Advice for Those in the Friend Zone

I'd like to speak to some of the menfolk for a moment.* Specifically, I'd like to speak to those of you stuck in the "friend zone." You know who you are. You've got a bunch of lady friends who love you so much - as a friend. You're so nice to them, but they never see you as more than just a friend, preferring to date jerks who treat them terribly. Well, I want to say that I understand your pain. For a long time, I too found myself in such a situation and I know how frustrating it can be. So now, somewhat older and more experienced, I'd like to give you all a little bit of advice.

Get the HELL over it.

Why I am no longer an Eagle Scout

On August 22nd, in a small manila envelope, I mailed my Eagle Scout badge and medal to the Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board, along with a letter explaining why I could no longer associate myself with the organization. If you're interested, you can read the text of my letter here, and can read some of my prior thoughts on the matter here and here.

This wasn't by any means an easy decision for me. For many of you who've only met me within the last decade or so, the fact that I am - was - an Eagle Scout is probably a pretty early thing you learned about me, and your response was probably something to the effect of "Of course you are." Many of you who knew me before that attended my Eagle Scout Court of Honor, and some of you knew me primarily or entirely through Boy Scouts (heck, several of you are Eagle Scouts yourselves). Those of you who've known me since elementary school may remember that one day a year when Cub Scouts - often just me - came in to school in their uniform. And if you knew me before I was in Scouts... well, I think there may only be three or four of you out there, tops, that aren't related to me.

Point is, being a Scout has been a big part of who I am since I was seven, nearly as long as I can remember. I distinctly remember, one of the main reasons I joined was because my cousin had just earned his Eagle Scout badge, and I wanted to do the same. So I joined up, and over the course of the next twelve years I went into the same Boy Scout troop my cousin had been in, held leadership positions (including being in charge of the whole troop as Senior Patrol Leader), went back to my Cub Scout pack as a Den Chief, was staff at leadership training camps, camped in all sort of weather including sub-zero temperatures, went hiking through the back country trails of Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico, and worked as Field Sports Director and Nature Director at a Cub Scout Camp. Shortly before I turned eighteen, after months of planning, organizing, and hard work, I'd actually done it. I earned my Eagle award. That was thirteen years ago, and it's remained one of my proudest achievements.

But I can't do it anymore. I can't continue to associate myself with an organization that betrays their own ideals, their own history of including boys of different races and religious affiliations long before many other groups did, by unanimously reaffirming in a "secret council" to maintain their policies excluding lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans* youths and leaders. I can't be true to the many loved ones I have that lie along the LGBT spectrum or to myself as an atheist, another group considered too immoral to be members, while continuing to link my name up with them.

You who know me well also know that I'm not really one for making big statements. I like to be quiet, to support more privately, and keep out of the spotlight (and no, acting doesn't count.) Hell, that's part of the reason this blog is so infrequently updated. While I support a number of progressive causes, I'm not likely to be found at protests, or rallies, or otherwise actively, publicly advancing those causes. Rightly or wrongly, I feel like I don't have much of value to contribute.

But... I can do this. And I'm not the only one. At the time I write this, at least 156 Eagle Scouts, some who earned their badges back in the 1950s, have sent their badges back to the National Council to let them know that this is not okay. And it's not because we don't love Scouting. We do, so much. Many people I talk to or who write online about this think that the Boy Scouts is a hopelessly outdated relic, with nothing of value to offer youths of today. Well, I don't think that's true. I personally got an enormous amount from Scouting. More than nearly any other thing growing up besides school and my family, the Boy Scouts is responsible for making me the man I am today, and I know many of these other men feel the same. But that's why we have to speak up, because they can do better, and we feel they're worth saving. And if they won't, if they continue to betray the very ideals that made them great and that people like me hold dear, then they're going to find themselves consigned to the wastebasket of history, a shadow of their former selves, left behind by standing still.

For it to possibly make any difference, of course, it needs to be public, and loud, so that the National Council knows that the American public can see that these former Eagle Scouts - held up as the best, the highest pinnacle of Scouting - wants nothing more to do with them. So this is it, my resignation. It hurts, it feels like I'm giving up a crucial part of my identity. And I hope that they'll eventually come around, because they are on the wrong side of history. But until that time, in order to stay true to my ideals, ideals that the Boy Scouts ironically helped instill in me, I can't support them anymore, even if it is only in name.

