The new leader of the Scouting Association is a woman Ann Limb. This would be fine if it was simply a case of the best man or woman for the job. Sadly it looks like an ideologically based choice.

Limb predictably wants to increase the number of girls in the Scouts. This is regardless of the fact that girls have their own organisation, Girlguiding, which makes no room for boys.

This would be fine if girls were in any way vulnerable, voiceless or excluded, as some guiding documents appear to suggest. But we know this is definitely not the case. Boys are disadvantaged all the way through the education system. This is not only about systematic teacher bias, I.e. discrimination, girls also outperform boys  in A levels and GCSEs. At all ages males are more likely to be unemployed particularly among 16-24 year olds. Boys spend less time than girls doing homework and more time trawling the internet and playing video games. They are twice as likely as girls to regard school as a waste of time, and while 1,515 boys of between 15-18 were in custody last time I looked, there were only 28 girls. It is boys, not girls, who constitute our disaffected, disenfranchised, socially excluded youth.

However, instead of setting out to give boys more confidence and responsibility, encouraging self-sufficiency and enhancing self-esteem,Limb seems intent on promoting and perpetuating the current anti-male ideology andextending it to include the youngest groups; “The position of young girls and women is such at the moment that unless young boys understand what its’s like to be a young woman then you won’t get them to change their behaviour”. Please Ms Limb could you tell us what aspect of boys’ behaviour is it that you would like to change? Many girls seem intent on blaming others and portraying themselves as victims. Perhaps you should focus your behaviour-changing programme here.  Our whole society reverberates with messages about what it is like to be a  young woman and many new policies and guidelines  are essentially feminist.  What it feels like to be a young boy or man, this is something we know absolutely nothing about.

In this  country the Guide and Scout movement has become  predominantly female (64 per cent) so it is perplexing why the needs of boys are not Limb’s priority.

However, when  you see what Girlguiding  has come to, it becomes clearer why girls themselves might be keen to colonise the Scouts. From a noble organisation whose central ideal was to “help others at all times” Girlguiding has become another arm of feminist propaganda, teaching young girls to focus on themselves.

“We give girls their own space”, “We give girls a voice”. “Modern guiding believes in empowering girls and young women to make the right choices for themselves and those around them”. This is how Girlguiding is branded today. Getting rid of page 3, promoting schemes such as Athena Swan, promoting women into leadership positions and  getting involved in gay pride. From encouraging girls to think for themselves and develop their own beliefs, promoting politically correct ideology is what Girlguiding is now all about.

Encouraging girls to join the Scouts is a short term way of increasing numbers. In the long term boys will be increasingly unlikely to want to join a feminised movement where they are expected to learn what it is like to be a young woman. Not only the Guides but also the Scouts will become another bastion for feminism.

Feminism infiltrates every corner of our society. There is Sports England  with “This Girl Can”, Athena Swan in academia and  numerous schemes to promote women in business.  There are traditional institutions such as the Scouts and the BBC and the endless  funding of politically correct feminist groups. A list of all the different and practical ways in which feminist ideology shapes our society is something we should perhaps compile.

Baden-Powell, who set up the Scouts and Guides movement, told us that the real way to get happiness is by giving out happiness to other people. He also advised us to  “Try to leave this world a little better than you found it …”.

In our contemporary society there are many who sit on the fence with regard to feminism. But feminism is deeply damaging to the fabric of society, hurting families and communities and creating hostilities between women and men. In its relentless, covert, all-pervasive  and underhand way feminism is responsible for much unhappiness.

Listen to Baden-Powell and try to make the world a better place. Fence sitters get off your bottoms and jump off that feminism-neutral fence.


  1. I might have joined the Scouts if I’d known there’d be loads of girls on the camping trips.

    But yes, you’re right of course. It’s so damn tedious, I don’t know what’s up with these tiresome people that they live through their feeble agenda.
    It won’t make a blind bit of difference to people in the long term, just ruin something that worked perfectly well before.

  2. “… unless young boys understand what its’s like to be a young woman then you won’t get them to change their behaviour.”

