Category Archives: Children

June 17, 2013 · 10:22 am

Who Needs Siblings? The Feminist Crusade for Only Children

“Call me a terrible mother. I have an only child.”

So begins Lauren Sandler’s recent New York Times article, “Only Children: Lonely and Selfish?” Daring readers to judge her (one can imagine her eyes flashing, chin thrust forward, and arms defiantly crossed), author Lauren Sandler makes the case for only children—why they are smarter, better (seemingly at everything), and more conducive to parental happiness. Her new book, “One and Only: The Freedom of Having an Only Child and the Joy of Being One,” expands on those arguments.

An only child and the mother of an only child, Sandler seems more than a little piqued at the culture’s prevailing judgment that raising an only child is undesirable. (A mere three percent of American women, for example, say it’s ideal to have an only child.)

So Lauren Sandler is woman on a crusade.

She extols the benefits of raising an only child, piling selected statistics one atop the other, hoping to make the world an emotionally safer place for mothers like her.

Turns out, though, that she’s less than even-handed in her treatment of the research.

For example, Sandler argues that, “Endless research shows that only children are, in fact, no more self-involved than anyone else.” Not so, according to a new study. Comparing data from before and after the institution of China’s one-child policy, a 2013 study shows a causal link between being an only child and acquiring certain negative character traits. The study found that ‘onlies’ are “significantly less trusting, less trustworthy, more risk-averse, less competitive, more pessimistic, and less conscientious individuals.” Ouch, right? Of course no study should be used to pre-judge any individual. But it does cast doubt on Sandler’s sunny conclusions.

Sandler also claims that, “[P]arents who have one child tend to be happier.” Happiness data, however, is not also notoriously subjective but also more complex than the author acknowledges. The real answer to the question of what makes parents happier is, “It depends on when you ask the question.” A large-scale study of global trends related to happiness and fertility offers these conclusions: “The association between number of children and happiness strongly depends on age. In the youngest age groups (less than 30), happiness decreases…with number of children. At ages 30–39, the negative association vanishes, and at older ages (40–49, 50 and above) the association between number of children and happiness becomes positive so that those with three children are happiest.”

In other words, parenting is a lot of work but, generally speaking, it eventually yields much happiness, particularly for the parents of many.

Breeding or Mothering?

Sandler’s marshaling of statistics here and anecdotes there in favor of raising an only child, however, is far less troubling than her impoverished view of motherhood.

Motherhood, she believes, reflects our “personal” choices about “breeding,” an experience that must be well-managed lest it threaten one’s identity and ‘authentic self.’ Not long ago, in a Time magazine piece, Sandler displayed her open contempt for women who have three or more children, derisively calling them “champion breeders.

Allow me to get personal for a moment. Anyone who speaks of motherhood as “breeding” comes from a fundamentally different place than I do. Breeding is what a farmer does with goats and horses, physically managing reproduction for the good of the herd, or his bottom line. My motherhood began with my love for my husband, and our mutual desire to create, through our love, another human being who will live and love forever—a person desired for his or her own sake. Motherhood, in my book, shouldn’t reflect a selfish desire to “have” a child as the latest, greatest possession at this juncture in life. Nor should it be a calculated decision to enhance overall family happiness or productivity by weighing the pros and cons of a potentially ‘needy child’ versus a potential prodigy-as-source-of-parental-happiness.

Zero-sum parenting

But Sandler lives within the paradigm of zero-sum parenting, comforting herself with the thought that there’s only so much love, money, time, etc. to go around, so it makes sense to limit how and when one uses these non-renewable resources. Only children benefit, she believes, because “parents who have just one child are able to devote more resources — time, money and attention — to them than parents who have to divide resources among more children.” Scarcity is a global thing, too, Sandler notes. “For one thing, one-child families make obvious sense in a time of diminishing resources.” When there’s not enough to go around, better to produce fewer people with whom to share than to produce what’s needed more abundantly. (She ignores the implications of the demographic winter now blanketing much of the developed world.)

By Sandler’s reckoning, any child who might drain more than his or her anticipated fair share of resources is a burden to be avoided. (She’s not alone in her thinking. For a brilliant analysis of the “people are the problem” mindset, read Robert Zubrin’s, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Anti-Humanism.)

As a result, Sandler seems fear-driven and miserly, bent on hoarding her precious inner “resources” in a climate of self-imposed scarcity. She observes her friends, diminished as persons, she believes, because of their decisions to have a second child: “I’ve watched most of my friends tread into the tunnel of second children, few of them to emerge as how I remember their former engaged selves.”

But what does it mean to be “engaged” in life? For Sandler, it’s about freedom and pleasure secured by “plentiful travel, the delights of urban living, late night rock shows and dinner parties, and the frequent freedom to binge on a novel over a weekend.”

Not much room in there for giving and nurturing another’s life. But then again, in Sandler’s world, she who gives the most, loses.

Sandler’s been riding the “One and Only” horse for awhile, swinging her crop wildly to keep ahead of the doubters (or perhaps her own doubts). She justifies her own parents’ decision to limit their child-rearing burden to one: “They wanted the experience of parenting but also their careers, the freedom to travel and the lower cost and urbane excitement of making a home in an apartment rather than a suburban house.” In summing up her mother’s mindset, Sandler offers a clue to her own: “To have a happy kid, she [Sandler’s mother] figured she needed to be a happy mother, and to be a happy mother, she needed to be a happy person. To do that, she had to preserve her authentic self, which she could not imagine doing with a second child.”

Sadly, Sandler seems to view a second child as something of a threat. In an article for The Atlantic entitled, “The Secret to Being Both a Successful Writer and a Mother: Have Just One Kid,” Sandler focuses admiringly on the “brimming” lives of female writers. She observes that they penned their literary and creative masterpieces only by beating back the heavy demands of motherhood, while their peers were “perplexingly shortchanged by domestic concerns.”

Sandler asks, “[H]ow do the rest of us mortals negotiate the balance between selfhood and motherhood? Is stopping at one child the answer, or at least the beginning of one?” On her personal website, she offers her own vision of fulfillment: “We envision a liberated existence, one of satisfaction and fulfillment, a life built upon intentionality and individualism rather than obligation and role filling. This liberated adulthood exists at odds with parenting.”

What Sandler doesn’t get is that parenting is not a zero-sum game. Love multiplies. It stretches, deepens, and grows in richness as it is shared. My husband and I have seven children. We don’t serve love from an ever-shrinking pie, where the eldest first anticipates the whole pie, then watches aghast as it’s cut in half, then into thirds, and on down, until his share of the love is reduced to the tiniest sliver—one-seventh—a cruel taste of the abundance he once enjoyed. On the contrary, the love of our original trio—mom, dad, and baby—has expanded exponentially with each new sibling.

I’ll never forget the moment when our oldest son, at three, erupted in the most joyous cascade of laughter I’ve ever heard. He was playing with his one-year-old sister, and her antics touched a funny bone within him that I didn’t even know existed. His many little friends couldn’t trigger it either. But his little sister, whom he loved, drew something new and wonderful out of him. It’s a scenario I’ve seen repeated over and over, in countless different ways, with each of our children. In loving, we expand not only our own capacity to love but also the richness of our own personalities.

Perhaps that’s the saddest thing of all about Sandler’s crusade. She fails to see that human flourishing does not depend on “careers, the freedom to travel…and urbane excitement.” It depends on discovering the meaning in life that comes from love given and love received.

The more the better.

(This article was originally published at MercatorNet.com under the title “Zero-Sum Parenting.”)

The Boy Scouts: Newly “Out and Proud”

Uniformed Boy Scouts marched front and center this past weekend, leading the Utah gay pride parade in Salt Lake City.

No matter that officials from the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) told the marchers not to wear their uniforms. (BSA policies prohibit Scouts from wearing uniforms while engaging in social or political advocacy.)

For these Scouts, the gay pride message trumped the Boy Scout regulations.

Kenji Mikesell, a gay Eagle Scout marching in uniform, justified his defiance because “It just feels like the right thing to do.” Sending a “welcoming” message for “gay kids getting involved in Scouting,” he says, is a “’we want you here’ type of thing.”

It was actually a bit of a risky move for these ‘out and proud’ Scouts, not because the Boy Scouts are likely to impose sanctions (doubtful), but because gay pride events notoriously feature sexually explicit costumes, slogans, and images. The wrong camera angle could have been a public relations disaster.

The progressive media, however, helpfully focused on middle-aged gay couples and their kids, not drag queens in speedos. (The concern was real enough, however, for Utah’s Scouts for Equality to warn supporters “to use caution when promoting inclusivity in the BSA at events” that sport “adult themes and imagery.”)

What should we make of the proud march of Utah’s gay Scouts?

First, expect more of the same, in every city, at every gay pride parade. Parade organizers and national LGBT advocacy groups will handle the choreography, because uniformed Boy Scouts waving rainbow flags are sure to generate prime-time media coverage (even if it’s the same few Scouts over and over).

It’s a paralyzing, no-win situation for Scouting officials: if they levy sanctions against the “openly gay” Scouts who violate the no-public-advocacy-while-in-uniform policy, they’ll be kicking the proverbial hornet’s nest, creating martyrs, stirring up LGBT animosity, and sending donors scurrying.

If they let “openly gay” kids flout the uniform rule—because they are only celebrating “who they are,” after all—the BSA will invite further challenges to any BSA rules that gays might perceive as unwelcoming, unsupportive, or limiting their identity expression. (The BSA reckoned poorly if it really thought changing the membership policy to admit “openly gay” teens would lessen the pressure from LGBT activists.)

Second, the Utah pride parade is a stark reminder that, no matter how loudly BSA insists that all “sexual conduct,” whether heterosexual and homosexual, is “contrary” to Scouting’s values, or how clearly BSA says that social and political advocacy is not permitted in Scouting, the gay culture—inherently sexual—is likely to waft in with the “openly gay” teen.