I am no longer an Eagle Scout.

Anti-Vaccine = Pro-Disease

It's taken me a long time to write this post, because it just makes me so very mad.  I can't even include many of the pictures I originally considered in this post, because it makes me too angry.  People who know me know that I don't get mad easily, probably not nearly as easily as I should.  If I am going to get riled up about something, it's most likely to be less an interpersonal thing and more some big, social issue.  I've touched on some already: civil rights, creationism in public schools, etc.  If you really, truly want me to get spitting mad, though, one of the best ways is to bring up anti-vaccinationists.

Smallpox vaccine

Surely you've heard about it by now, from someone, somewhere.  The story most often goes that vaccines contain some sort of toxins that cause developmental problems -- primarily autism -- in children, and that the rise in cases of autism since the early 1990s is directly caused by an increase in the number of vaccines children get.  Supporters of this idea cite their personal experience, where their children only started showing signs of autism shortly after getting vaccinated, and a 1998 study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield published in The Lancet.  They claim that children are getting too many and too dangerous vaccines, that they are being pushed on us by the pharmaceutical companies not for health reasons, which are negligible compared to the risks, but because of profit and greed.

This drives me insane.

Duty to God

Exactly one hundred years ago last month, Chicago publisher W. D. Boyce incorporated the Boy Scouts of America, several months after being helped on a foggy London street by a boy who refused a tip, explaining that he was simply a Boy Scout doing his daily good turn.  Much has changed over the past century, but much has not.

I've mentioned before that even if I wanted to get back into Scouts as a leader I couldn't, not without being dishonest with them and with myself.  See, I'm an atheist, and the Godless are one of the three "G"s not allowed into the Boy Scouts, along with Girls and Gays.  I was only just starting to figure this out in high school, after I was well into Scouts (and had earned the Methodist religious award).  Even though I've only started calling myself an atheist within the last few years, at the time I was definitely at least an agnostic, and became pretty uncomfortable with the religious aspects.  I kept my mouth shut, though, because I loved Scouts, and wanted to see it through to my Eagle.

Pixar's bitch

I am Pixar's bitch.

Everyone who knows me even a little knows this about me.

I have seen all but one (A Bug's Life, their second) of their movies in the theatre, and own all but one (Cars, the A student's only B+) thus far available on DVD, in addition to the collection of their shorts.  Last night I bought and rewatched Up, and it was still superb.  Not necessarily my favorite, but then it's so difficult to pick a favorite.  All of their movies have such original stories (except for the aforementioned Cars), such believable characters, such complex themes that don't talk down to the audience, child or adult, such incredible attention to detail, such brilliant visuals, that they make nearly every other American animated movie seem positively amateurish by comparison.  My ticket to Toy Story was one of the first I kept.  Toy Story 2 pulled off the nearly impossible feat of being a sequel that is arguably better than the original.   Monsters, Inc., perennially overlooked, cracks me up, and has one of the greatest child movie characters ever.  Ratatouille had one of the most effective character moments I've ever seen, in thirty seconds without dialogue.  Last year, I sat literally open-mouthed through nearly all of WALL-E.  Up managed to choke me up within the first ten minutes.  It can be safely said that I am, indeed, a huge fan, and have been for a long time.

However.

With each successive movie they've put out, I've had a growing unease.  Not because of the quality, or the themes, or the messages, or anything like that.  No.  It's because, over the course of ten feature films, they have yet to have a female protagonist.  Woody (with Buzz as second lead), Flik, Woody and Buzz again, Sulley (with Mike as second lead), Marlin, Bob "Mr. Incredible" Parr, Lightning McQueen (with Mater or possibly Doc as second lead), Remy (with Linguini as second lead), WALL-E, and now Carl Fredericksen (with Russell as second lead).  Now, don't get me wrong, these films have had many wonderful, strong, believable female characters, some of them even second leads: Jessie the Yodeling Cowgirl, Dory, Helen "Elastigirl" Parr, Collette, and EVE immediately leap to mind.  They're all fantastic characters, and none have been there purely as a romantic foil, even the one in the (robot) romance movie.  But the story hasn't been focused around any of these characters; they at best play a major role in the story of the male protagonist.  Their story arc, even if it's a good, strong, compelling arc, is still secondary to his.

