Go Home Already: You've Got to Give a Little

It's not really discrimination if Megan's Law prevents you from attending.

Jack, don't you remember this conversation:

Help D.C. Girls to Rock!

Sure, but I didn't get to make a sex offender joke back then so it seemed like a good opportunity to make up for lost time.

That said, you're point is taken, but I think it points more to a weakness in the anti-discrimination argument rather than a social ill that merits opposition.

It's funny. I wanted to give you credit for the sex offender joke, but couldn't see how I could work someone else toward the target.

And you are right, the way they sell themselves IN BIG BOLD LETTERS, yet practice something different is the issue. It is their show and if they feel the path to empowerment is excluding males it is their call; even if I feel it is misplaced.

I'm with you. It's promoted as an "inclusive" program. Seems like there should be another word in there . . . "generally" or "mostly" maybe? If it's any consolation, though, their nondiscrimination policy is accurate:

GR!DC NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY: Girls Rock! DC does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national and/or ethnic origin, marital status, sexual orientation, body type, physical ability, gender expression, or other individual identities in the administration of any of its educational programs, admissions policies, scholarships, and other camp-related policies and programs, including volunteer placement. All Camp activities will promote and maintain the personal and emotional safety of all campers and staff at all times.

Here's what's puzzling: "gender expression" is protected under the policy. You and I know what the intent is, but the words don't say that. A male's expression of traditional masculinity is a "gender expression" and, thus, protected under the policy as drafted. Perhaps it should say "nontraditional gender expression" instead.

Also puzzling: they omit gender (as they should), but have a catchall for "other individual identities." What do you reckon that means? Seems to me, a person could reasonably argue this means whatever that person wants it to mean. It seems too broad given their purpose.

Moral: They should pay their pro bono counsel more.

I like the “generally” inclusive. You are totally correct about the mixed message. I find funniest the long list of “approved” inclusives as an example of their policy. But as shown with your quote from their site, the list isn’t long enough.

So bottom line: A weak, fat, same-sex married, lesbian, Hindu, Chinese, cross-dressing transsexual, from France, who fancies him/her-self as Napoleon can help. Males (otherwise unencumbered) can’t. The line outside the door must be a mile long as they check their checklist.

I wasn't knocking your photograph nor do I really think it is manipulated in any way. IMGoph’s observation caught my eye. Looking at each person in your photo reminds me of a "human montage" each person/dog in their own world.