James Woods Has the Perfect Question for Boy/Girl Scout Debacle
Leave it to James Woods to cut to the chase.
The Hollywood actor — a rock of conservative logic in a puddle of flaccid thinking — has built a well-earned reputation for cutting commentary on social issues.
But his question this week about the news that the Boy Scouts have officially, unconditionally surrendered to political correctness by changing their name was even sharper than usual.
And his logic was unassailable.
Now that the Boy Scouts no longer exist and must accept girls, how is it possible Girl Scouts still exist, but don’t accept boys?
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 3, 2018
Not even the biggest fans of the change have an answer.
Woods’ tweet was spurred by the news that the Boy Scouts of America — a revered name in youth development since it was incorporated in 1910 — would no longer be known by anything so gender-specific as the word “Boys.”
Instead, the organization will now be known as “Scouts BSA,” to reflect its decision last fall to buckle under to conformist pressures and open its ranks to girls.
The move might have been greeted with joy by liberals, but there’s no small amount of outrage — and contempt — among critics for the Scouts’ about-face, and the new name that symbolizes it.
As always, Woods tweet stirred up comment from all ends of the political spectrum, but there were quite a few that saw a dark force at work.
As crazy as it sounds, I honestly believe these leftist libnuts have a plan to make the men of America as weak and sissy-fied as possible so that our ability to defend our country will be greatly deminished!!
— Deb Williams ن (@DebWilliams57) May 3, 2018
Because James, women on the Left are “neutralizing” men right before our very eyes. I’ve been warning men about this for awhile now. It will get worse unless it’s reversed.
— SusanKnowles (@SusanKnowles) May 3, 2018
And then there was this:
Thank you James. Why are news organizations not asking this simple question?
— Mason Lopez (@mglcll) May 3, 2018
The answer to that one, unfortunately, is obvious.
The media that destroyed its own credibility as an institution by its slavish devotion to the Barack Obama presidency isn’t capable of even questioning any part of the liberal agenda anymore.
It’s not even capable of understanding that it should be questioned.
No one questions the Girl Scouts because they’re an unthreatening American institution that, for most of us, means cookies every spring.
The Boy Scouts, however, were offensive to liberals because of their understandable reluctance to let gay men near young boys, emphasis on honesty and honorable behavior, self-reliance and a general attitude that it was important to teach boys to be men — what liberals today call “toxic masculinity.”
For liberal purposes, the Girl Scouts don’t have to be destroyed. The Boy Scouts do.
Forcing the group to accept gays was one step (The Associated Press laughably claims the group is stronger than ever since the move). Forcing it to accept girls is another. Now a name change that’s literally emasculating — “Scouts BSA” — is a third.
Woods wondered why the Girl Scouts still exist? At this rate, they might last longer than whatever the group formerly known as the Boy Scouts ends up.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
