The link provided above contains an article describing recent controversy endured by Boys and Girls clubs of America, specifically involving the boycott of Girl Scout cookies. The layout of the story primarily concerns two girls, one aged seven, and the latter 14. Earlier this year, a Colorado mother publicly complained after her transgendered daughter was denied the right to join the Girl Scouts of America. Allegedly the local group cited a problem with her “boy parts.”
Quickly, the Girl Scouts of America issued a statement defining “girl” as a gendered identification rather than a mere designation based on body parts. Unfortunately, this is not where this story ends. A fourteen year-old girl, “Taylor” launched an assault on the Girl Scouts of America. First, by promoting the website http://www.honestgirlscouts.com; second, by highlighting the “Honest Girl Scouts’” proposed boycott of Girl Scout cookies.
Taylor, in her YouTube post condemns the Colorado chapter for allowing a transgendered female signifying their action as one more reason to support Honest Girl Scouts. This inclusion of transgender girls into Girl Scout Troops has recently made the list of offenses by WAGGGS and GSUSA (USA chapter proper).
As an association the Honest Girl Scouts manifesto specifically targets the WAGGGS (World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts) for its open partnership with International Planned Parenthood Foundation, “that expose[s] girls to the pro-abortion mindset” (-Group manifesto, 2012 ), also charging GSUSA for promoting a homosexual agenda.
What I find so particularly interesting (including our interests and subjects of debate) is Taylor’s unabashed approach towards advocacy. My own opinion concerning the value of her contribution notwithstanding, a 14-year-old girl is using publicity provided by Web 2.0 to push a Christian agenda in the Christian Nation. A countercampaign has sparked encouraging America citizens to purchase as many boxes of cookie as reasonably possible in an effort to promote the GSUSA’s acceptance.
Long Live the Thin Mint!
NY Times Op Ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/opinion/the-meaning-of-scouting.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Honest Girl Scouts Manifesto:
http://www.honestgirlscouts.com/files/1112YouDeserveToKnowWhatGirlScoutCookiesFund.pdf
I find it interesting that the anti-cookie group would post a video, wait until it garners a great deal of publicity and coverage, and then retracts the video. Even upon searching for second-hand copies of the video online, they are regularly flagged for removal due to intellectual property rights infringements.
ReplyDeleteWas this decision an intentional one on the part of the "honest girl scouts" to generate even more interest in their message, or was this a tactical decision and little more than a face-saving measure?
This is an important question. If retracting the video was simple face-saving, what was the threshold that was crossed which caused the group to do so? It seems counter-intuitive for such a group to retract public statements as this appears to be backpedaling from their message.
I honestly think that it is a rhetorically sound strategy (, to post the video, receive publicity, pull the video, and then monitor its dissemination.)
ReplyDeleteA very common means of counterattack is satire, but if the original video is no longer posted... the satire is harder to achieve (without the original version still on the net.) This way a vague purpose is implied that can be altered and re-argued by the HonestGirlScouts.