Over the last several years/movies since I noticed the pattern, it's been getting increasingly embarrassing.  It's like when your dear, loving grandmother, who taught you so much about treating everyone with respect, refers to your adult black friend as "a colored boy," and locks her jewelry box when he visits.  You find yourself making excuses, because you know she obviously doesn't mean to be offensive, and all of her other actions show that she's not racist, and she just doesn't really know him yet, and she grew up in a different time, and and and....

And yet, there it is.   Nine protagonists, no women.

But wait!  There, in production!  No, not Toy Story 3, presumably starring Woody and Buzz, due out next year.  Not Cars 2, presumably starring Lightning and Mater, due out the year after.  After that, in December 2011!  It's The Bear and the Bow!  Written and directed by a woman (both also a first for Pixar, which is telling), and starring Reese Witherspoon as Pixar's very first female lead character... Princess Merida.

  

Well, crap.


Okay, look.  There's nothing inherently wrong with princesses as lead female characters.  And yes, I have faith that Pixar will put an interesting spin on it (already we can see that she wants to stop being royalty and become an archer, which has promise).  They could turn it into a "take that" against the very idea of animated female leads needing to be princesses, much as Up took a shot at the idea of the hero needing to be young.  They could end up turning the whole idea of princesses upside down, somehow.  We can't really judge now, a full two years before it's even released, can we?

And yet....

She could've been anything. They specialize in unlikely heroes: an old cloth doll, a rat who likes to cook, a lonely garbage compacter, the monster in your closet, a clown fish.  Ed Asner.  Do something else gosh-wow adventurey, like The Incredibles and Up: make her a time-traveler trying to fix the past.  There can be dinosaurs, because everyone loves dinosaurs.  Something else with animals, like Finding Nemo or Ratatouille: she could be the elephant who actually never forgets, and sees some sort of classified information.  Something offbeat, like Toy Story or Cars or Wall-e: she's, I don't know, a sentient vacuum cleaner or something.  I know, I know, my ideas suck (erm, no pun intended.) I'm not a writer.  But come on.  I could have come up with "princess."  It's been done, it's played out.  Disney even has a new animated movie with "Princess" right in the title!  You folks can do so much better, I know you can.  This is what you guys do.

Because no matter how well they handle it, no matter how much subversion they put in there, no matter how great a fighter she is, even if she saves him (though Pixar's been pretty good about such things so far, there most likely will be a "him") instead of the other way around, even if the entire point of the movie is about how girls don't have to be princesses and can be anything they want to be, even stereotypically male-dominated occupations, it doesn't really matter, because she's still a princess.  She'll still be folded into the vastly disconcerting "Disney Princess" line, togged out in the dress she probably hated wearing at the beginning of the film.  She'll still be made into a dress-up doll, likely without the archery outfit as an option.  She'll still end up, somehow, irritatingly and horrifically pink.  Hey, it happened to Mulan, and she's not even a princess in-story, through marriage or otherwise.

So I'm sure it'll be a fantastic movie.  It'll be funny, touching, mature, beautiful, original and everything else we've come to expect of them, and I'll be there to see it in the theatre.  I just wish that for their first female lead, after twelve movies, they could've picked something other than a princess.

Note: This was originally posted in slightly modified form last summer on Facebook.

Privilege

I've been thinking a lot about privilege lately.

See, I'm a very privileged person.  Oh, I don't mean I'm wealthy or anything; far from it, but the simple fact is that I have advantages that many people simply do not have, unearned advantages that I was simply born with.  I'm a straight, white, naturally-thin male who was raised Christian and who, while not wealthy, has never been exactly poor.  There are doubtlessly many other privileges I have that I don't have space to list, or that I don't even know I have.  Because the thing about having privilege is that... well, it's hard to see, when you have it.