    I remember a Soviet apparatchik in one of Solzhenitzyn’s books loftily declared that all bourgeois traits such as greed and aspiration are due to “social origins”, i.e. that capitalism could be socially engineered out of existence by teaching people not to want to own things. Feminist Science seems to believe that boys can be corrected into being girls in the same way.

    • Should boys ever be so lucky as to understand what it is like to be a young woman the scales will fall from their eyes and the feminine mystique will be gone forever. Feminists don’t want that.

  3. Although by far the largest organisation to claim the title, the Scout Association is little more than an after school club. There is none of this nonsense in the BBS / BGS…

  4. Recently the BBC has been heavily promoting women’s football. On the BBC Sports website, there is often equal prominence given to men’s and women’s football, despite a gulf in interest among both men and women in the respective sports.

    But if popularity has nothing to do with it, why should women’s football get more attention than netball, women’s badminton or even men’s basketball? I’m sure everyone involved in these sports would love to see their own games and news reported more often. The BBC website seems to have given up on the idea that they should cater to the interests of its readers. Instead it is engaged in social-engineering.

    In the past I assumed such cynical manipulation had something to do with Common Purpose but perhaps it has more to do with Scouts Honour?

    • Don’t even start me on the coverage of wimmins football. Totally disproportionate to public interest in the game.

    • I call football footballet.I consider all matches to be rigged. When I were a lad
      the game were played with heavy boots. Today they wear ballet shoes and all appear ‘fairies’.
      I never joined The Scouts because I believed all scoutmasters were, how shall I put it? Deviant. The more I saw of them, the more I was convinced.
      I was propositioned once in my life, aged 12, by a paedophile. He was seconds away from death for I would have severed his jugular vein and carotid artery quicker than you could say Jimmy Savile.
      A darling aunt of mine bought me a fine penknife when I was 6. I have been armed ever since.

      • From the mid seventies until the mid/later 80s I was a Cub–>Scout–>Venture Scout and saw nothing of what you speak, a few leftie pee-dos did get caught and the damage was done…
        I speculate Baden Powell was as big a recuiter/Instructor for the Military as there ever was…. notice after 30 years of the Scout movement being corrupted…we have no military left? And no military grade young men left…they’ve had to let Womb-men in too!!!! Good luck having them defend us!

        (As if! We’ll have EU Army weapons pointing at us….their recruits arriving from Somalia etc via eastern Europe as we type!)

          • Too right. As a former career squaddie, I refuse to use the term as a noun – I was in the Armed Forces.

          • I recently had an argument with an American living here about the use of
            military as a noun. He would not accept that he was wrong.

            The most absurd use of ‘military’ I’ve seen was in a reference to the Royal Navy. Naval seems to have gone the same way as the armed forces, or the services, just as ex serviceman has become ‘veteran’. The unthinking adoption of incorrect forms of grammar and vocabulary used by other English speaking nations suggests both a lack of education and a lack of national self-confidence. We have our own way of speaking, and seeing the world, and if we believe in ourselves there is no reason to change.

          • When I joined up, I went to a basic training depot, not a boot camp. I was issued 2 sets of combats, not fatigues. (In the UK Army, Fatigues means general cleaning an labouring duties). I was taught to use a rifle, not an assault rifle. A pistol, not a handgun.
            I have no issues with Americans idiom using words differently, it’s just evolution of the language. I do object to UK journalists getting it wrong. And don’t get me started on “THE” HMS (insert name of RN vessel)! Grrr!

  5. It’s very sinister and has already happened with the Girl Guides who are now an openly left-wing political group dedicated to “diversity” etc. No attempt is made to hide their political outlook – and why should they since the establishment has been infected by the left most wouldn’t even realise that they are political.

    The authoritarians, whether feminists, socialists, fascists, communists always go after children and try to indoctrinate them and encourage them to spy on their peers and parents. Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot – all men of the far left and all men who would agree with the need to indoctrinate youngsters.

