I've long been dubious about girl scouting, confessing that I'm an avid indoorsman at heart, and but more importantly, because any wannabe efforts to channel girls' energies to mirror boys' are shallow constructs. Boys work naturally well together, for the most part (brawling aside, which eventually mushrooms up amidst most activities). Their brains seem acclimated to team efforts, since men from of old have had to collaborate to slay the woolly mammoth and build barns adequate to surviving periods of want. Women work more independently, sharing skills, learning from mentors, and arranging their lives around the needs of family and the inevitable chores.
It is no wonder that little girls looked enviously at their brothers who joined the Boy Scouts and frowned upon their own stitching, which is boring compared to slingshots and penknives. But creating a feminine alternative to the boys' group is more difficult than what is surmised at first glance. What is the end of scouting?
For boys, it's to build manly skills that a group of wise older folk found helpful in their own lives. Little feats of engineering are both instructive in the physical application and the satisfaction that a man finds in taking ownership of his piece of turf and turning it to his ends. Is that what girls want? I don't know, but some who lead girls now do surmise what girls need: freedom from patriarchy and oppressive family constructs. From the 51st Girl Scout National Council Session and Convention held recently in Indianapolis:
Patriotism has been replaced with globalism. This year, the traditional
flag ceremony was trashed. The girls didn't respectfully carry the U.S.
flag into the hall. Instead, it was bunched together with the flags of
other countries and pulled in by a golf cart to the nonsensical – some
say drug related – '70s Chicago tune "25 or 6 to 4." After the girls
recited the promise, the band broke into "September" by Earth, Wind and
Fire.
Keynote speakers included left-wing political activists actress
Geena Davis, who starred in "Commander in Chief," and former Ms.
Foundation President Marie Wilson, who founded the White House Project
and Take Your Daughter to Work Day.
On the way to these sessions, the Girl Scouts could visit displays
that feature the Sophia Dolls collection to help them find their "inner
goddess." According to the manufacturer, which donates a percentage of
all sales to the Girl Scouts, these dolls "serve as a personal
empowerment tool by allowing you or your daughter to connect with inner
wisdom to guide in expanding and balancing life roles."
The highlight of the convention was the unveiling of the latest
"Journeys" program inspired by the Ashland Institute and created with
the help of Brian Bacon of the Oxford Leadership Academy, who is a
practitioner and teacher of the Brahma Kumaris Raja Yoga and a "senior
member" of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. These
programs are billed as a "leadership experience." Girls are encouraged
to become "agents of change" – ah, there's that word again – for the
global good.
These programs are egocentric and devoid of any mention of family.
There is a strong anti-boy tone. Instead of mother and father, the
books refer to "trusted adults." Gone is the Judeo-Christian tradition
on which the Girl Scouts was founded. The emphasis is on moral
relativism and "self." The books are salt and peppered with Eastern
religious practices. Girls are encouraged to make a Zen garden, use
yoga and martial arts as a form of relaxation and use a Japanese tea ceremony to "clear the mind."
Now others [in combox responding to the article above] strongly reject the notion that Juliet Gordon Low ever meant for the Girls Scouts to embody Christian principles, noting that she included Native American folklore and ceremonies from the start. The Girl Scout statement on diversity is solid enough, though it may be doublespeak for a hidden agenda. Time will tell. Fair enough. But it's troubling to see that a search for "motherhood" comes up with ... nothing. ("Parenthood," evidently, is not on the agenda, either.)
Many good things are fostered (nota bene: mainstreaming ssa is among the projects honoured), but overall, one would have to say, caveat emptor.
Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.