OK, so I need to be blogging more often.
I have many vices but I have never described myself as a “social analyst.” I’m disappointed that he didn’t call me a “hooligan.”
At the USA Today site, commentor Nick Moro groused: “I received my Eagle last year at in my opinion this article is nothing less than an affront to everything that Scouts stand for. Scouts stand for helping all humans no matter their race or gender. To say that Scouts should not help fight the very well established gender gap in STEM for the sole reason that scouts should only be about helping boys is ridiculous. Just because it is an organization based on developing boys doesn’t mean it can’t have a positive impact on the other 50% of the population.”
Then why not have the Boy Scouts promise to solve all the problems in the nation – if not the world? As I mentioned in the article, the Scouts’ latest initiative is akin to government agencies that proclaim lofty new goals in lieu of fulfilling their traditional task.
Leigh Swain Tilman was indignant about this line in the article: “The Girl Scouts aren’t proposing a new program to enlist boys to close their “knitting, baking, and empathy gap,” so why should Boy Scouts worry about the STEM gap?” Tilman wrote: “James Bovard knows even less about Girl Scouts than he does about Boy Scouts. ‘Knitting and baking’? Could you be more stereotypical? And since when is ’empathy’ a bad thing? I realize this is an Opinion piece, but Bovard’s sexism makes his opinion worth very little.”
This is the first time I have been accused of sexism — well, at least since the last time I wrote about the EEOC.