Think back to the teenage Scouts marching in Utah. One hopes that a young Scout like Kenji skipped the other “Pride”events. But, then again, why would he? Perhaps, caught up in the celebration of “who he is,” he joined the audience at the Pride Pageant, which showcased “the most beautiful, talented and outrageous drag personalities in Utah.” Maybe, at his parents’ urging, he sought to learn how to avoid HIV, which now afflicts one in five gay men, and stopped by the Festival’s Health and Wellness Zone to pick up “FREE condoms, lube, dental dams and more.” And, while he was there, he might have gotten a free HIV test, just in case.

One thing’s for sure. As he moved through the crowd, wearing his uniform, Kenji undoubtedly earned hugs and high fives. For to be “openly gay” in today’s culture, especially as a teen-age boy, is to be hailed far and wide as “so brave, so inspirational.”

Of course that will have an impact on other struggling youth, perhaps encouraging some to identify prematurely as gay.

Columnist Tom McDonald puts it well:

The idea of “gay teens” is particularly problematic. There are, quite obviously, same-sex attracted teens, but the idea that teenagers, who can’t even settle on a hairstyle or a musical preference, can declare a fixed lifetime sexual identity is absurd. Adolescence is a time of flux and experimentation. The emotional and sexual tsunami of teen years is trying enough when we’re just dealing with the behavior and its ramifications.

When we attach ontology to the mix (making these desires central to being), we just make everything more confusing. A teen with same-sex attraction is now a “Gay Teen.” It’s like joining a club you can never leave.

For Catholics following the Church’s teaching, the struggle against same-sex attraction (like the struggle against any disorder or sinful behavior) is one best undertaken privately, with the support of family, confessor, and counselors, or within the context of a peer support group, like Courage. This quiet, private approach also respects the privacy of other youth who might be oblivious to others’ struggles against same-sex attraction, or who might find their peers’ struggles unduly troubling.

The recent letter by the Chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting (NCCS) suggests that Catholic troops will try and take the quiet approach, neither encouraging nor pressuring youth to disclose same-sex attraction. However, the letter also notes that, in keeping with the new BSA policy, a youth need not hide his same-sex orientation either.

Therein lies the problem. The cultural voices, including those of some progressive Catholics and denominations (like the Methodists) that sponsor Boy Scout troops, too often respond to youth same-sex attraction with celebration. Accepting the “openly gay teen” has come to mean affirming his “gayness” and encouraging him to embrace same-sex sexual desires as ‘another normal,’ without shame.

Something’s got to give.

It won’t be Catholic doctrine, that’s for sure.

But given the ease with which the ‘out and proud’ Boy Scouts rolled past official Scout policies, I suspect the BSA will continue to give ground…until there’s nothing left on which to stand.

2 Comments

Filed under Catholicism, Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Kids and Character, Men, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Scouts, Sexuality

Tagged as Boy Scouts and Gay teens, Boy Scouts of America, BSA, Gay pride, Gay rights, LGBT, Scouts and Catholics

May 28, 2013 · 10:01 am

The Boy Scouts Admit Gay Kids: Does It Matter?

It didn’t take long for the mud to start flying.

The Boy Scouts’ decision to lift its membership ban on gay youth was but hours old, and already the commenters on the Washington Post’s story about the decision were divided into warring camps—“bigots” versus “perverts” (as described by their respective opponents).

The dialogue, such is it is, captures our cultural tension over homosexuality. No one wants to “hurt” kids or make them feel bad by excluding them. (And it’s a pity that name-callers from both ends dominate on-line comments.) But as a culture, we’re divided over what it means to be “openly gay” and uncertain what our response should be to those who declare themselves so.

Let’s be clear: the Boy Scouts’ decision is not a statement about the morality of homosexuality. It’s a decision to “serve every kid.” Premised on the idea that “kids are better off in Scouting,” the “voting members of the National Council approved a resolution removing the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone, effective January 1, 2014.” The ban on homosexual adult leaders stands.

But while lifting the membership restriction on gay youth says nothing, directly, about morality, the moral issues surrounding homosexuality will be impossible for parents, kids, and Scout leaders to avoid.

Certainly no boy should be taunted or teased for being less masculine than his peers and no adolescent should be treated badly for experiencing same-sex attraction. The Catholic Church specifically teaches that individuals experiencing same-sex attraction “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

Arguably, the Scouts would be a fine place for a boy who is struggling with his sense of masculinity to find strong male role models and to feel accepted by and included within a friendship circle of male peers. That acceptance alone may prevent lifelong emotional wounds. Catholic troops, in particular, where all members should be motivated by authentic charity, ought to be welcoming places marked by friendship and sensitivity to others’ feelings.

It’s simplistic, though, to suppose that the only issues posed by integrating openly gay youth into scout troops will be issues of kindness and inclusion.

The biggest issue is really an “if/then” problem: If a teen is “openly gay,” then what?

The culturally-approved LGBT script goes something like this: the teen identifies himself predominantly by his sexual orientation (i.e he’s a ‘gay teen,’), finds role models within the gay community, envisions a future with gay sexual partners, and begins to initiate romantic (if not sexual) relationships with other gay teens or men. He proclaims his sexual orientation proudly and supports “equality” for the LGBT community.

Practically speaking, the openly gay teen in the Boy Scouts will act like any other teenager, but focused on guys, not girls: he might talk about the boy he has a crush on, comment on the physical attractiveness of a particular singer, sports star, or friend, or share harmless details of his same-sex dates. Those actions are natural enough in the heterosexual context, interspersed among conversations about sports, food, and scouting activities.

But they pose a problem coming from a gay Scout. How should straight Scouts treat those comments from their gay friend? If they react to a gay friend’s crush just as they would to a straight friend’s love interest, they effectively normalize his sexual orientation. If they react with discomfort or distaste at the thought of their gay friend’s interest in another boy, they might hurt his feelings or be labeled as intolerant or bigoted. It’s impossible—and undesirable—for Scout leaders to impose a blanket ban on all such conversations, given that friendships inevitably involve sharing details of each other’s lives.

That’s just one set of potential problems, however.

The gay teen is also likely to behave in ways that set him apart from his heterosexual peers in the Scouting troop. He may, as some studies suggest, use pornography at “higher” rates than his straight peers, or be exposed—through gay pornography, conversations, or experience—to “specialized sexual behaviors” common only to the gay community (Warning: Not for the squeamish.)

He might show up at camp wearing a Human Rights Campaign t-shirt, emblazoned with the LGBT slogan, “All Love is Equal.” His Facebook page may sport the latest ‘marriage equality’ meme or display his pictures from the gay pride parade he attended. And his profile picture might be a cute photo of him with his boyfriend.

Again, how should his peers and Scout leaders respond? It’s impossible to ignore—and beyond the authority of the Scout leaders to control. But it will have an impact.

The situations I’ve described are not far-fetched. They reflect the reality of living in a culture terribly confused about gender and sexuality—a culture that no longer knows why it matters whether sex occurs between a husband and wife or between two men, two women, or any consensual, pleasurable combination.

It will be tough, if not impossible, for the Church to include gay Scouts without confronting, head-on, the deep divide between Catholic sexual morality and the secular creed of sexual ‘tolerance.’

The Church’s approach to homosexual persons differs greatly from the cultural script. The teen who finds himself experiencing same-sex attraction is encouraged by the Church to see himself first and foremost as a person, called to live chastely and to strive for Christian perfection (a description that applies to all of us, regardless of sexual orientation).

But he also needs support in understanding that his sexual attraction towards other boys or men is a “disordered” inclination, because sexual intercourse is properly oriented towards “the conjugal love of man and woman.” As a result, he must understand that “under no circumstances” can same-sex sexual contact ever be “approved.” To bear that cross, he will need to cultivate the virtue of “self-mastery,” pursue “disinterested friendship,” and seek strength from “prayer and sacramental grace.” (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2357-2359.)

The practical impact? The gay teen in a Catholic troop shouldn’t be sharing with his fellow Scouts his sexual attraction to other males. He can’t talk excitedly about bumping into his crush at the mall or hoping he’ll say yes to the prom. In fact, he can’t take a same-sex partner to a dance or on a date because he must strive to keep same-sex friendships non-romantic.

So what, then, does it really mean to say that an “openly gay” teen will be accepted in Scout troops? It won’t—it can’t—possibly look the same in a Catholic troop as in the Unitarian troop down the street.

The only thing that’s clear right now is that the Boy Scouts’ decision has stoked, not quenched, the cultural fires over homosexuality.

4 Comments

Filed under Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Kids and Character, Lessons Learned, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Scouts, Sexuality

Tagged as Boy Scouts, Boy Scouts of America, BSA and sexual orientation, Catholic Church and LGBT, equality, gay teens, homosexual, LGBT and culture, LGBT and youth, youth

May 13, 2013 · 12:00 am

Moms Need Mentors Too

“I want my Mom!” No, that wasn’t the wail of a four-year- old. . . . It was the inner wail of a young mom with a two-week-old baby, two toddlers under three, and a husband heading out the door for an unavoidable business trip. For the first time in my motherhood, I had more children than hands and felt barely able to take care of myself, much less three very wonderful, but very dependent, children.

My mom, unfortunately, left the week before—headed home 542 miles away to her own family, my dad and my eight younger siblings. My mom needed to be home. I desperately wanted her with me.

It was a lonely moment.

But in my loneliness, I prayed. I asked God to help me find a fellow mom to learn from and lean on. I hoped for a friend, but a wise friend, one whose footsteps I might follow on this journey of faith called ‘motherhood.’ God provided, all in His perfect time. I met an older mom who gently shepherded me through many a low point, sharing encouragement, wisdom, and, most powerfully, her gift of faith. At two other critical junctures in my life, additional “mentor moms” stepped forward, blessing me with perspective, encouragement, and practical help.

