Fewer, but not far between. They're basically all conservatives.
You state that most claims of racism, misogyny, etc, are bull.
Education about birth control is also a firm yes.
Do you hold the door open for strangers?
- Thread starter LetsGoDuke301
- Start date
You state that most claims of racism, misogyny, etc, are bull.
Education about birth control is also a firm yes.
You're completely ignorant on the topic, you posted proof.
You wouldn't know what to do with feminism if she sat on your face.
Last edited:
I don't think it's as widespread as you think. Possibly in the bible belt, but even the Catholic church allows birth control now. I think it's dumb to not allow it obviously.
Mmmkay, I'm sure you think you know, but the statistics are on my side.
"According to a 2015 Vox poll conducted by PerryUndem, a research and communications firm, 85 percent of Americans believe in “equality for women.” Yet, only 18 percent of respondents identified as a feminist."
That's because people believe in women's rights and equality, but they don't buy into the BS brand of feminism that is being pushed today.
Just look for videos on the subject on YouTube and you will find almost nothing but a battle going on back and fourth with the people that believe in the type of feminism displayed in the OP and people fighting against it.
Score one for the progressive libs. "Boy" has been removed from Boy Scouts.
I saw this yesterday. I truly don't get this one. I mean I don't get a lot of progressive BS.. but this one? What are the girl scouts for? Like, if you're a girl, why not just go to them..? Why make such a big deal that boy scouts have to change their names??
You wouldn't understand you little bigot.
So it was the conservatives that cared so much that it was called Boy Scouts they pushed to have boy removed?
Libs are some twisted people.
By the way, my girlfriend ordered a children's book about gay bunny rabbits written by John Oliver. I asked her... if we had kids, if she'd read it to them. She was offended I asked the question because she would want the kids to be themselves.
Do you guys condone this?
Do you guys condone this?
What a *ucking unfortunate, disgraceful day. Thanks to all the idiots out there that get offended by the drop of a hat, one of the great programs for our youth has been destroyed.
They had Girl Scouts. They had Boy Scouts. Why was that not good enough? Like I said, idiot progressive liberal parents.
Exactly. "You guys care so much, get over it!"
Liberals: Change the name because it offends me
You just offended me because you said you were offended.
The Boy Scouts have always leaned conservative. The fact they went out of their way to exclude little gay kids was weird.
Regardless of that... this is a play by that organization to expand into female programs, thus increasing their potential market. In order to do that, they had to change the name, which limits them.
If you ask me, calling them the scouts is cooler anyways.
But of course if you're conservative this is evidence of liberals taking over society.
Regardless of that... this is a play by that organization to expand into female programs, thus increasing their potential market. In order to do that, they had to change the name, which limits them.
If you ask me, calling them the scouts is cooler anyways.
But of course if you're conservative this is evidence of liberals taking over society.
To me? I am not losing sleep over it. But I find it ridiculous and anyone who doesn't find it ridiculous has a twisted mind. What difference is it going to make now that boy has been removed?
There are Girl Scouts for girls. Do you not see how silly this is or sounds? You can't keep playing the "conservatives will conservative" card when you got called out for your post. Progressives got their panties in a wad over nothing, like usual, and here we are. There was nothing wrong with the name until they made something wrong with it.
But if you read why they actually are changing their name it's because they're offering programs for older girls not offered by Girl Scouts. No idea why that's controversial.
Why aren't the Girl Scouts being pressured to offer these programs? This seems like a cop out.
I am not sure there is the mounting pressure you believe there is. But if I'm an ambitious scout person who believes in my organization and wants expansion, it's the next logical step. Really do think it's that simple.
If I'm the Boy Scouts, I go all in on being The Scouts, then take over the Girl Scouts to boost my membership, which is declining. It's Scout capitalism.
The Girl Scouts, as I've read, do not want the Boy Scouts to include girls because it would affect their membership rates. So, what we are seeing is competition in the Scouting marketplace.
The Girl Scouts, as I've read, do not want the Boy Scouts to include girls because it would affect their membership rates. So, what we are seeing is competition in the Scouting marketplace.
I am skeptical about the intentions. If this is the angle they are taking, it is a huge cop out.
“I formally request that your organization stay focused on serving the 90 percent of American boys not currently participating in Boy Scouts,” Kathy Hopinkah Hannan, the president of the Girl Scouts, wrote at the time to her counterpart, Randall Stephenson of the Boy Scouts.