    The long march through the institutions is complete, the left has won the western world and is intent on forcing everyone to agree. They find many adults resist so they go after children. Look at how in Australia they have dropped the monarchy from the pledge made by Girl Guides; justified by the mass immigration they have there. Immigration they lied and said wouldn’t change society but once it has happened they say the host white nation must drop its traditions to include the newcomers. It’s all part of a scheme to undermine the western way of life.

  6. If a women like this gets put in charge it would be interesting to cast a harsh light on the people who picked her. The rot must have started in the Scout Association a long time ago, this is just the disease entering the terminal phase.

    • The rot started with Pee-dos (Marxist lefties) infiltrating the Scout movement and the same ilk making it a joke on BBC commie-dys

  7. That the Scouting Association should tamely surrender reflects a current truth, what women demand they will be given. What is not being said is that only for a time. There is growing realisation that this bigoted movement is in a headlong rush to bringing about the destruction of civilised life. This does not imply a violent end, not initially at least, instead there will be a fundamental schism forged across the social structure that will evolve in time to outright hatreds. That a narrow core of primarily privileged women should actively seek to bring this about confirms how blind humans can be, what however is so surprisingl is that this activity is being directly supported by governments. This is quite simply insane.

    • There may be a ” growing realisation”, Barry, but you can be sure it will remain only in the realm of a few blogsites like this one; the MSM will squash the story flat, and never let it get out.

      • Well I have seen a few commens about the nuclear option, drop pork, beer and pray 5 times a day, no feminism.

        But I would prefer to see it resolved a matter more consistent with western cultural heritage.

    • Government supports that narrow core because the latter infests and corrupts the former, so no surprises.

  8. Feminists are becoming the very people they imagine non-feminists to be: sexist, discriminatory, bigoted, intolerant, and self-centred. They are a national disgrace and it is tragic they are taking their poisonous ideology into all our establishments, encouraged of course by a morally blind political elite. I would say it is time for a male counter-movement, but I do not want my gender to stoop to the ways of the militant feminist. But we should highlight the damage these women cause to society, as this article does so well

    • I agree. Feminism itself is the ‘social construct’ they despair of in any men. Engineered in Universities in the West. From their appearance, their beliefs, to their positions and point of view on matters. They fail to see how their lives have been commandeered and controlled from Feminism HQ on some campus somewhere.

  9. “feminism is deeply damaging to the fabric of society, hurting families
    and communities and creating hostilities between women and men”

    Well said, and bears repeating.

  10. So I am banned from joining the Women’s Institute and my son is banned from joining The Girl Guides?

    We really must end The War on Women!

    • Shame she (and the friend she knighted, SIR Jimmy Savile) never said that about Paedophilia and child abuse?

      • My sister was a news reporter and knew Jimmy Saville very well. She met him many many times at Stoke Mandeville. In all that time the worst story she heard about him was he liked to squeeze the nurses bottoms if he thought he could get away with it. Suddenly he dies and people are claiming he was a necrophile and all sorts. Nothing to do with the millions in compensation that was put on offer I’m sure…..

    • If you look at your link and peruse the website you will see that the Boys Brigade takes girls. Click on the tab “young people” (on your link) and you will see in each Boy’s Brigade section, young girls in their uniform.
      It must be only a matter of time before the name will be changed by dropping the word ‘boy’s’. But don’t let it stop the feminazis, they also ruined the YMCA whilst ensuring that the YWCA remains a safe place for women. The ‘Boys Club’ of Bristol went the same way about a decade ago. It was a club where girls could also attend for two nights a week. The council stopped their funding until they agreed to become mixed.

      • Yeah, Just went to the site and spotted quite a few girls in the pictures.
        Or some very convincing cross dressing.

    • It looks an excellent organisation but as this as its object:“The advancement of Christ’s kingdom among Boys and the promotion of habits of Obedience, Reverence, Discipline, Self-respect and all that tends towards a true Christian manliness.”

      it is simply not going to have the wide appeal of scouts. In fact it is likely to have a narrow appeal amongst teenage boys.

        • There’s an organisation? I thought it was just a blog run by two women who happen to be conservative and Christian. If you don’t like it you know where the door is.