I didn’t have a label for these important women—I just knew I was grateful for their friendship and prayerful encouragement. They (as well as my own mom) made a tremendous difference to my mothering and my own spiritual growth.

A Heartfelt Need

Recently, I asked some blogger friends to pose these questions to their Catholic-mommy readers: “Would you be interested in a mentoring relationship with an older mom, and, if so, what qualities would you look for?”

The floodgates opened.

Mother after young mother posted a reply. Honest, emotional, and hungry, they shared how lonely and difficult motherhood can be. Our fast-moving consumer culture under-appreciates the intangible value of shaping a child’s heart and soul—and these mothers feel keenly that lack of support. In addition, these were Catholic moms, committed not only to raising their children well in secular terms, but also to raising them right in the eyes of God.

They need mentor moms. One young mom, Jenny, put it simply: “I would just love to have someone in real life to whom I could go to with questions or just for encouragement during rough times.” Patrice, a Catholic writer and mother, values a mentor’s sense of perspective and hope: “They can show me that I will live through whatever life stage I’m currently going through with my children.” Emily, an artist and teacher, remembers how overwhelming life seemed as a first-time mom. “In the beginning I was completely sleep-deprived and I just needed to have someone visit me and talk, maybe bring a meal and care about what was going on.” Mary Beth hopes for “someone who is . . . a few steps ahead on the journey of motherhood, someone willing to share wisdom they’ve gained on this journey, [and] who is faith-filled, encouraging, and has a bit of time.” Kate Wicker, a popular blogger whose writing encourages moms daily, summed it up: “What so many of us long for is maternal empathy.”

These moms yearn for basic mothering support, but within the rich context of their lives as Catholic mothers. Yes, they need practical help, but, as Emily says, “combined with prayer and spiritual wisdom.” For a mom like Christine, a mentor mom would build on the foundation laid by her own mother. “My mom was my first and greatest mentor. She shared with me her love for God and our Catholic faith.”

Very few women, though, seem to have their own moms, sisters, or grandmothers nearby. Even those who do, Antonina points out, don’t necessarily find support for a faithful Catholic life. ”We are either too far away from family or have made lifestyle choices that differ dramatically from their experiences, i.e. faith, home schooling, parenting.” Women who were mothered poorly, were not raised Catholic, or whose extended families embrace cafeteria-style Catholicism feel the need for a Catholic mentor mom most acutely. Tosha’s experience is typical: “My generation needs mentor moms! Many of us grew up in broken homes. Our mothers did not pass down any of the ‘female arts’ and homemaking skills that they took for granted. We are left with the Church to guide us and reading about raising a godly family in books and on blogs.”

Divorced Catholic moms face similar struggles—plus more. Lisa Duffy, who ministers to divorced Catholics through her excellent website (www.divorcedcatholic .com), finds that divorced Catholic moms want “what married mothers want . . . to be accepted, not judged, and loved. To not be excluded simply because they are divorced, to not be judged (because oftentimes they have fought valiantly to save their marriage and are divorced against their will), and for other women to be genuinely friendly to them, to listen patiently to them without having answers. Just to be interested and compassionate.”

Today’s young women struggle to raise not only healthy families, but also holy families anchored in Catholicism. They want to know how to:

● love their husbands and children more deeply and sacrificially

● pray and pass on the faith to their children

● raise happy, balanced children

● live the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality

● accept their trials, struggles, and mistakes without discouragement or resentment

● become holy, peace-filled moms

They are looking for something akin to spiritual mothering.

A Scriptural Solution: Titus 2:3–5

Elizabeth Foss, a mother of nine and an award-winning blogger, believes that mentoring “re-creates” the extended family culture, allowing experienced moms to pass on the vision, skills, and faith at the heart of Catholic motherhood. It is spiritual motherhood, rooted in Scripture: “Older women . . . are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited” (Tit. 2:3–5).

In addition, Elizabeth points out, mentoring younger moms is a practical way to build the culture of life, “helping moms create strong families that will nurture” life. Emily’s situation provides a case in point: “I want to have a second child. Yet without support, I am scared.” Lack of support for motherhood creates a ripple effect across the lives of women and their families.

So, if younger women are eager to learn, are “older women” available to guide them? I turned to experienced moms and asked. Darby, an active parish volunteer, replied: “I would love to be a mentor. I’m a mother of 4 and a soon-to-be first-time grandmother! My youngest is going off to college in the fall. . . . The empty nest is becoming a reality too soon!” Colleen, whose youngest is in college, recalls John Paul II’s teaching that “every woman is a mother whether she is married or single, with children or without.” Genevieve Kineke, author of The Authentic Catholic Woman, agrees. “We’re called to this. . . . Every woman should be assessing her experiences for the wisdom to be gleaned” and shared, when appropriate.

Some mature moms very naturally share their time and wisdom. For others, it’s not so easy. “That is actually one of the biggest challenges,” shares one mom, “to ask seasoned moms, who have their own busy lives, to sacrifice quality time for younger moms.”

Kate Wicker, who writes beautifully about the generous mentors in her own life, sees humility rather than lack of generosity as the limiting factor. “So many of us long to have a sister in Christ to mentor us; yet we see ourselves as unworthy of ministering to other moms.” Jenn, whose five children range from 2 to 14, interpreted her own loneliness as God’s nudge to serve moms foundering in isolation. “Instead of answering my pleas directly, God has [given me] a passion for assisting other women so they don’t have to ‘go it alone.’”

Genevieve, a seasoned mentor, reassures us that although “women worry about one more demand on their time . . . I find the blessings, rewards, and joys far outweigh the demands and the energy [spent].”

What Makes Mentoring Successful?

Both experienced moms and newer moms identify similar qualities for a successful mentoring-mom relationship.

Be an Example. Nearly all the younger women were drawn first by the veteran mom’s example. A woman mature in the love of Christ, kind and friendly to others, teaches others constantly—and inspires imitation.

Be Real. Megan, a Texas mother of five, cautions, “Young moms need mentors . . . but they need real ones. [Otherwise] the expectations are too high and these poor young moms are left wondering what is wrong with them.” Elizabeth Foss highlights the need to “share your failures, your foibles, for someone else’s benefit. It’s almost impossible to mentor if you’ve set yourself up on a pedestal as someone who never made a mistake.”

Be Humble. Genevieve Kineke notes, “Others will be put off if we think that we are better, smarter, holier. Besides, it’s not true!” Say “I don’t know” if you don’t. Be willing to learn.

Be Empathetic. Seek to understand—to meet her where she is—and help her grow from there. Listen well. And never dismiss the younger mom’s struggles as insignificant.

Be Patient. It takes time for a relationship to grow and for insights to bear fruit. Helpful friendships may move forward before anyone labels it a “mentoring” relationship.

Be Confident. Elizabeth believes that “women are afraid to mentor because they think, ‘I don’t have it all together.’ Ask yourself instead, ‘What’s worked?’ and reflect on that.”

Instill Confidence. A mentor’s goal is not to micromanage or control, but to encourage and guide. Affirm good intuitions and decisions; help her learn from experience.

Be Charitable. No need to air the dirty laundry (about husband, children, mother-in-law, and other women) under the guise of mentoring.

Be Prudent. Tread delicately when it comes to marriage issues, moral questions, and childhood wounds. Know your limitations— and defer to a priest or professional counselor when needed.

Be Open. Moral issues aside, there may be many solutions to a particular issue. Each family is different. Jenny urges mentors “to be open to new or different ideas. . . and to encourage what works. . . . [Do] not judge, but offer constructive, helpful criticism.”

Be Available. Mentoring does not require a 24/7 commitment, but, like other important relationships, it thrives on availability. It takes “consistent time, energy, and vulnerability,” observes one mom. Agree on frequency and mode of communication (phone, email, in-person).

Be Trustworthy. Like any good friendship, a mentoring relationship requires trust. Keep confidences confidential.

Create the Opportunity

What’s the best way for mentoring relationships to develop? DeAnn, a home schooling mom, suggests “a balance between forming natural relationships with people that you are drawn to and doing so through an organized means provided by a church or home schooling group.” Moms on both sides of the relationship seem to find relationships that develop organically, arising naturally from situations that bring moms of a variety of ages together, most appealing. This requires, however, that moms of all ages “tune in” to both needs and opportunities. Dawn, another homeschooler, observes that “more experienced moms in our group who could be a great source of wisdom . . . tend to ‘hang out’ with each other and not with the younger moms. . . . I think it’s just that they have more in common with each other. They may not be aware that some of us would really like to form mentoring friendships!”

Conversely, younger moms must be careful not to prejudge, ruling out a good mentor in favor of an illusory “perfect” one. “My ideal mentor,” says Melanie, “would be a woman whose personality is similar to mine. . . . On the other hand . . . sometimes a woman who is very different in personality and in life situation may still have much wisdom to dispense. Perhaps the people we wouldn’t choose for ourselves are the very women God would put into our lives to challenge us, to help us grow and change beyond what we can imagine for ourselves.”

So what situations might bring women of all ages together? Anything that meets the practical needs of moms and family life. Elizabeth Foss suggests anyone with a heart for mentoring consider making herself available to new moms. “Bring meals to a woman after a baby is born,” suggests Elizabeth, “and strike up a conversation, telling them ‘I remember when . . .’ Offer perspective.”

Any parish ministry offers possibilities. One pastor let a parishioner teach free aerobics classes at the parish so moms could attend with their kids. Older women came as well, and mentoring relationships were born. Similarly, in another parish, a grandmother who teaches Atrium to four-year-olds lingers to chat with moms as they pick up their kids. They, in turn, seek her wisdom on all sorts of topics.