There are, of course, many things that can go wrong when one has privilege, especially when one can't see it.

On my honor

When I was about seven, I joined the Cub Scouts. I vaguely remember being inspired by my cousin Mike's recent earning of Eagle Scout, and made that my goal. Uncharacteristically, I stuck with it. I went from Wolf to Bear to Webelos ("We'll Be Loyal Scouts"), earned my Arrow of Light, and went on to join the Boy Scouts, the same troop my cousin had been a part of. I progressed slowly but fairly steadily through the ranks (Scout, Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Star, Life...), earned a string of merit badges ranging from Basketry (only two requirements) to First Aid to Indian Lore (which I believe has been discontinued). Since it was required to advance, I served in leadership positions including Patrol Leader, Troop Guide, Den Chief, and Senior Patrol Leader, the last of which I wore like a suit that everyone tells you looks great on you but makes you feel like you're just playing dress-up, and pinches in all the most uncomfortable places. I was elected into the Order of the Arrow, the honored campers' society. I camped countless times in all sorts of weather, from the desert heat of Philmont to sub-zero Forestburg, where our campsite was only accessible via frozen lake. I staffed leadership training camps of several flavors, worked ropes courses, and held several summer positions at a Cub Scout camp (including, weirdly, Field Sports Director). Eventually, a week before my eighteenth birthday, I passed the Board of Review for my Eagle Scout, awarded the following November, very nearly ten years ago.

Those eleven years were incredibly formative for me. I learned that I'm not a natural leader, but I can do it in a pinch. I learned countless useful skills that I still use on a surprisingly regular basis (though I'm still kind of crap at fire-building). It boosted my confidence, something I still have an issue with. I have many fond memories of those times (as well as many not-so-fond memories, but hey). I have a collection of Boy Scout handbooks on my dresser, including my grandfather's from the '30s and my father's from the '60s, everything between and beyond, up to and past my own, from the '90s. To this day, I can recite the Scout Oath, Law, slogan, motto, and sing innumerable camp songs without thinking. Earning my Eagle Scout is one of the proudest achievements of my life.

And yet, with the exception of one final summer working at Cub Scout camp (Nature Director, that time), I haven't touched the BSA again.

Every so often, people ask me if I've ever considered getting back into it as a Scoutmaster, or Assistant Scoutmaster, or merit badge counselor, or something. I've considered it, yeah, but I couldn't. Not without me being dishonest with them, and more importantly, dishonest with myself. Point 1 of the Scout Law: "A Scout is trustworthy."

Let's ignore, for a moment, the fact that they wouldn't let me back even if I wanted to (my atheism vs. the BSA is a matter for another post), and focus on my initial philosophical differences with them. Maybe you remember back, oh, nine or ten years ago, the case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. If you don't want to read the whole Wikipedia article, let me sum up: James Dale, an Eagle Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster in Monmouth Council, New Jersey (my old council, coincidentally, though not my troop), became involved in his college's LGBT student alliance, and via his work there (unrelated to the BSA) was featured in a newspaper interview in which he stated that he was openly gay. BSA officials found out and had him kicked out. Dale took them to court, and the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that the BSA had to readmit him. The BSA wasn't having that, so they took the case up to the US Supreme Court, who decided that as a private organization, the BSA had First Amendment rights to associate with whomever they please, and keep out whomever they want. The decision was handed down June 28, 2000, while I was working at the aforementioned Cub Scout camp for my final summer.

I, like many people, was unaware of the BSA's anti-homosexuality until the court case became national news. Even when it was just a case in my home state, in my own council nonetheless, I hadn't heard about it. Oh, I seem to remember having heard about old policies, back when people still believed the long-disproved notion that homosexual man = pedophile, but assumed that since that concern proved to be unwarranted, the policies lacked justification, and had been removed. Obviously, I underestimated the power of self-justification.

The official line now is that homosexuality is in conflict with the section of the Scout Oath in which scouts promise to keep themselves morally straight, and point 11 of the Scout Law stating "A Scout is clean" in thought, word, and deed. In other words, homosexuality is immoral and unclean. Naturally, I strongly disagree with this stance, and think that they're being a little free-handed with their interpretation of those points. Let's take a closer look.