      • The Boy Scouts in the US have a similar mandate if I recall. And as an Atheist I hold Christianity (especially Protestantism) in rather high regard.

        • I hold atheists in rather high regards as they often have a faith – albeit one based on absence – as strong as my own!

  11. “…girls also outperform boys in A levels and GCSEs. At all ages males are more likely to be unemployed particularly among 16-24 year olds. Boys spend less time than girls doing homework and more time trawling the internet and playing video games. They are twice as likely as girls to regard school as a waste of time, and while 1,515 boys of between 15-18 were in custody last time I looked, there were only 28 girls. It is boys, not girls, who constitute our disaffected, disenfranchised, socially excluded youth.”

    So what are you going to do about the “problem” of boys. How are you going to motivate them?

    If it is true that the male brain is hard wired to seek the instant gratification of porn then perhaps schoolboys could be motivated by being awarded porno-stickers instead of the more traditional gold stars.
    Feel free to come up with more PC suggestions ……..or you could ride the ConWoman hobby horse of blaming the movement to sex equality.

      • Not sure about that “Dodgy Data” (?) May make the “problem” worse.

        I may be way out of date here, but I was assured that it was the girls performance which was worst affected by being in mixed schools. Research at the time found that both male and female teachers predominantly focused their time on the boys. It is unclear whether this was because teachers subconsciously(?) viewed boys as being of more value, or whether it was because the boys were simply louder, more demanding or more disruptive.

        Difficult to do untainted research on this?

        • Thus you have demonstrated that single sex schools would be of benefit to both boys and girls.

          I say we give it a go. As experiments go it is clearly more valid that most of the other experiments that have been inflicted on our children over the years,

          Would likely reduce the tendency towards teen pregnancy too….

  12. …Listen to Baden-Powell and try to make the world a better place….

    It is interesting to recollect the difficulty successive governments have had over defining what it means to be British. Deeply embarrassing lessons and tests have been proposed for ‘citizenship’ and to describe British culture. And yet the answer has been in front of civil servants for many years.

    The mid and later Victorians had a perfectly satisfactory answer. From Arnold at Rugby through Kipling to Baden-Powell, they have clearly specified the peculiarly British culture. It is a culture that values fairness, non-demonstrative displays of affection, a love of sport and open-air exercise, a recognition of social structures and an overarching feeling of duty and service to society.

    All of this was carefully defined by British educators at the time, so very little work would need to be done to derive a simple list for our Immigration Service, if it were not for the fact that defining personal characteristics (indeed, talking about people at all) is an occupation which breaches British cultural norms. But it has not been offered up for consideration at any point.

    Why is this? It appears that the traditional British culture, ably defined by these dead white Victorian poets and educators, is so hated by the current left-wing intelligentsia that they cannot bring themselves to admit there is any value there at all. And so we are left with an attempt to define British values by ignoring all the things that make us British – an activity that will, and has, obviously failed…

      • Of course there is! No one said that British values were ideal. All I’m saying is that there exists a well-defined description of British culture which has been studiously ignored by the groups that say they wanted to obtain it.

        • I hate to tell you, but that culture is dead. Thatcher, for all her “Victorian Values” populism was instrumental in changing the values of the country from “service”/”comunity” to “me”/”money”.

          But fear not ye Conservative Theophiles …..there is a new culture which can step in within a few short generations:

          At first this will be without the ConWomens’ consent, but if they think about it hey will learn to lay back and enjoy it. Religious Conservatism under the same Abrahamic God.

          Right up their street !
          Everything they campaign for and none of this sex equality nonsense.

          • Rubbish. There was never a sense of community and service in the UK. Only a tiny proportion of people were ever involved in doing “good things for others”. Even the output of the Atlee government was supported only because of the self-interest of those that voted Labour. Free healthcare, dole money, nationalisation was all aimed at providing security for ME – not for somebody else.

            It is only in recent years that the Labour Party, finding itself basically redundant, has attempted to extend the concept of care beyond our own families to other people’s families. Consequently Labour supporters think providing welfare to those that have never worked and have no intention of working is perfectly reasonable and can’t understand why so many don’t seem to agree. They think providing free healthcare to immigrants is good and can’t understand why people don’t support it.