Sacramental preparation creates prime opportunities for mature moms to connect with younger moms on a sustained basis. In some dioceses, baptism classes for new parents are taught by couples who remain in touch even after the baptism. Similarly, Amy from Minnesota finds that, although she is only 31, “people that have come to me as a ‘mentor’ noticed me mostly because I have volunteered as the confirmation teacher at our parish for 10 years and take those children as my own.”

Sometimes mentoring relationships begin right next door. Maryan remembers living with her husband in military housing, right next door to “a family of 6 kids. . . . Being away from my mom (who would be a natural mentor), I was so consoled to have Joan right next door to answer all diaper, first aid, discipline, and home schooling questions. . . . Her mentorship to me was invaluable.”

As Internet-connected lifestyles become the norm, moms are plugging in to mentoring opportunities online, discovering relationships through influential mom-bloggers or social media, like Facebook and Twitter. According to the latest stats, web-savvy moms typically log on at least three—and sometimes up to a dozen—times a day. No wonder that many Catholic women increasingly turn to these virtual relationships for advice, encouragement, and support. One woman shared, “The Lord has slowly worked to mold and soften my heart for motherhood, and I truly believe that [a momblogger] played a large role in that, even though we have never met. . . . In the conversation about mentor-moms, Internet friendships must be included.”

Similarly, Kate Wicker writes, “I continue to be grateful for the online community and how it has allowed me to connect so many godly women. . . . Finding the right fit for a mentor . . . is in some ways easier online. We simply have access to more moms with just a click of a mouse.”

“Perhaps the reality is that there are different types of mentoring relationships that suit different needs, and we might have several different women who mentor us in different ways at different times in our lives. For me,” writes Melanie, “there are some distinct advantages to an online versus a ‘real life’ mentoring relationship. I am an intensely private person. . . . I often find it much easier to write about my interior struggles than I would to voice the same sorts of concerns to a friend over coffee. It would take years and years to build up that kind of trust and friendship and, frankly, I need help now.”

Finally, ministries that focus on pregnant teens or underprivileged women clamor for women to volunteer as mentor moms. Colleen, who works with Birthright, encourages moms to be “solid role models for these women to move out of a lifestyle pattern their moms and grandmoms have lived and are handing on.”

Are Catholic mentor moms needed? Absolutely. Hungry hearts are waiting. Genevieve Kineke offers two final thoughts to women who wonder whether to serve as a mentor mom. First, “It’s because we’re not perfect that we can do this,” and second, “Be not afraid to open your heart to one more soul.”

We will never regret giving of ourselves to others. And to my own mom, and the moms who have given to me so generously over the years . . . I cannot thank you enough! Happy Mother’s Day!

A version of this article was first published in the May/Jun 2010 Issue of Lay Witness Magazine, under the title “Catholic Mentor Moms—How to Find One, How to Be One.”

1 Comment

Filed under Catholicism, Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Lessons Learned, Moms and Motherhood, Parenting, Prayer and Spirituality, Women

Tagged as Catholic moms, Happy Mother's Day, mentor, mentor moms, mentoring mothers, moms, motherhood

April 12, 2013 · 8:17 pm

Annie, the Smiling Evangelist

She’s fearless. She’s charismatic. She’s radiant.

A modern evangelist, Annie basks in Christ’s love and shares it with a simple, winsome touch. A heart overflowing with love is a powerful testimony, I’ve learned. “We love because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19). Annie’s love spills over, mysteriously opening hearts long shut to God’s mercy and love.

You’ve got to meet her—so I’ll tell you more about her in a second.

First, a confession. Annie’s love humbles me. It’s so natural, immediate, and unselfish that it stops me dead in my tracks. She’s the perfect foil for my easy self-absorption and carefully calibrated giving, because Annie is never calculating. She reaches out, gives, and loves, without measure.

Meet Annie: she’s almost two, with feathery blond hair, the most beautiful blue eyes, and a smile that lights the sky. She knows sign language and loves music. The cherished youngest of ten children, Annie gives hugs all day long. She also has Down Syndrome.

Ok, she’s cute. But an evangelist?

Yes. From the start, her very existence witnessed to the goodness of all life. When a routine sonogram showed “problems” in utero, the obstetricians sent Annie’s mom for a more precise sonogram in another building. Radiology was on the ground floor. When a sonogram confirms a Down Syndrome diagnosis, a mother need only ride the elevator a few floors up for an abortion.

So convenient. That’s the way it is now. Women don’t want babies like Annie, so they abort them.

Except that Annie’s mom would never consider it. This was her daughter, after all, no matter what.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times published a reaction to new North Dakota legislation, which outlaws abortions sought because of fetal abnormalities (including Down Syndrome). The writer, Alison Piepmeier, a feminist, gender studies professor at the College of Charleston and the mother of a Down Syndrome child, faults the legislation. In her view, women should be allowed to have abortions “for whatever reason they choose.”

Piepmeier’s research on “reproductive decision-making” found that a woman carrying a Down Syndrome baby typically viewed “the fetus” as a child already, sometimes with a name. Piepmeier defends the decisions of women who aborted their Down Syndrome children, noting that those decisions were “incredibly painful.” (Agonizing over a decision seems to confer moral legitimacy, as least in the New York Times.)

The women in Piepmeier’s study denied that they chose abortion because “they wanted a ‘perfect child.’” Their decisions were justified, in Piepmeier’s view, “because they recognized that the world is a difficult place for people with intellectual disabilities.” One mother called her decision “the protective choice” for her baby.

The reigning philosophy seems to be better dead than disabled.

In an unpublished letter to the Times, Annie’s mom, also a professor, rejected Piepmeier’s justifications. “My own experience is that Alison Piepmeier’s pro-choice position is very much an outlier – most parents of Down Syndrome children whom I have met view the eugenic abortion of Down Syndrome children as tragic and shameful.”

Annie’s mom also observed that many women who choose abortion because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis do so out of fear and misinformation. Medical doctors don’t do much to allay those fears—partly because they see mostly gloom and doom statistics. According to the National Down Syndrome Congress, “many obstetricians are inadequately prepared to explain a diagnosis of trisomy 21, often using overtly negative language or out-of-date information.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), for example, targets Down Syndrome (trisomy 21) for routine screening (with termination likely), devaluing the lives of Down Syndrome people and discouraging parents from welcoming them into the family.

What’s to be done?

One of the first press reports after Pope Francis’s election recalled that, as Argentina’s archbishop, he admonished his fellow bishops for their timid, reluctant witness to the Gospel. He said, “Jesus teaches us another way: Go out. Go out and share your testimony, go out and interact with your brothers, go out and share, go out and ask. Become the word in body as well as spirit.”

That’s Annie–the word in body as well as in spirit.

Annie evangelizes wherever she goes, always on-message. Six months ago, she captivated a room full of med students who had gathered to hear how Annie’s mom “coped” with the “burdens” of her Down Syndrome child. After all, Annie’s medical trail was significant, her individuality buried under a litany of diagnoses. To their surprise, these students met a delightful little girl with a “match me” smile. They learned of her fiercely protective father and retinue of devoted siblings, all of whom delight in teaching, cuddling, feeding, diapering, and—best of all—playing with her. They listened to Annie’s feisty mom and heard, in her infectious laugh and passionate voice, great hope for her daughter’s future. Surely some of these doctors embraced the “good news” about children like Annie.

That’s one of the things Annie does best—spread the good news. Last weekend, she charmed two hundred people at an elegant dinner. Though a guest, she provided delightful, spontaneous entertainment, dancing with her cousins and brothers. Day by day, she stirs the hearts of ordinary people in chance encounters—in the produce aisle at the grocery store, at the snack bar during a local basketball game, and in smiles exchanged during Mass.

She’s cute, not scary. She’s lovable and loving. And she has that mysterious power to stir love in the souls of others, sometimes even in spite of themselves.

She’s “Annie,” not a dreaded Down Syndrome kid. Her life has value, and she’ll wrap you in love if you give her a chance.

That’s our Annie…the smiling evangelist.

3 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Children, Family, Lessons Learned, Moms and Motherhood, Parenting

Tagged as Abortion, children, children with disabilities, Down Syndrome, evangelism, love

March 12, 2013 · 6:33 pm

‘Transgendered’ Kids in School: The Big Lie

“Tommy,” my childhood playmate, thought he was Superman.

He wore a cape, fought imaginary bad guys, and insisted on being called Superman. His mom and dad played along—until the day “Superman” decided he could fly and jumped off the garage roof. Fortunately, he only broke his arm, not his neck, and his parents went back to calling him Tommy.

Tommy was limited, you might say, by a very concrete, physical reality: he was a boy, not Superman. No matter how hard he imagined, how strongly he believed, and how soaring his lift-off, he would plummet straight down to the ground. He could not fly.

Initially, his parents indulged his childish, wishful thinking. But Tommy’s painful collision with reality jarred them back into their authoritative role as parents. Tommy needed their guidance. He needed them to explain the truth inscribed in his body: the ‘real Tommy’ wasn’t Superman—he was a boy. And God made him for something far better than being “Superman.” His happiness, not to mention his safety, depended on accepting and embracing that reality.

Fast forward to Massachusetts, 2013.

Just as Tommy needed his parents to ground him in reality, the children of Massachusetts need the adults in their lives to do the same.

But the Massachusetts Board of Education has done the opposite. It recently established a harmful protocol for Massachusetts’ public schools, under the benign title, “Creating a Safe and Supportive School Environment.” The document offers “guidance” for elementary and secondary schools as they implement new state laws prohibiting gender identity discrimination.

Specifically, schools must remove all “obstacles” which prevent ‘transgender or gender non-conforming students’ from enjoying “equal educational opportunities.” (Massachusetts law defines a ‘transgender’ student as one “whose gender identity or gender expression is different from that traditionally associated with the assigned sex at birth.”)

Much of the outcry centers on three points:

Transgender children must be allowed to use restrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex, if they so choose.
Transgender children may use any name or pronoun, regardless of its biological mismatch (e.g., a boy who identifies as a transgendered girl may insist on being called “she”).
Schools must “eliminate” gendered dress codes and classroom management strategies that divide children by gender.

