadfast refusal to rethink their exclusionary policy will be their demise, due in large part to being held hostage by the larger chartering organization groups.

I heard an interesting story on NPR last nite -- an American woman who is also Muslim was being interviewed (I think by Terry Gross?) and the woman was explaining how women were not allowed to worship in the main hall with the Muslim men in her mosque.

She started a mini-revolt, and eventually the women in her mosque were indeed allowed to worship in the main hall, albeit behind the men.

This story brings to mind a couple of intersting points:

(1) In the context of this thread, I wonder why the "MSM" (mainstream media) aren't all over Muslim leaders about this treatment of women, especially here in America (according to the woman being interviewed, second class status is typically how Muslim women are treated, even in the US)? Where are the NOW protesters marching in front of mosques across America?

(2) Unrelated to this thread, after hearing the story on NPR, I had to ask myself, I wonder how far this little protest would've gotten in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Would the media there even have given this woman a forum for her views? People bash the US, but we're still the free-ist (is that a word?) country on the planet.

Its interesting that we in the US have be tolerant of everything and everyone, even those who wouldn't do the same for us were the situations reversed . . .(This message has been edited by fgoodwin)

I think scoutleader has it right, what are traditional American values in this day and age? Someone from the east coast, the midwest, the south and the west coast have very different ideas about our so called values. As far as the press is concerned they have always gone to extremes to sell papers or boost ratings. It has become a national pasttime to critize, insult and denigrade others, just look at all the reality tv shows on the air. Our kids are growing up with the idea its cool to be rude and disregard the rules. If you assert yourself too much with your child CPS will come a knockin. Our society as a whole has been starting to crumble for quite a while now, and I see more and more of this rude behavior at scouting events as well. But face it, scandal and gossip are big sellers and the press want to be first with the story, ie Paris Hilton, that kind of nonsense takes up more of the news every night, the big network news are more like Entertainment Tonight than any real news. Stop buying the trash rags and watching the so called news, thats the only way to influence the way and the what of news content we receive.

My thoughts on this is that the press often brings up the exclusionary policies because no other organized group represents "America" better than the Boy Scouts (not even the Girl Scouts, American Legion, VFW, etc). In our collective American subconscious, the BSA represents the Human element of Baseball, Hot Dogs, and Apple Pie. It seems to me that when the press is bringing up the exclusionary policies of the BSA, they are't attacking "traditional American values" per se but are pointing out that as America has evolved over time, our values have evolved and changed, and that the Boy Scouts, in clinging to certain Antiquated "Traditional" American Values, has been by-passed by an America with new, enduring, traditional values, and that by continuing to cling to those antiquated values they hold, are marginalizing themselves and will go the way of the Horse and Buggy if they aren't careful. In a sense, the Press is saying that the BSA is no longer part of the American equation, but is now a relic of a by-gone era.

Calico