            This is what modern Labour supporters can’t get their head around. They have, over time, shifted the emphasis of the Labour Party exactly into the area of all of us caring about others. We don’t care about others. We care about our families. Everything has to be in the interest of our families. Our children and grand-children. We might have a convergence of this self-interest as a group but we are not at all interested in those outside the group. We are entirely antagonistic to those outside the group, especially when it is clear that outsiders are antagonist towards the group. Thus we will not put up with continuous migration and islamic push for power and influence as we don’t see it as being beneficial to our families. We are now binding together in a unified view of migration and Islam in particular as we come to understand the our individual views are shared by a wider group.

      • It is a great mistake to believe that niceness is a traditional British characteristic.

        (On the other hand, The Great British Bake Off is very, very British because we love having our cake and eating it.)

        • Agreed.
          But niceness is a common human characteristic.
          …..with the inevitable flip side, of course

          • I think you mistake my meaning. I was not suggesting that it was a characteristic that we had in common with other people. I was saying that it was not (of itself) a characteristic of the British.

            We having grudging tolerance, a belief that we should mind our own business and not get involved, a reserve and a reluctance to pry into others lives which can be a great relief to those who have had to endure interference in their lives; but it is a mistake to say that we are inherently nice. In so far as we are, it arises simply from the absence of some not so nice characteristics.

          • In addition to obedience and deference to authority it is also very British NOT to talk about “rude” things.

            Child Sex Abuse is VERY rude.

            Never talking about it creates a perception in the culture that it is not a problem and even does not exist.

            This helps to perpetuate the environment in which abusers can operate with impunity.

            So British “not to interfere” even to the extent of not interfering with those who are interfering


            On the subject of niceness. Obvious monsters do not get close to children (except e.g. at BBC)
            It is the “nice” men (and women) with wicked intent who infiltrate the Scouts (schools, children’s homes and social services etc.) who are the main danger. They are as adept at grooming the parents and colleagues as they are at grooming the children.

            Parents require a balance of trust and vigilance.

          • Well, yes, a mistrust of “nice” people used to be a British characteristic. That was why I thought Tony Blair would never become Prime Minister …
            I would agree with you that keeping up appearances, brushing things under the carpet and not frightening the horses are traditional British characteristics.

            One of the gross deceptions about “British values” is that they are all virtues. Some are, some are not, some are in some circumstances but not in others, and some are simply neutral.

          • Tony Blair was nice???

            It is just a pretence that made him and his wife very rich.

            Perhaps it is a Darwinian thing …Nice guys (& gels) don’t come first.

            “Nice” in party politics. You must be kidding. It is all about protecting themselves, their own and their influence. Even if that means protecting vile abusers.

          • Even in Pakistan nobody talks about kiddie fiddling and yet it is endemic there.

            My sister knew Jimmy Saville very well. Most of the stories about him are made up or grossly exaggerated because he’s too dead to argue and there’s money on the table. We are in full frothing at the mouth Salem witch trial mode with no end of people being accused and precious little evidence that any harm has actually been done, let alone a crime committed.

    • The argument over culture is a clever one used by left-wingers to excuse mass immigration. Be wary of it. I notice they try this one in Sweden too.

      You cannot define a culture in isolation because there are considerable overlaps between any two cultures – you MUST define it ONLY in terms of cultural differences.

      You can then readily define British culture relative to French culture, Chinese culture or Islamic culture. Once you know that is how it works, you can tackle the left-wingers when they try to pull this one.

  13. Is it just that the ladies really like the men and don’t want to be kept away from them? It’s like the golf clubs that get castigated for being men-only; why do women actually want to be in these things?

    I find it a bit odd that the ladies don’t want the guys to get away from them, it comes across as really insecure. If I was to be very brave on this site I’d observe that on the whole the girls are a bit more emotionally needy than us. Men don’t seem to have the same problem at all. For instance, I don’t see any kind of movement of men demanding to be allowed into the Womens Institute.