The Board’s policy manufactures ‘solutions’ to an imaginary problem. It cites the “reality” that children with gender identity issues are enrolled in Massachusetts’ schools, but offers no evidence that any of them actually have been excluded from “educational opportunities,” such as chemistry, math, or English classes, because of their gender identity.

But facts don’t matter to the Massachusetts propagandists. Their real goal has little to do with educational access and everything to do with indoctrinating teachers and children in radical gender theory.

The Massachusetts policy systematically foists a perverse orthodoxy on every public school teacher and child. It promotes the core belief—the big lie—that there is no such thing as human nature or natural distinctions of male and female. Instead, the Board of Education embraces the queer gospel that each person is a god unto him or herself, creating a gender identity based on feelings, or one’s “internalized sense” of self, regardless of biology.

“Male and female He created them?” Not in Massachusetts.

The Board of Education insists that schools proactively “create a culture” that would make gender-nonconforming and transgender kids “feel safe, supported, and fully included.” But the new transgender-safe culture is insidious. It must be created even if the school currently has no transgender or gender-nonconforming children. Why? Liberals presume that unknown numbers of transgender children are suffering alone and in secret, and that they will only ‘come out’ if the coast is clear.

So everyone must play the transgender game. The indoctrination (“education and training”) will be part of every school’s “anti-bullying curriculum, student leadership trainings, and staff professional development.”

Worse, the Massachusetts Board of Education clearly expects all students and teachers to go along with the big lie:

Students who object to the intrusion on their privacy (from an opposite sex, ‘transgender’ child in restrooms or changing facilities) will be told, effectively, ‘Too bad. Get over it.’
Students who refuse to go along with the fiction and refer to the transgender child by his or her gender “assigned at birth” instead of the preferred pronoun, will subject to “discipline.” Teachers must “model” the required speech and attitude.
Schools will train students and teachers in Orwellian doublespeak: gender is “assigned” at birth (as if ‘male’ and ‘female’ were arbitrary classifications, as random as being assigned to the blue team or red team in gym class) and transgender students may elect “gender-confirming surgeries” (as if double mastectomies, genital removal, and other gender-mutilating surgeries ‘confirmed’ anything).
Children will bear the new burden of discovering their gender identity, but will be taught that their bodies offer nary a clue. They will be taught that the transgender identity, perceived as young as “age four,” is “innate” and “largely inflexible.” (The Board ignores decades of research to the contrary. Dr. Kenneth Zucker, head of the Gender Identity Service at Toronto’s Center for Addiction and Mental Health contends that, “The majority of children followed longitudinally appear to lose the diagnosis of GID [gender identity disorder] [by] late adolescence or young adulthood, and appear to have …a gender identity that matches their natal sex.”)

In Massachusetts, a transgender-supportive culture means that school officials will insist that normal children squelch instinctive reactions that something is wrong when a dress-wearing boy calls himself a girl. Children will be taught that religious truths about sexuality are bigoted relics of a less-enlightened time. They will learn that their bodily reality is nothing more than an arbitrary “assignment” at birth—there is no “human nature,” only personal choices and self-definition along a shifting spectrum of human sexuality. Finally, they will be taught not to judge: Who is to say that one’s chosen gender identity is any less normal, natural, or good than another?

Remember my friend Tommy? He needed the truth. He needed to embrace his bodily reality instead of wishing for something different.

The children of Massachusetts need the same. The ‘Big Lie’ can never substitute for the truth.

14 Comments

Filed under Children, Family, Kids and Character, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Sexuality

Tagged as families, gender identity, schools and LGBT, Sexuality, transgender, transgender children

March 2, 2013 · 2:58 pm

Girl Scouts Still Humming The Pro-Abortion Chorus

The Girl Scouts’ Law insists that Girl Scouts be “responsible for what I say and do.” When it comes to abortion, however, the Girl Scouts USA “says” the magic words that keep pro-life members in the fold (i.e. that Girl Scouts “does not take a position” on sexuality, birth control, or abortion).

What they “do” behind the scenes is another story.

GSUSA’s hefty brand power—and funding—continue to fuel the pro-abortion advocacy of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (“WAGGGS”). And the Girl Scouts have refused once again to take responsibility for that.

I recently exchanged emails with two Girl Scouts USA spokespersons, Joshua Ackley and Michelle Tompkins, asking them to clarify the Girl Scouts’ “no position” stance in light of WAGGGS’ leadership on the pro-abortion Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration (December, 2012). Their responses highlight GSUSA’s corporate unwillingness to take any actions to distance themselves from WAGGGS’ global advocacy for youth “sexual rights” and abortion—even though WAGGGS claims to speak for all its members, including GSUSA.

First, realize how radical the Bali Youth Declaration really is: it asserts “sexual rights” for youth (including 10 year-olds) on nearly every page and demands, over a dozen times, youth access to “abortion” or “reproductive rights” and services. It marginalizes families—decrying parental consent and “age of consent” restrictions in sexual and reproductive matters—and casts religious objections to LBGT lifestyles as “religious intolerance.” Not surprisingly, the pro-abortion chorus embraces the Declaration.

There’s more to know about the Bali Declaration, but what’s most relevant here are the architects behind its design.

The Declaration reflects the handiwork of the Global Youth Forum’s International Steering Committee, a group stacked with abortion providers and abortion-advocacy groups, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the Youth Coalition.

Who else’s fingerprints are all over the Declaration? WAGGGS.

WAGGGS was heavily invested in formulating the Declaration. Its leaders, including WAGGGS’ Senior Advocacy Coordinator, not only served on the Forum’s Steering Committee, but also worked for six months on the Taskforces that shaped the conference agenda, the resulting Declaration, and follow-up activities. At the Bali summit, WAGGGS representatives facilitated breakout sessions and presented youth “recommendations” to the plenary sessions. Now WAGGGS promotes the Declaration and advocates for its implementation.

So that leaves the Girl Scouts with a problem.

In light of their officially neutral position on abortion, it should have been a no-brainer for the Girl Scouts to repudiate the radical, pro-abortion Bali Declaration. Or at least to clarify that WAGGGS’ does not speak for GSUSA when it advocates on sexual and reproductive matters, including the Bali Declaration.

GSUSA refused to do either.

GSUSA informed me that, “GSUSA does not have an official position on the Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration,” and demurred further comment because “the lengthy declaration deals with very complex issues… [and] deserves a thorough review.”

There’s nothing “complex” about the Declaration’s aggressive push for abortion and youth sexual rights.

GSUSA reiterated that it “does not take a position on abortion” and asserted generally that, “all [WAGGGS] members reserve the right to have their own positions on certain topics.” But when I requested documentation that WAGGGS members “reserve the right” to differ on advocacy positions, GSUSA produced an off-point WAGGGS memorandum discussing programming decisions, not advocacy.

The WAGGGS memo states, “Member organizations engage with WAGGGS’ programmes in a number of ways, from helping develop and piloting them, to integrating them into their national programmes, to not using them at all. As a membership organization, it is entirely at the members’ discretion what programmes they use and how they are implemented.” This “discretion” clearly applies to program implementation not WAGGGS advocacy. WAGGGS’ advocacy positions are adopted and implemented on behalf of the entire organization. (See below.)

(Incidentally, the WAGGGS document supplied by GSUSA also falsely claims that, “There are many issues WAGGGS does not have a position on, including abortion; nor does WAGGGS have a partnership with Planned Parenthood International.” For GSUSA to put forth this document while discussing WAGGGS’ and IPPF collaboration in Bali and WAGGGS’ open support for abortion and youth sexual rights is laughable.)

A Damning Silence on Abortion

My email to GSUSA underscored WAGGGS’ strong support for the Bali Declaration—including its abortion advocacy—and asked, “If the Girl Scouts USA does not support the Youth Declaration, or portions of it (please specify), will the GSUSA publicly repudiate WAGGGS’ claim that it speaks for 10 million members, including Girl Scouts USA, in its advocacy for the Youth Declaration?”

GSUSA spokesperson Joshua Ackley replied, “Regarding how we use our voice, GSUSA will use its voice in a fashion that we believe constructively contributes to the conversation. We have in the past and we will continue to share our positions with our sister organizations in WAGGGS.”

In other words, “No.” The Girl Scouts will not publicly disavow WAGGGS’ pro-abortion actions. Instead, it hums along with the pro-abortion chorus.

It’s not hard to see why.

The Girl Scouts USA and WAGGGS have a long history of interlocking financial ties, brand alignment, and collaborative activities. (And GSUSA’s leadership team syncs well, ideologically, with WAGGGS’ advocacy positions.) GSUSA wields outsize influence in WAGGGS because of its status as founding member, its membership (GSUSA’s 2.3 million girls members constitute nearly one-fourth of WAGGGS’ “10 million” members), and GSUSA’s contributions of money, resources, and talent.

The Deputy Chairman of WAGGGS, for example, is USA representative Sapreet Saluja, who rose to leadership through U.S. Girl Scout Councils. The Girl Scouts’ New York headquarters plays host when WAGGGS delegates advocate at the U.N. for abortion and sexual rights. And GSUSA money flows generously to WAGGGS: GSUSA pays over a million dollars annually to WAGGGS for its “membership quota” and leans on young girls, from Daisies to Ambassadors, to donate to WAGGGS through “World Thinking Day” fundraisers and Juliette Low Fund contributions, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars for WAGGGS’ coffers. Girl Scouts USA also supports WAGGGS through a private foundation GSUSA created expressly for WAGGGS, funding world centers that offer WAGGGS seminars and teach girls to ‘take action’ for adolescent sexual and reproductive rights.

