Boy Scouts Allowing Girl Members is ‘Reckless,’ Says Girl Scouts

Wait, whatever happened to inclusivity?

Grab a snack for this gender-bending brain teaser.

The Girl Scouts is accusing the Boy Scouts of covertly recruiting female members because overall membership is down and is arguing for both clubs to remain dedicated to single-gender membership. Of course, this totally goes against every feminist/progressive standard but then again, 2017 is very confusing.

BuzzFeed obtained the “strongly worded letter” by Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) president Kathy Hopinkah Hannan asking the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to back off from this “covert campaign” to disrupt a century-long arrangement.

A spokeswoman for the GSUSA told BuzzFeed, “Through various means we have learned that BSA is very seriously considering opening their programs to girls and we have made repeated efforts to engage with them and talk about the implications. It's a potentially dangerous and bad idea.”

Both clubs allow transgender membership, but apparently, GSUSA draws a line in the sand on becoming co-ed. 

"It is inherently dishonest to claim to be a single gender organization while simultaneously endeavoring upon a co-ed model," Hannan wrote in the letter.

She accused the BSA of having “short-sightedness of thinking that running a program specifically tailored to boys can simply be translated to girls.”

And here we thought girls can do anything boys can do, and better!

But the reason girls are wanting to adventure in the woods, make fire, and catch fish with the boys is because the GSUSA has turned its program into a cookie-selling, feminism training club. The Obama administration’s call for getting more girls involved in science, math, and technology shifted the focus of the GSUSA away from outdoors and onto STEM programming, somthing Hannan isn't apologizing for. She said the GSUSA’s “single-gender expertise” helps them “to uniquely serve the needs of girls” in an “inclusive” and “safe space in which to learn, grow, and thrive.” She condemns the BSA for not staying true to their mission:

A shift to a co-ed model suggests that you may no longer believe in the research supporting single gender programming… For BSA to explore a program for girls without [prioritizing the health, safety and well-being of girls] is reckless.

GSUSA fundamentally believes it is detrimental to the youth we both pride ourselves on serving for BSA to change its mission, flout its charter, and propose a joint focus on boys and girls… GSUSA would not seek to impart our program to boys. It simply defies our mission, and our principles.

Hannan did have a piece of advice for the BSA. Instead of fundamentally changing the Boy Scotts to a co-ed club and going after female membership, she suggests the BSA “take steps to ensure that they are expanding the scope of their programming to all boys… such as African-American and Latino boys.”

Christina Cauterucci, a staff writer at the left-wing Slate, agreed with Hannan and pleaded in her piece, “Parents, don’t let your girls join the Boy Scouts.” Her reasoning was two-fold. First, Cauterucci didn’t appreciate the “chillingly warm reception” the BSA gave President Trump when he spoke to the 40,000-strong crowd. Secondly, she chides the boys club for taking too long to lift its ban on homosexual leadership. Cauterucci also had a suggestion for the BSA on what it should be teaching boys:

If boys have a special, specific need today, it’s not for a group that reinforces traditionally masculine behaviors and activities. The biggest benefit kids can get out of a single-gender social group is a chance to experience life outside the confines of ubiquitous gender dynamics. The 21st century doesn’t need Boy Scout troops with girls in them. It needs a Boy Scout curriculum that challenges and expands traditional notions of masculinity, doing for boys what GSUSA has done for girls. Instead of chipping away at the Girl Scouts’ membership, the Boy Scouts should heed its example.

So, feminize the boys, keep the genders segregated unless they identify as the other, and then claim to be of a political bent that's all-inclusive. Have we got that about right?