I covered this episode briefly yesterday (Item , but upon reflection, it deserves more derision. The decision to pull the simple tweet saluting all of the women who have served on the Supreme Court because of indefensible tweets like these cited yesterday…
and others, like this…
…was bad enough: craven, submissive, and irresponsible. The organization’s explanation afterwards, when it had begun getting the much-deserved criticism for backing down in the face of the Woke Mob, compounded its disgrace. First it tweeted meekly,
..and when that abject grovel was not well-received, a Girl Scouts USA spokesperson so mealy-mouthed that—well it’s too early, and I can’t think of a witty metaphor—gave us this:
“We have a legacy of highlighting women who have risen to the top of their fields including leaders of both political parties and our judicial branch. It was in this tradition that we congratulated Justice Barrett (as we have for Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and O’Connor), This has been construed to be a political statement, but that was not our intention and we removed the post to minimize the negative conversation. For over 100 years we have and will continue to work for equality and to break down barriers for girls everywhere and support increasing the presence of women across all levels of government.”
1. There is a clear distinction between political and partisan. “Working for equality” and “Breaking down barriers” for girls are inherently political goals. Saluting Supreme Court Justices based solely on their gender is also political. By no possible or logical interpretation could it be fairly called “partisan,” however. Three of the women honored in the tweet were appointed by Democrats and were or are ideologically situated on the left side of the spectrum, and two were appointed by Republicans. Justice O’Connor was a moderate conservative in her opinions. Nobody knows what Justice Barrett will do.
[Allow me to digress a bit, because this annoys me. Kerry Justice at Yahoo!, allegedly a reporter and not a pundit, writes, “Many pointed specifically to the threat that the justice represents toward women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights and the nation’s response to climate change; some even threatened to boycott the organization.” Either learn to write more clearly, or stop spreading fake news. There is no “threat” toward any of these things represented by the Justice. No case is before the court that poses a “threat.” Nobody knows how Barrett will rule. The term “threat” describes an opinion or, more fairly, pure fear-mongering by partisan activists. In a news story, the correct and ethical wording would state that some believe that Barrett poses such threats]
2. You can’t “lift up girls” by modeling behavior that teaches them to hide and surrender any time they are bullied and challenged. How can the organization accomplish its stated mission of empowering girls if it immediately retreats from an objectively neutral and positive statement because activists choose to criticize it unfairly? That’s a terrible example for girls, or anyone.
3. If women are going to back down any time someone complains about what they say or opine so they can “minimize the negative conversation,” they are going to find themselves dominated and reduced to subordinate positions in business, in relationships, in politics, everywhere.
4. There is no substantive difference between allowing men to force you into backing down and allowing women to do the same thing. Bullies are bullies.
5. This is the acculturated attitude women have been indoctrinated in for centuries. It would be funny to see a group that supposedly stands for empowering women behave this way if it were not so sad. “We are strong, independent women, but we certainly don’t want to express anything that anyone else finds offensive or disagrees with! That wasn’t our intent!”