Actions Speak Louder

No Girl Scout in America could miss the closeness of the relationship between GSUSA and WAGGGS. That close relationship, coupled with WAGGGS’ ardent advocacy for sexual and reproductive rights and the Girl Scouts’ refusal to disown WAGGGS’ handiwork (the Bali Declaration) raises some questions: does GSUSA do anything to prevent its brand power, funds, and resources from supporting WAGGGS’ global advocacy for sexual rights and abortion? Corporate responsibility demands as much. After all, GSUSA stakes its relationship with families and churches on the credibility of its promise to ‘take no position’ on sexuality and abortion.

The bottom line: Beyond its thin disclaimer (GSUSA “does not take a position”), GSUSA appears to do nothing to ensure that the funding, brand reputation, and practical support it provides to WAGGGS are not used to support WAGGGS’ pro-abortion and sexual rights advocacy.

GSUSA: The Silent Gorilla

WAGGGS routinely claims that its advocacy represents the voice of all its members—not a subset. For example, in July 2012, World Board Chair Nadine El Achy highlighted the advocacy of “WAGGGS delegates at [the U.N Conference] Rio+20” who “represented each one of our WAGGGS members: YOU - in this process.” (The WAGGGS delegates at Rio lobbied for “sexual and reproductive health rights.”)

According to its World Conference reports and World Board statements, WAGGGS embraced “a new image and new positioning” in 2008, embarking on a global advocacy “agenda.” WAGGGS’ advocacy positions are framed by its World Board, confirmed during worldwide Conferences (with GSUSA present and participating), and referenced in annual statements. They are promoted on behalf of the entire membership, not Balkanized subsets.

The Girl Scouts know this.

In its communications with me, GSUSA could not offer any instance when WAGGGS qualified its sexual and reproductive rights advocacy by stating that it only represents 7.7 million members (10 million general membership minus 2.3 million GSUSA girls) on issues related to sexuality and reproduction.

It has never happened. And it won’t, because GSUSA is the silent gorilla in the room when WAGGGS speaks at the UN or at global events. It’s a gorilla with financial heft (GSUSA’s budget is twenty times the size of WAGGGS’ budget) and chummy connections to the Obama administration, whose global agenda supports abortion and family planning worldwide.

If GSUSA really objected to being included under the WAGGGS’ advocacy umbrella, which promotes sexual and reproductive rights on behalf all “10 million” members, GSUSA lawyers would lock down WAGGGS’ representations in a heartbeat, to protect the Girl Scouts’ costly re-branding efforts.

So I asked spokeswoman Michelle Tompkins if GSUSA had ever asked WAGGGS to ‘cease and desist’—to stop representing itself as the voice of its entire membership, including GSUSA, when WAGGGS advocates for sexual and reproductive rights. I also inquired whether GSUSA sought assurances from WAGGGS that “no funds which GSUSA provides to WAGGGS (whether as its membership quotas, World Thinking Day contributions, proceeds from merchandise sales, training and travel fees) shall be used to support WAGGGS advocacy on sexual and reproductive rights.” Finally, I asked whether GSUSA had taken its own steps “to ensure that GSUSA funds do not end up supporting WAGGGS’ advocacy” for abortion.

GSUSA bobbed and weaved. Spokeswoman Michelle Tompkins first replied, “This is going to take quite a while to review because it gets into the bylaws of WAGGGS and many other areas.” (Note: I checked. WAGGGS by-laws don’t apply.) I clarified that my question was factual: whether GSUSA has in fact made any requests or instituted any structural measures to ensure that GSUSA does not fund WAGGGS’ abortion advocacy.

GSUSA’s response: those questions are “under review.” And GSUSA is in no hurry, because, “we have quite few things on our plate right now and resources are limited.”

The reality is this: GSUSA has not once objected to WAGGGS’ global advocacy on sexual and reproductive issues, nor to WAGGGS’ claims to represent its entire membership, including GSUSA, on those issues. They refuse to disown even WAGGGS’ most radical pro-abortion efforts (e.g., the Bali Youth Declaration). And they continue to fund and support WAGGGS’ global megaphone, as it amplifies “progressive” messages promoting adolescent abortion and youth sexual rights.

They will do nothing to impede or even distance themselves from WAGGGS’ pro-abortion, pro-contraception, “sexual rights” advocacy.

Those GSUSA assurances that it “does not take a position” on abortion and birth control? Lip service.

I’m really not surprised that GSUSA won’t make a serious effort to ensure that its assets, reputation, and financial contributions are not used to support WAGGGS’ global advocacy on sex and reproduction.

But I am astounded that pro-life families—and sponsoring churches—are willing to go along with that.

13 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Catholicism, Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Kids and Character, Lessons Learned, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Scouts, Women

Tagged as Abortion, Bali, Bali Global Youth Forum, Bali Youth Forum Declaration, family planning, Girl Scouts, Girl Scouts USA, GSUSA, pro-abortion, WAGGGS, world association of girl guides and girl scouts

February 3, 2012 · 10:32 am

The Catholic Church and the Girl Scouts: A Scandalous Mess

Sometimes even the Washington Post gets it right.

Last week the pastor of St. Timothy’s Catholic Church in Chantilly, Virginia, made national news. He banned the Girl Scouts from his parish because of the Girl Scouts’ connections to pro-abortion groups, including the international scouting group, the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS).

A Washington Post writer, who called the parish decision “extreme,” rode to the Scouts’ defense, arguing that the “Girl Scouts say explicitly, repeatedly, at the neighborhood, regional and national level, that they have no stance on birth control or abortion.”

Now that’s not the part the Post got right. The Post columnist is dead wrong on the underlying facts because, while it’s true that the Scouts say they take no official position on birth control and abortion, it’s what they do that’s a problem.

Numerous sources—including former Girl Scouts, Scout leaders, and pro-life leaders—have documented hundreds of examples of the Girl Scouts promoting pro-abortion and LGBT resources, recommending sexually explicit books and movies, highlighting pro-abortion leaders and lesbians as role models, partnering with LGBT and pro-abortion activist groups, including Planned Parenthood, and referring girls to pro-abortion organizations to learn about “advocacy” (a pet word in the new Girl Scouts).

Consider: New York’s Real Life, Real Talk sex education program, “initiated by Planned Parenthood,” partners with the NYPENN Girl Scouts; The Girl Scouts’ curriculum (Journey books) promotes the Scouts’ “sisterhood” with pro-abortion WAGGGS (WAGGGS CEO Mary McPhail led the radical, pro-abortion European Women’s Lobby before joining WAGGGS, and a 2010 International Planned Parenthood Federation report (p. 13) credits Planned Parenthood’s “close relationship” with WAGGGS for Planned Parenthood’s success in promoting sex and abortion to youth); and in Chicago this July, GSUSA will co-host the Girls’ World Forum 2012 with WAGGGS, to “develop action steps” supporting the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDG #5 supports abortion and adolescent sex). See more here.

The Girl Scouts (GSUSA) has yet to refute even one piece of documented evidence. They can’t.

And the Scouts’ general denials highlight the contradiction between what they say and what they do. The bottom line: the Girl Scouts seem to have a truth-in-labeling problem. Parents—and sponsoring churches like St. Timothy–are right to protest the deception and pull their girls out of the organization.

So what, then, did the Washington Post columnist “get right”?

The Post columnist inadvertently shone the spotlight on why the Catholic Church has a Girl Scout problem: the National Federation of Catholic Youth Ministry (NFCYM).

According to the Post, “Another defender of the scouts is the National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry, a group that ought to have some credibility with Catholics. It’s an official church organization and has been actively investigating — and mostly refuting — the accusations for several years…The federation’s Web site devotes a page to knocking down rumors. Girl Scouts support Planned Parenthood? ‘Not true,’ the federation says.”

Thank you for shining that light on the NFCYM, Mr. Columnist.

But let’s get the facts straight. First, the NFCYM does not have a track record of “investigating” the Girl Scouts’ problematic ties and activities; it has a track record of whitewashing them. Second, resources promoted on the NFCYM’s website and in the NFCYM Executive Director’s book on Catholic youth advocacy suggest that the NFCYM has little “credibility” to speak to the Church on these issues.

First, the NFCYM track record. When parishes, dioceses, and parents want to know if the Girl Scouts support contraception, teen sex, or abortion (or partner with organizations that do), they ask the NFCYM, or its subsidiary, the National Catholic Committee on Girl Scouts and Camp Fire. Although the NFCYM has never conducted or commissioned a rigorous, independent investigation of the Scouts, it reflexively picks up its Girl Scout megaphone and shouts, “Not true!” It reports Girl Scouts’ denials as fact.

In its 2011 “Position Statement” on the Girl Scouts, the NFCYM declared itself “satisfied” with GSUSA denials. Further, the NFCYM decided that the Scouts’ “official statement clarifying their relationship with WAGGGS and Planned Parenthood…and emphasiz[ing] the primacy of parents’” authority on sexual topics sufficed to end the discussion. The NFCYM “investigated” no further than the words on the Girl Scouts’ printed page.

No sense checking the facts. (Scouts’ honor, right?)

Not one of the Google-topping websites created by former Girl Scouts, concerned parents, and troop leaders to document the Girl Scouts’ problems has received any inquiries or corrections from Bob McCarty, NFCYM’s Executive Director, or from the Scouts. Ever. Will McCarty specify which of their links, statements, or page scans are “not true?” Does anyone at NFCYM even realize how much evidence contradicts the Girl Scouts’ denials? Does NFCYM recognize the ideology driving the Scouts’ leadership?

The deep documentation on the whistleblowers’ websites is a damning indictment of the Girl Scouts. It’s also a damning indictment of the NFCYM—for its failure to investigate allegations about the Scouts.