    • We are all insecure. It is a human trait which is entirely normal outside of psychopath etc. circles.

      Could be that females tend to talk (endlessly) about their insecurities
      and males don’t admit to their insecurities or react by withdrawal or aggression

      If I was to be very brave on this site I’d observe that on the whole these are autistic traits?

      • Sure, it’s just a matter of degree. It’s true that we tend to withdraw (and kill ourselves?).

        As for autism or whatever, I believe these “conditions” are false, being just the outliers of normal variation in humans. Of course we’re all to some extent afflicted with these things that in extreme cases can be crippling. Synesthesia is an interesting example, where almost all of us know what shapes some made-up words would mean despite there being no definition available.

        • I was going to say nasty things about your choice of avatar ……..but as you are “sensitive”, I won’t.

          Autism, Maleness, Femaleness; they are all “spectrum conditions”

          Or perhaps we are talking a load of “gloop” 🙂
          (sorry, not very imaginative)

          I agree with what you say about human diversity, but how can “extreme cases can be crippling” if you define a condition itself to be “false”.

          Overused and as yet poorly understood, yes.
          False, no.

          • False as in there is no condition analogous to, say having a disease. I don’t slightly have flu, It’s a binary condition. I do slightly have autistic tendencies, or psychopathic ones.
            Obviously having extremes traits of these conditions can be crippling even if they are shared by all humans to different extents.

            What’s up with the avatar? Go right ahead, not sure why you think I’m sensitive.

          • I think that is simplistic. You can “slightly have flu”.
            The body is continuously engaged in a battle on every front against foreign organisms/viruses etc. while maintaining it’s own balance of symbiotic “flora”

            If you “slightly have flu” you are infected with the virus but your immune system keeps the upper hand so you suffer only mild symptoms or are just not “100%”

            I thought you might be “sensitive” because you mentioned the tragedy of suicide

            Or do you “deny” your sensitivity and at last a part of “I do slightly have autistic tendencies, or psychopathic ones” was personal disclosure not rhetoric?

            Re the avatar. forgive my ignorance, but who actually is it?#
            I don’t want to say mean things about someone nice

          • No, that means you have flu. You just haven’t felt the symptoms yet. Or maybe it’s a bad example, but hopefully you get the idea.

            I think suicide is something men do more than women because we aren’t as emotionally communicative. It may make women more needy but it probably prevents them from killing themselves as much, which is good for them and double-tough for us as we get to be the recipients of the needliness without the release valve.

            Regarding the other stuff, I’m saying we are all to some extent autistic, or psychotic, or whatever. I have a guy works for me who I always thought was a touch autistic – just a little bit because he clearly struggles to grasp other peoples emotional reaction even though he’s a clever guy – and now he has a daughter who is diagnosed. We both said it “proved” there might be a genetic component because he knows he’s slightly out there.

            It’s Eric Morcambe!

          • I think you are in danger of retreating up your own argument there. RE the above “undiagnosed, symptomless flu infection”, an autistic person might indeed say “No, that means you have flu.”

            But using the same logic: I, you, and all your staff are currently infected with hundreds (potentially 1.000s, 10,000s …) of infections. Quite likely including a few trivial flu virus infections!

            Best give everyone the day off? LOL

            Meanwhile in the real world I have work to do. BFN.

          • You already have some.

            If I told you there was a rounded, curvy shape like an ameoba, and a sharp pointed star-like shape, and then I told you one was called “booba” and the other “kiki”, which would you say was which, and why?

          • That example works for me but is more likely to just be linguistic habit and culture rather than real Synesthesia.

            Don’t mess. Give me the hard stuff with the REAL brain cross-wiring
            …..and that “off switch” in case I get to taste dog poo instead of lemon meringue!

      • I certainly believe that the best way to study and understand mainstream humanity is to investigate those with unusual mental health disorders and then extrapolate one’s findings to the general population that do not exhibit those disorders. /sarc off.