On page 46 of the 11th edition of the Boy Scout Handbook, they explicate "morally straight" thus:

To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

Funny how it doesn't say "honest and open, unless you're gay" or "respect and defend the rights of all people, unless they're gay." I guess that must be implied. It must come down to the "Be clean in your speech and actions," which of course comes back to point 11 of the Scout Law, explained on page 53 (with the part about hygiene removed):

There's another kind of dirt, though, that can't be scrubbed away. It is the kind that shows up in foul language and harmful thoughts and actions.
Swearwords and dirty stories are often used as weapons to ridicule other people and hurt their feelings. The same is true of racial slurs and jokes that make fun of ethnic groups or people with physical or mental limitations. A Scout knows there is no kindness or honor in such tasteless behavior. He avoids it in his own words and deeds.

How on earth does this apply? I defy anyone, anywhere, to show me evidence of homosexuality being inherently hurtful to others. Again, there must be something they're leaving out of the handbook. Unless, somehow, they're counting it under the hygiene aspect of cleanliness? As though you can't just take a shower afterward, if need be. Maybe the newly-released 12th edition, which I do not have, is the one that says "Homosexuality is icky." [Update, 3/3/2010: Nope, not in there either.]

I just find it puzzling how an organization that is so intent on being open and inclusive can have such a policy. Their values include "to help other people at all times" as one of the primary points of the Scout Oath, just below duty to God and country in importance. They also have point 4 of the Scout Law: "A Scout is friendly"

A Scout is a friend to all.... He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.... Accept who you are, too, and celebrate the fact that you don't have to be just like everyone else. (page 49)

and point 6, "A Scout is kind"

Kindness is a sign of true strength. To be kind you must look beyond yourself and try to understand the needs of others. Take time to listen to people and imagine being in their place.... Extending kindness to those around you and having compassion for all people is a powerful antidote to the poisons of hatred and violence. (page 50)

Why, when they place such importance on helping and caring and understanding other people, including and especially people who disagree with or are different from you, do they decide that homosexuality, which has never been shown in any way, shape, or form to be harmful to anyone, is immoral and unclean, instead of just another aspect to be accepted? Why are they betraying their own values like that?

Because, of course, hovering behind the official line is the fact that conservative religious groups make up a very significant portion of the BSA's sponsors. The Mormons alone sponsor about 13% of the BSA's youth membership, making them the largest single sponsor, and have outright stated that they would pull out if forced to accept homosexual leaders. Now, naturally, this is a serious practical issue from the BSA's perspective. Losing the support of groups like the Mormons would not simply mean less money for the organization, but would also directly impact the young Scouts who have nothing to do with national policy, as they would no longer have a place to meet. Many parents would pull their children out entirely in protest. And while other organizations would likely step up to the plate, organizations that may not be contributing right now, whether because of the anti-homosexual stance or because they simply don't need to at the moment, and other kids whose parents might not let them in because of this discriminatory stance might join after it was lifted, it would take a while. The organization would definitely suffer and face very lean difficult times for a while, and that's a scary thing. It's scary for those who've put their life's work into this organization to put it in jeopardy like that for a moral stance. It must be terrifying to think that you contributed to the possible downfall of a program that was so influential in your life, and continues to be influential in the lives of millions of young boys and men every day. It's so much easier to cave, and let things go on as they always have. Point 10 of the Scout Law: "A Scout is brave."

You are brave every time you do what is right in spite of what others might say.... And you show true courage when you defend the rights of others." (p. 53)

But, of course, it's possible and even likely that they believe they ARE doing the right thing, and being brave in the face of the so-called attack on their morals, morals that have no clear basis in the actual, long-standing, stated values of the Scouts, and that actually seem to contradict many of those self-same values.

When it comes right down to it, this is a fight the BSA is going to lose, sooner or later. This paradigm is shifting all over the country, and I know that they will eventually have to change with it, once public demand forces them to (if they indeed believe what they are saying) or allows them to (if they do not). I just wish that they would instead do it simply because it's the right thing to do.