Perhaps the NFCYM won’t address the facts because it thinks they don’t really matter. In my second interview with Bob McCarty (November 2011), I asked him about the Girl Scouts’ relationship with pro-abortion WAGGGS: the Girl Scouts fund WAGGGS (over a million dollars annually); the GSUSA website and materials routinely promote WAGGGS; Scouts typically wear a WAGGGS pin, signifying their sisterhood; and the Girl Scouts promote WAGGGS’ international “cabanas” and advocacy training programs as the ultimate destination for senior Girl Scouts. Bob was untroubled, dismissing those points because, “Catholic youth ministry is not in relationship with WAGGGS.”

It’s as if NFCYM’s priority is the paper trail that gets the Scouts off the hook and keeps the bishops out of their hair. One former Girl Scout mom wonders, “Why so little concern for the girls?” Girls who, for example, might innocently read the Girl Scout-recommended book, the Gate to Women’s Country, with its explicit descriptions of brutal sex and distorted relationships. Or who might be invited to attend a WAGGGS abortion-advocacy event as the culmination of their Girl Scout training.

In the Washington Post article, McCarty minimizes parents’ concerns about the relationships between the Girl Scouts and WAGGGS, Planned Parenthood, or other pro-abortion groups. “It’s the whole thing of guilt by association,” McCarty says. “Does one policy with which you can’t agree prevent you from being involved in broader coalitions?”

Yes, Bob, at times it should. I suggest that an organization’s pro-abortion stance is not just “one policy with which you can’t agree.” Respect for life—from conception to natural death–is so fundamental to the Catholic view of the human person and to Catholic moral principles that an organization that advocates against that principle should be disqualified from sponsorship by a Catholic parish—and from running character-shaping activities for Catholic girls.

The NFCYM disagrees. Which brings me to my second point: the NFCYM and its Executive Director, Bob McCarty, have little credibility to judge whether the Girl Scouts’ resources, relationships, and role-models offend Catholic standards. The NFCYM website and McCarty’s book contain similar problems.

McCarty’s book, Be a Champion of Youth: Standing With, By, and For Young People (co-authored with his wife, Maggie Wilson McCarty), draws on his NFCYM experience to promote “youth advocacy.” But Bob’s book relies on and recommends an organization that he says, “[P]rovides information on peer education, youth development, and youth-adult partnerships. It also provides excellent resources for actively involving young people in their own learning.”

The organization: the pro-abortion Advocates for Youth, formerly known as the Center for Population Options.

In contrast to McCarty’s sanitized description, Advocates for Youth admits it “champions” the right of “young people [to] make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health…boldly advocating for a more positive and realistic approach to adolescent sexual health.” Remember McCarty’s praise for the way Advocates for Youth “actively involve[s] young people in their own learning”? Their method: to train young people as peer educators, “helping” peers with concerns about “sexual orientation, gender identity, or sexual health,” and as “Youth Activists,” advocating for sex and abortion, unfettered by parents’ rules or religious beliefs.

Advocates for Youth, in case you don’t know, is the enemy. They actively oppose the Church on every sexual issue in the public arena, including abstinence education, same-sex relations, contraception, and abortion.

Let’s be clear: I am not saying McCarty is personally pro-abortion. But he doesn’t seem to think an organization’s policy on sex and abortion matters much, as long as there’s something arguably good about them.

In this case, McCarty likes the Advocates for Youth model of youth advocacy. That’s a problem in itself. Both McCarty and Advocates for Youth ascribe to the “youth-adult partnership” model of youth advocacy that rejects the “myth of adult wisdom.” They don’t believe that “adults know what is best” or that young people need protecting. See McCarty, p. 33. That’s baloney. The ‘learn-by-doing’ model has built-in limitations, particularly in the sexual and moral arenas. And the benefit of “youth advocacy” depends entirely on the values being advocated.

Besides Advocates for Youth, McCarty’s book recommends other gems like the pro-abortion Children’s Defense Fund, UNICEF, and the Youth Activism Project (which trains youth as mini-community organizers, agitating for things like Gay and Lesbian Student Rights Laws, an example McCarty notes with approval in his book).

The NFCYM website is more of the same. On the NFCYM’s “Healthy Adolescent Development” page, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry tops the list of “Key Resource Organizations.” The Academy promotes “comprehensive sexual education,” including school-based distribution of contraceptives, and opposes parental notification requirements in sexual and reproductive matters, including abortion. Further, the Academy supports same-sex marriage and adoption and affirms the adolescent’s ‘right’ to decide sexual orientation or gender identity without interference (like from parents). This is an organization parents should trust for guidance on “healthy adolescent development”?

The NFCYM website also recommends the Faith Trust Institute as a resource on preventing sexual abuse. The Faith Trust Institute is a Pope-bashing website run by a female, pro-abortion minister who signed a statement condemning the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, mourning the “untold number of women and families who have been deprived of his compassionate care.”

I could go on.

But here’s the point. The Girl Scouts have a demonstrable credibility problem. They have not been forthright with Catholics and other folks who support traditional sexual morality.

The Catholic Church needs to insist that if the Scouts want to recruit young Catholics, seek sponsorship from Catholic parishes, and sell cookies to parishioners, then the Scouts must make radical changes, including severing ties with WAGGGS and other pro-abortion, pro-teen sex, and LGBT activist groups. They must clean up offensive materials and quit elevating lesbians, gays, and pro-abortion activists as role models and convention speakers. Finally, they must champion a return to character, based on virtues and objective morality.

And the NFCYM? McCarty states that, “the only way you can advocate for the church’s position is to be engaged in the dialogue.” I submit that the NFCYM and Bob McCarty are the wrong folks to “dialogue” with the Girl Scouts on these issues.

Under McCarty’s leadership, the NFCYM’s premise seems to be that because Catholics are involved in the Girl Scouts already—as Scouts, leaders, and supporting parishes–the end goal is to stay in that relationship. So he elevates the cause of “dialogue” over fidelity to Catholic moral teaching.

But I think Denver Auxiliary Bishop James Conley gets it right. He writes, “Catholics involved in the Girl Scouting movement should make it clear to leadership that Scouting is only a means to an end—the proper formation of young character. It’s not an end in itself; and should Scouting ever fail in that proper formation, other groups can be found or formed to take its place.”

I think that time has come.

And I salute the Pastor of St. Timothy’s in Chantilly, Virginia, for his courage to do the right thing.

NOTE: Prior to the publication of this article, I contacted NFCYM head Bob McCarty numerous times by phone and email. He elected not to respond in any substantive way.

8 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Catholicism, Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Kids and Character, Lessons Learned, Moms and Motherhood, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Scouts

Tagged as bob mccarty, boy scouts of america membership controversies, Catholic, Catholic Church, catholic parishes, catholic youth, catholic youth ministry, girl scout, Girl Scouts, girl scouts of the usa, nfcym, religion in scouting, social issues, the catholic church, world association of girl guides and girl scouts

January 15, 2012 · 1:22 pm

Down Syndrome? Meet Maddox…and stop fearing “the worst”

Have you seen this?

If only those parents facing a pre-natal diagnosis of Down Syndrome could look ahead and see the joy and love that awaits–from cuties like Maddox. In her video below, Maddox will let you in on her “gambling problem,” and how she’s winning every bet against her.

Maddox doesn’t say a word here, but her message is unforgettable.

Don’t stand by and do nothing while the world aborts 90% of girls and boys like Maddox, just because they are different!

Pass this on and bring hope to parents who fear “the worst.”

2 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Children, Family, Fertility and Infertility, Health, Lessons Learned, Moms and Motherhood, Parenting

Tagged as abortion and birth defects, Down Syndrome, family, Maddox, Maddox McClintic, motherhood, parenthood, prenatal testing, special needs

January 14, 2012 · 10:30 pm

Girl Scouts Leadership: Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Ideologues–Worlds Apart from the Families They Serve (UPDATED)

Who’s calling the shots over at the Girl Scouts? And where’s the organization headed?

The questions matter for two reasons. First, it’s cookie season. Any day now some cute little girls wearing green sashes and bright smiles will knock on your door and sweetly seek support for their projects, badges, and activities. Do you write the check or not? (Forget your craving for Thin Mints. Think rationally!) Should you support the Girl Scouts?

Second, the Girl Scouts organization (GSUSA) is in trouble again. In recent weeks, they’ve drawn scrutiny for promoting biased resources (the left-wing Media Matters) and pressuring an employee to muzzle her pro-life views. The latest events top the pile of controversies that has outraged parents and spurred some Scouts to quit the organization.

What’s going on? Are these merely quality control issues–or do the problems reflect an ideological divide between the Girl Scout leadership and the families they serve?

In recent years, the Girl Scouts have tacked left, and criticism has mounted–over their programs and their partnerships with America’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. (As an aside, the Scouts mislead families and churches into believing that they have no relationship with Planned Parenthood at any level; they maintain that “Girl Scouts of the USA [i.e. the national office] does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood,” but say nothing about the many local Girl Scout councils that do partner with Planned Parenthood and its teen subsidiaries.

Concerned Scouts and their parents have publicized and documented the Girl Scouts’ liberal bent. And they’ve asked for changes.

The Girl Scouts consistently respond as if the reported problems are small brush fires that erupt sporadically because people are careless. And they project the impression that these brush fires would die out on their own, but for the hysterical bystanders—conservatives, of course—who shriek at the first wisp of smoke.

Offensive materials? Quality control issues, that’s all.

The official spokespersons’ carefully worded statements make small concessions, hoping to blow the smoke far enough away to divert attention from the incendiary truth: the leadership of today’s Girl Scouts is driven by a liberal ideology far out of step with the families and churches that support them.

Americans tilt right, increasingly so. For the third consecutive year, according to Gallup, conservative Americans (40%) outnumbered both moderates (35%) and liberals (21%). Interestingly, over the same three year period, the Girl Scouts lost half a million members and operated at a loss (In 2010, for example, GSUSA reported a $4.9 million loss.)

That’s a lotta people and a big chunk of change out the door.

