Girl Scouts

But it’s not just the vague possibility that a scout somewhere on the planet might be learning about family planning that’s spooking the organization’s detractors this year. Last fall, a Colorado troop had the audacity to accept a female-identified transgendered 7-year-old, explaining that the Scouts is “an inclusive organization and we accept all girls in kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.” Yikes, inclusion too?

The Girl Scouts Louisiana East were so scandalized by that notion that it hastily cobbled together its own policy, affirming that “our council’s programming is for girls only, and has not been designed to meet the specific needs of boys or transgendered youth.” But that wasn’t good enough for some parents. Local troop leaders decided that the council had not acted swiftly and unequivocally enough, and dissolved the troop in favor of the Christian-flavored American Heritage Girls. Troop leader Susan Bryant-Snure explained on Nola.com Sunday that the council’s policy statement was the “right decision; they just made it in a way that made us nervous.” Sorry, East Louisiana Scouts, you’re just not being biased quickly enough.

The Girl Scouts encourage a laudable level of autonomy at the regional and troop level, and to that end, permit conversations about sex education and admissions policies. In a statement last spring, GSUSA spokesperson Michelle Tompkins noted that “individual troops throughout the country are allowed to work on projects on virtually any issue.” Yet the possibility that a troop somewhere might be discussing something as incendiary as teen pregnancy, or might allow a transgendered child the pleasure of earning a few Try It badges, is so horrifying to some that the boycott talk is underway.

Writing in the reliably shrill Washington Times, Cathy Cleaver Ruse, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, demanded that we “say no to Girl Scout cookies.” In her piece, Ruse argues that “the Girl Scouts have been ‘pro-choice’ for years” [Note: They're officially, verifiably and easily Google-ably neutral on the subject] and are now also “perpetuating this cruel charade on this little boy and forcing little girls to participate in it.” And Rick Santorum supporter and full-time impregnator Jim Bob Duggar agonized to Buzzfeed last week that “Our family loves Girl Scout cookies and I don’t think allowing a boy in the Girl Scouts is a good thing,”

It’s notable that you don’t hear too many liberal-leaning folks demanding a boycott on the Girl Scouts and their tempting confections because a Louisiana council officially will not welcome transgendered children, or because a Kentucky teen earned herself a Girl Scout Gold Award for spearheading a local abstinence program. Maybe we abortion-crazed, transgender-embracing lefties comprehend that Girl Scout troops exist within their local contexts, and it’s empowering for their members to determine the values and agendas right for them. Maybe we just put the cookies before politics. I suspect it’s called practicing tolerance. As the Girl Scouts of the USA would say, Try It.

Regular reality-TV viewers also report spending a significantly larger amount of time on their appearance and are far likelier to agree with statements like “Being mean earns you more respect than being nice.” Apparently, reality fans don’t join the Girl Scouts to make friends; they join to win.

But maybe not everything dished out on reality TV has a soul-crushing effect. It turns out, according to the poll, that reality watchers exceed their peers’ confidence levels regarding “almost every personal characteristic” — including maturity, intelligence, and humor. They’re also more likely to aspire to lead and more aware of social issues. Two-thirds said that the shows have sparked important conversations with parents and friends.

Is it possible that somewhere amid all the catfights and hot-tub hookups and dates with rehab, there are valuable lessons to be had? Could Snooki teach our little girls something beyond how to rock a pouf? On that latter question, I’m going to guess probably not a whole lot. And that’s where the study’s methodology comes into play. The Girl Scout poll defines reality TV as pertaining to popular genres of both competition shows (like “American Idol”) — and “real-life” shows (such as “Jersey Shore”). It doesn’t seem to distinguish between girls who watch “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” with their families and those who are off devouring “Dog the Bounty Hunter” solo.

I don’t know about your family, but my 7-year-old could distinguish between “The Amazing Race” and “Real Housewives,” and I suspect her emotional takeaways from the two would be different. I say that because I’ve seen it in action. It was Mondo’s admission that he was HIV-positive on “Project Runway” that turned out to be the first time either of my daughters heard the term, and it wound up sparking a family conversation about HIV and AIDS. My children have also learned, via Tim Gunn, everything they’ll ever need about impeccable grooming and meeting rigorous deadlines. From “American Idol” this year they gained a deeper insight into the neighborhood  kids they know who are on the Asperger’s scale. But they still don’t know who Kim Kardashian or the Situation are — and I’m keeping it that way as long as possible.

Assuming, as the Girl Scouts study seems to have done, that “reality” is broad enough to encompass both “The Girls Next Door” and “Mythbusters” isn’t quite fair to either young girls or to television. But flawed as it may be, the results do suggest that certain kinds of reality shows can teach our daughters more than just how to throw drinks in each other’s faces –  and that if you’re paying attention, there are teachable moments to be found in the unlikeliest places.