    • I think normal women do want to get away from the men sometimes. That seems natural to me. Women enjoy a girl’s night out just as much men enjoy a drink with the guys. I would say that for a couple it makes them appreciate each other more, as well as affirming the complementarity of each others gender. Gender segregation is sometimes a good thing. The problem with feminists is they want everybody, including men, to be like them. They want to assimilate men into their collective and strip us of our male identity. Not only do we not want that, I suspect most women don’t want it either.

      • Enjoying separation FROM the men (the girls night out thing, or the Girl Guides / WI) isn’t quite the same as having the men separating from them (the all-men clubs, Scouts, etc.

    • I think it is kind of amusing that feminists only path to “equality” is infiltrating the structures set up by men and becoming more like men. Not so much challenging patriarchy as becoming fully paid-up members.

      • No Mez, it’s just the way women’s brains work. Tell them not to do it and they will do it, tell them they can’t have something and they want it. Tell them they can’t belong and they cry “unfair, I want to join”. Ask them why they can’t start their own women only clubs and they just look dumbfounded or glare hatefully.

        Put simply, women are just big children who cannot do anything for themselves. They wait for the men to do it first and then demand their turn or their ‘fair share’ (which is always most of it).

  14. Ah, the vice versa to Professor Higgins “Why can’t a woman / be more like a man?” A fine line, in a classic musical comedy.

    Keep Guiding for girls and Scouting for boys. There may well be scope for joint activities, but there is no reason for joint identities. If there are girls who wish to be Scouts but not Guides, it is time that the Guides put their own house in order..

    • Agreed, but say (or example) Boys Brigade for boys, Girl Guides for girls and an organisation like the Cubs/Scouts for mixed.

      Many complain that the Guides is no “fun” and is just “mincing about”.

      • Have you no sympathy for those boys who find that Scouts is just “fun” and no “mincing about”? Should the Guides not make room for them?

        • You got me there.

          I guess we need to split it into the Girl Guides and the Gay Guides?

          Yes I have sympathy
          May be a practical problem if your are the only “gay in the village”

        • It should be open to either, I suspect it ‘s because the people running it are not professionals and find it easier to ‘control’ their own gender.

  15. I have to say I don’t think it matters much. Feminism within scouting is likely a bit of a joke in terms of feminist views on “equality”. It likely emphasises difference rather than diminishes them.

    My youngest son is in the air cadets. There are girls in the cadets – not many but a significant number. On the face of it therefore, there is “equality”, except in practice the girls differentiate themselves by the choices they make. They all do first aid, for instance, but tend to avoid the shooting. Most of the girls in the cadets are actually more feminine than the girls that are not in the cadets.

    I’m not quite sure why the girls get attracted to the cadets rather than any other organisation offering similar activities, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t because they are chasing boys or trying to compete with the boys. The boys and girls don’t mix that much, and teenagers really don’t have much of a view of other people anyway – they are obsessed with themselves at that age. I guess the girls just see some activities on offer they would like to try (usually for free or at very low cost) and give it a go, simple as. A few of them will likely end up in the RAF as a career.

    As far as I can see young people need to be given opportunities to try things. Then they can say “I can do that/can’t do that” or “I like that/don’t like that”. As we see, the more freedom that women have the more girly they tend to become anyway. When I was young too many girls were getting pushed into doing things just because the boys were doing it, because feminists were using these girls to challenge the “patriarchy”.

  16. How many little girls are going to be interested in ‘ kayaking, abseiling, climbing and zorbing’ from the Scouts web site. Others include camping, and rock climbing. Not many I suspect. It seems to me it’s more likely a marketing ploy to get more boys interested in going to Scouts rather than ‘feminisation of scouting’. I can’t think many boys would be signing up for girl guides ‘care in the community’, cooky cooking, and dress making badges, even if it was available.

    The piece about boys education was an article originally published about teachers in Northern Ireland. Why do we assume that means all teachers in England are doing tha same thing?. As it happens the tendency in Northern Ireland is to mark down boys who are naughty in class, while marking up boys who are good, over all meaning boys who are good are marked up higher than girls. I agree however that boys have different learning needs and we should be considering more single sex schools.

Comments are closed.