"John Smith I" wrote:

Interesting! Then look around. The boy scouts aren't even what they used
to be; pressures from gay proponents were able to achieve that, sorry
thing ...

Over the years I've seen a decline in virtually all "club" related
activities. I, myself, have "cut back" on club activities -- I no longer
attend ham radio club meetings (although, that may change in another 2
months) -- simply because the demands of life dictate that I have less
leisure time to engage in such pursuits, much the same way the arrival of my
3rd child dictated I spend less time on ham radio 6 years ago.


Even interest in the masons (moose lodge, etc.) has died. That isn't
because boys and girls (and grown ones at that!) have lost interest and
tire of playing "secret clubs." It is because the exclusive rich dominate
the organizations and are VERY picky. (why are the rich so stupid,
self-centered and repugnant?--that is the question :-( )

I wasn't aware the Masons were a picky bunch. I know they have a set of
"morality" rules that transcend religious boundaries which they expect their
members to adhere to. I didn't think there was a minimum income limit on
becoming a member. I heard they put prospective members thru a fairly
rigorous vetting process.

If interest in groups like the Masons is declining, I suspect it is more due
to the way society is redefining itself. A benefit of being a Mason was you
were a member of a fraternity, and always had a group of people to turn to,
no matter where you were, for assistance. You could walk into a Mason's hall
1/2 a world away, and while you might not understand the language spoken by
the occupants, you would still feel at home.

Today, the world has "shrunk". Travel to Europe or Asia isn't the ordeal it
was 30 years ago. Stranded in the middle of Montana? Not really, as long as
you're in range of a cell tower... or, if not, have your trust satellite
phone with you.


What I suspect you may see, if in fact the "rich" (as you claim) inhabit
these types of organizations, is simply the fact the "rich" have more
leisure time, and thus, can participate in these activities, moreso than the
poor SOB who has to bust his hump 12 hour a day.

It has often been said that ham radio is a old affluent white man's hobby.
There is some truth to that claim. Why? Historically, older men and more
affluent men are more established (which means the greater potential for
leisure time), and more likely to own property (for antenna farms). As
social demographics change I suspect likewise we will see a shift in amateur
radio.

No... if there are any "attitudes" in ham radio, it is because the people
who think such an "attitude" exists are actively looking for one, and will
find one, regardless of whether or not one actually exists or not. Much the
same way people who want to see UFOs often end up witnessing one.