You’d think the Girl Scouts leadership would consider a right turn or two, maybe even circle back around to their founding principles, like promoting “virtues” and “womanhood.”

But still the Scouts turn left. They can’t help themselves.

The Girl Scouts have filled their National Leadership Team and Board of Directors with unwavering ideologues whose careers, non-profit work, and philanthropic choices reflect a hefty commitment to liberal causes—same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian rights, abortion rights, comprehensive sex education, and ‘girl power’ feminism.

Their liberal ideology drives everything–from program materials to themes to partnerships–even their view of leadership.

It’s who they are. And it’s who the Girl Scouts organization has become.

A few examples tell the story.

A pro-abortion bias

The Girl Scouts imagines itself the “thought leader and voice for and of” American girls. But the only “voice” the Scouts hear is a liberal one. The Girl Scouts’ own research shows that the voice of American youth is strongly pro-life: just nine percent of 7^th through 12^th graders would advocate for abortion if a friend sought advice on an unexpected pregnancy. And only 25% believe it’s “all right” to have an abortion when a baby seriously disrupts life plans.

But the GSUSA refuses to allow pro-life advocacy to count towards badge work or program requirements, even within faith-based religious recognition programs. It’s “not an option,” they say. Yet their leadership program objectives consider advocacy for “reproductive health” in school or neighborhood as a sign that a Scout has mastered the desired advocacy skills.

In addition, the Girl Scouts’ curriculum (Your Voice, Your World: The Power of Advocacy) instructs girls to explore five pro-abortion advocacy organizations, including the Population Council, to see “where and how they are promoting change.” Pro-life advocacy groups? None.

The pro-abortion bias reflects the core convictions of the Girl Scouts’ National Leadership Team and Board of Directors. These individuals, who frame and implement the Girl Scouts’ mission, maintain tight connections with Planned Parenthood, other abortion advocates, and foundations that support them.

Consider:

GSUSA CEO Anna Maria Chavez collaborated* with Planned Parenthood as head of Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas;
GSUSA National President Connie Lindsey has donated to the pro-abortion, pro-LGBT Chicago Foundation for Women;
GSUSA Board Member Barbara Krumsiek is the Board Chair of the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation which funds Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington;
GSUSA Board Member Monica Gil is a volunteer and former Board Member (through 2011) of the Saban Free Clinic in L.A., which provides “free and easy” birth control, emergency contraception, and abortion referrals to teens over 12, without parental notice or consent;
GSUSA Board Member and Executive Secretary Debra Nakatomi is International Commissioner to the pro-abortion World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts and promoted contraceptives to Asian teens through California’s Get Real program;
Laurie Westley, GSUSA Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Advocacy & the Research Institute, previously worked for the National Women’s Political Caucus, a group dedicated to electing pro-choice women.
Joan Wagnon, the GSUSA Treasurer, Board of Directors, accepted large campaign contributions from late-term abortionist George Tiller while she was Secretary of Kansas’ Department of Revenue and praised Tiller’s “social conscience and…big heart;”
Ellen S. Fox, GSUSA Board Member from 2008 through 2011, serves on the Investment Committee of the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s Board of Directors.

The list goes on. (Click here.)

The new normal: homosexuality and sexual promiscuity

Pro-life views are not the only ones given short shrift by the Girl Scouts. Traditional sexual morality takes a hit, while lesbians enjoy good press in required Girl Scout materials. These books— the “Journeys” series—generally push global environmentalism from a feminist slant; certain books go further, normalizing homosexuality and degrading sexual behavior.

For example, the Journey book Your Voice Your World: The Power of Advocacy spotlights numerous lesbians and LGBT advocates as “Voices for Good”–role models for young Scouts.

And the 4^th and 5^th grade Journey book, Agent of Change, highlights author Marjane Satrapi, a young Iranian woman with “real moxie,” whose life–detailed in her comic book-style autobiography, Persepolis–will “inspire” Girl Scouts. But in Persepolis, Satrapi crudely discusses men’s genitalia (even with her own father), calls nuns prostitutes, gets explicit lessons about sex from a promiscuous friend, lives with eight homosexual men, and attempts suicide twice. Offensive illustrations and shocking sexual dialogue complete the picture. For ten-year olds?

It gets worse.

Another Journey book, GIRLtopia, encourages 9^th and 10^th graders “to imagine a perfect world—for girls.” It recommends the book, The Gate to Women’s Country, by Sheri Tepper (former Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood), as a utopian journey into “a future world where women spend their lives learning and discovering lost knowledge.” That’s a deceptive gloss on a book laced with obscenities, revolting dialogue, and lewd descriptions, and which presents men as violent barbarians. The book graphically describes women having sex with random warriors at a semi-annual Carnival, undergoing brutal, demeaning genital exams, and breeding out violence by compulsive sterilization and selective prostitution. The only good men are castrated men. This is Girl Scout utopia?

Juliette Low, the Girl Scouts’ founder, would be aghast.

Why would Girl Scout Execs and Board members approve this material?

Because they don’t find it shocking or radical at all.

It reflects their worldview—sexual promiscuity is a given and homosexuality is normal. And indeed, key players at the Girl Scouts have a history of advocating those very positions, particularly on homosexuality.

Timothy Higdon, for example, holds a pivotal position at GSUSA: as Chief of External Affairs, he oversees marketing, fundraising, advocacy, and research. Higdon’s official bio on the Girl Scout website touts his earlier work for the Army, a fundraising firm, and Amnesty International. It even mentions he’s an Eagle Scout. But it doesn’t mention that, spurred by his decision to come out as a gay man, he’s a “seasoned gay rights activist.” (For example, in 2002 he headed a Florida gay rights organization working closely with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.)

In 2011, Higdon welcomed another homosexual activist to the Girl Scout team: Deborah Taft, Senior VP of Fund Development, sits on the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Board of Governors. (HRC pushes same-sex marriage and is an adoption bully, pummeling religious adoption agencies that prefer married heterosexuals to homosexual pairs.)

Other LGBT activists fill prominent GSUSA positions or Board seats. Consider GSUSA Media Spokesperson Joshua Ackley. By day, he writes the Girl Scouts’ blog. By night, he frolics in unsavory places reminiscent of his homopunk career. He’s the former lead singer of the Dead Betties, a queer band whose music videos feature masturbation, prostitution, and sexualized violence against women. Ackley’s past activism suggests he’s not likely to flinch over a sexually inappropriate book or lesbian role models. He’s not alone.

The LGBT advocates in the Girl Scouts’ inner circle help set the organization’s trajectory: GSUSA emphasizes diversity and tolerance, applauds adolescent acceptance of LGBT behavior, promotes lesbians as role models, and allies itself with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

Forget character. Think advocacy.

I opened this article with two questions. First, who’s calling the shots at the Girl Scouts? The answer: incorrigible liberals–unbending proponents of abortion, homosexuality, and teen contraception.

Second, where’s the organization headed? The Girl Scouts’ vaunted leadership programs have morphed into liberal training grounds. While the Scouts’ founding vision promoted “the virtues of womanhood;” today’s Scouts strive for advocacy-oriented objectives.

The new “Girl Scout Leadership Experience” is less about the person a girl becomes and more about “taking action” aligned with the liberal agenda. GSUSA trains girls to be “advocates,” mini community organizers who see themselves as “agents of change,” rather than young women of virtue who exercise leadership with an eye towards “personal honor…and the public good.” (Girl Scout Mission, 1917).

Indeed, it’s hard to find the language of virtue in the Scouts’ program materials. Patriotism? Self-sacrifice? Humility? Self-control? Nope. The new Girl Scouts focus on diversity, “environmental justice” (they’ve got a whole book on it), and liberal advocacy.

But don’t expect the Scouts to ‘fess up. Though they’ve gutted the meanings of “character” and “leadership,” they continue to snow member families and sponsoring organizations (like the Catholic Church) with their institutional history as a character-building, leadership organization.

Bishops, pastors, ministers, and parents, don’t be fooled. If the Girl Scouts’ leadership–toting the same pro-abortion, pro-gay, environmentalist, feminist baggage—showed up today as a new organization and sought your sponsorship to shape girls in their image, would you say yes? I doubt it.

So…should you support today’s Girl Scouts?

My answer: a resounding “No!”

What’s yours?

—-
NOTE: *The word “collaborated” replaces the verb “partnered” that appeared in an earlier version of this article. Although “partnered” has a range of meanings including an alliance or collaboration, the author has replaced it in order to preclude suggestion that a contractual, business partnership existed. The significance of the relationship remains, in the author’s view.

17 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Kids and Character, Moms and Motherhood, Parenting, Policy and Culture, Scouts

Tagged as american girls, character, families, girl, girl power, girl scout, girl scouts of the usa, leadership, membership controversies, Parenting, plan parenthood, Planned Parenthood, pro-choice, pro-life, scouting, scouts, social issues, world association of girl guides and girl scouts

	Sue on Moms Need Mentors Too
	Ruth Sanford on The Girl Scouts: A “Groundbrea…
	Emiko on The Boy Scouts: Newly “Out and…
	Bruce on The Boy Scouts: Newly “Out and…
	jilldavidson53 on ‘Transgendered’ Kids in School…

Category Archives: Children

Who Needs Siblings? The Feminist Crusade for Only Children

The Boy Scouts: Newly “Out and Proud”

The Boy Scouts Admit Gay Kids: Does It Matter?

Moms Need Mentors Too

Annie, the Smiling Evangelist

‘Transgendered’ Kids in School: The Big Lie

Girl Scouts Still Humming The Pro-Abortion Chorus

Down Syndrome? Meet Maddox…and stop fearing “the worst”

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Top Posts

Words from Cana

Blog Stats

Copyright and Reprint Permissions

Follow “words from cana”

Category Archives: Children

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Top Posts

Topics

Words from Cana

Blog Stats

Copyright and Reprint Permissions

Follow “words from cana”