The Boy Scouts of America may also be hoping to buoy its slumping membership. On Wednesday, the organization said it had about 1.25 million Cub Scouts and over 800,000 Boy Scouts in nearly 100,000 units across the United States. At its peak in the 1970s, the Boy Scouts of America, incorporated in 1910, had closer to five million members.
All that tells me is that PlayStation and Xbox have taken a toll on the Boy Scouts. It doesn't show me their true intentions. But it's whatever. I have to get to work now.
I'm thinking about working this morning. Instead researching Boy Scouts
Seems silly to change the name, unless the Boy Scouts are consciously looking to have programs for girls, in which case it makes sense.
Not sure if the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are the same thing, just for different genders. Arent the boy scouts a lot more outdoorsy focused?
Not sure if the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are the same thing, just for different genders. Arent the boy scouts a lot more outdoorsy focused?
Yeah, as expected, this isn't some "PC" thing and has nothing to do with "progressive libs."
First of all, it isn't the parent organization "Boy Scouts" that is changing the name; only the program for the 11-17 year olds. They started accepting girls in that group (called "Boy Scouts") last year and they wanted to give girls the chance to make Eagle Scout... hence the name change. Why would you call it "Boy Scouts" if both boys and girls can join? Just call it "Scouts." Makes sense. And yes, the overall organization "Boy Scouts" is still being called "Boy Scouts".
https://www.apnews.com/d3efeda8ffb7...ning-the-ranks,-Boy-Scouts-plan-a-name-change
Some "getting all worked up over nothing" folks here. I swear, if you just read, like, one article about it, you'd know what the story is, and wouldn't have to invent some angry liberals to blame
First of all, it isn't the parent organization "Boy Scouts" that is changing the name; only the program for the 11-17 year olds. They started accepting girls in that group (called "Boy Scouts") last year and they wanted to give girls the chance to make Eagle Scout... hence the name change. Why would you call it "Boy Scouts" if both boys and girls can join? Just call it "Scouts." Makes sense. And yes, the overall organization "Boy Scouts" is still being called "Boy Scouts".
https://www.apnews.com/d3efeda8ffb7...ning-the-ranks,-Boy-Scouts-plan-a-name-change
Some "getting all worked up over nothing" folks here. I swear, if you just read, like, one article about it, you'd know what the story is, and wouldn't have to invent some angry liberals to blame
Last edited:
I actually like the idea of "The Scouts" and have both boys and girls sections underneath or something like that as long as they kept them separate or just fully integrate the two. But it's overly dumb to have both and allow the other to join.
Who would have guessed the progressive liberal would chime in that we should NOT blame the progressive liberals here. SURPRISE SURPRISE.Yeah, as expected, this isn't some "PC" thing and has nothing to do with "progressive libs."
First of all, it isn't the parent organization "Boy Scouts" that is changing the name; only the program for the 11-17 year olds. They started accepting girls in that group (called "Boy Scouts") last year and they wanted to give girls the chance to make Eagle Scout... hence the name change. Why would you call it "Boy Scouts" if both boys and girls can join? Just call it "Scouts." Makes sense. And yes, the overall organization "Boy Scouts" is still being called "Boy Scouts".
https://www.apnews.com/d3efeda8ffb7...ning-the-ranks,-Boy-Scouts-plan-a-name-change
Some "getting all worked up over nothing" folks here. I swear, if you just read, like, one article about it, you'd know what the story is, and wouldn't have to invent some angry liberals to blame
As recently as last year, 37 states required abstinence or abstinence-only in sex ed. 26 of them stress abstinence. 11 states have no specified guidelines. By comparison, only 17 states + DC require info on contraceptives.
I swear to God, this religious nonsense... as an agnostic, it is so frustrating to see.
It's also logical. On average, liberals have always been more accepting of marginalized groups. On average, conservatives have always been more judgmental of them. If you would deny that or think it requires proof in the first place, it's clear this won't be going anywhere.
I graduated high school in rural Kentucky in 1964. We were taught about sex and never was abstinence mentioned to my recall. Of course, birth control pills were not plentiful, but we were taught about them. We were taught about condoms and rhythm. At the time I did not worry about it.
I guess we were just too stupid to understand all the complex political issues of guidelines, so our teacher just taught us about sex and human reproduction and things that would interfere with reproduction.
Of course, most of us were raised on a farm and we were experts on animal husbandry because that is what we did on the farm. So, we had a head start of the dumb city kids.
There's no evidence that it was progressive libs behind this change, but that's who was blamed from the very start. Why wouldn't you expect someone lumped into that category to set the record straight? It makes perfect sense.
Similar threads
