While we’re fighting to protect girls-only spaces.
Leftists hate fathers and men. They hate mothers and women, too, as is evident from their relentless push to redefine them out of existence, but they hate fathers and men more than they hate anything, even capitalism and freedom, because strong, godly males are the first and last defense against the Left’s totalitarianism and their obsession with abolishing the nuclear family.A case in point is the Father’s Day just past, when the reliably subversive New York Times chose to run an op-ed celebrating, in comic-book panels for its mentally challenged Progressive base, a trans woman cosplaying as a dad. An even more recent example is a new opinion piece in the Times with the literally triumphalist headline, “The Boy Scouts Let In Girls Almost a Decade Ago. It’s Been a Triumph.”
The article was written by Erica Song, a mother and Girl Scout troop leader who gushed about how some of the girls, including her 8-year-old daughter, signed up for what used to be known as the Boy Scouts (it went co-ed in 2017 and changed its name to Scouting America a year ago). Song wanted her daughter to experience the same physically demanding challenges and learn the same outdoor adventure skills as her son: building campfires, backpacking, rafting – becoming leaders.
Apart from the passing mention of her son as a Cub Scout, she refers to boys in the article only negatively: when complaining about how the girls “were sometimes treated as intruders” and “catcalled by boys in other troops”; and when she contemptuously dismisses objections that scouting should be a space just for boys (“[T]he logic that a girl’s excellence is a threat to a boy’s development has nothing to do with fairness,” she proclaims. Instead, “it only protects mediocrity.”).
Song claims “girls invigorate scouting rather than weaken it” because they model, for both girls and boys, “what it looks like to earn your rank without shortcuts.” Her assumption seems to be that the boys didn’t earn their ranks without shortcuts until girls came along to show them the way.
She concludes by noting that “These young women will grow up to be doctors, engineers, leaders, colleagues,” while the boys “will one day work with them and for them.” [Emphasis added] So, turning the Boy Scouts into a coed space, literally erasing the word “Boy” from the organization’s name (the same has not been done for the Girl Scouts), “means we are preparing them for the real world.”
Tragically, she is right about that. Scouting America now shows boys that they serve no purpose or function in a “real world” that has been feminized by more than a half century of cultural Marxism, because girls and women have been, and continue to be, socially engineered to replace them. The message boys have been battered with for decades is that their sex is an unnecessary obstruction to female self-actualization.
The narrative presented in this praise of Scouting America’s coeducational “evolution” is as familiar as it is flawed. It relentlessly pushes the late-stage feminist orthodoxy that every male-dominated institution is inherently exclusionary, that girls must constantly break down patriarchal doors to prove their worth, and that any male resistance to this integration stems purely from fragile egos defending mediocrity. This view completely misses the defining socio-cultural crisis of our era: the systemic, pervasive decline of young men.
To claim today that young women are constrained by structural barriers is to willfully ignore reality. By virtually every quantitative metric, women and girls face no systematic barriers to success; if anything, they dominate modern institutions. Girls consistently outpace boys in primary and secondary education, graduate from high school at higher rates, and comprise nearly 60 percent of college undergrads. They earn the majority of master’s and doctoral degrees. Corporate boardrooms, government initiatives, and academic grants specifically target, promote, and elevate female talent at every level. The narrative of female disadvantage is a long-outdated framing that refuses to acknowledge that young women have won, and the playing field is entirely open to them.
Meanwhile, young men are falling off a cliff. As other writers have noted before me for many years, we are witnessing an historic, quiet collapse of the American male:
- Educational alienation: boys are overwhelmingly more likely to be diagnosed with learning disabilities, medicated for behavioral issues, suspended, or simply drop out of the system entirely;
- Economic displacement: millions of young men have exited the labor force completely, trapped in a state of extended adolescence and isolation;
- Mental health catastrophe: men account for roughly 80 percent of all deaths by suicide in the United States, driven by a profound lack of purpose, community, and belonging.
Yet, when the all-devouring feminist gaze targeted the traditional Boy Scouts, it saw not a critical refuge for struggling young men, but another conquest for feminist domination – oops, I mean integration.
The argument that girls “invigorate” boys’ spaces by offering superior discipline and faster maturity misses the fundamental psychological point of single-sex development. It is a well-established developmental reality that girls mature faster socially and biologically than boys during adolescence. Placing girls alongside boys in their formative years does not “elevate” the boys through healthy competition; it frequently crushes their confidence and drives them to withdraw.
Developmental equality requires meeting boys where they are—not forcing them to compete against accelerated female maturation in the very spaces meant for their growth.
Boys require a specific kind of environment to thrive. They learn more readily through action, risk-taking, physical challenge, and unfiltered camaraderie. In a single-sex environment, a boy can fail without the debilitating shame of doing so in front of female peers. He can be unpolished, awkward, and hyperactive, gradually refining those traits into self-command under the mentorship of older men and alongside a brotherhood of peers.
Contrary to the New York Times’ dismissive attitude, male-only spaces foster a unique, indispensable form of brotherhood. True brotherhood is not built on abstract moralizing; it is forged through shared hardship, physical exertion, and collective responsibility among peers who understand one another’s innate disposition. When young men are given a domain of their own, they learn to channel their instincts into constructive service, discipline, and mutual support. By taking away dedicated male spaces, society deprives young men of the specific mentorship and camaraderie required to transform raw energy into mature, responsible manhood. --->READ MORE HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment