Gwaihir

I was taking them at their word, which is the crux of the issue with the last OpEd piece... to me, that word started to metamorphosize. I didn't even think I was reading between lines, the words are right there... on the lines. As I said to NJCS, if it's a formatting issue, then I'm wrong. But, as written, and the way sentence structure works... it's talking about the 11-18 program. But, like I said, time will tell.

The formatting of the release would place the subject of the sentence itself as the focus of the last statement, not the entire passage. If that's not the case, I'm glad for it and perhaps it was just a matter of formatting... but I'm not holding my breath. As always, time will tell.

So please tell me where the wiggling room is to go from this statement: It's up to the local pack and charter to decide if they want girls and boys together. to a similar program for the boy scout level. Where do you see wiggle room that doesn't present the co-ed troop as an option at the troop level? now that we've got that, we were told, under no uncertain circumstances "NO CO-ED IN BOY SCOUTS". firmly and blatantly, that is now being walked back.

By placing no hard fast rule against co-ed Troops, there is blatant lying going on... I was told point blank by execs both in my Council as well as CSE, "NO CO-ED IN BOY SCOUTS". So now you the hinting at a local option at the 11-18 level... which allows for pressure to exerted... give it 5 years, all Troops will be co-ed. if this is not evident, it's a beautiful dream I'd love to get in on.

The Chief Scout Exec is apparently a master of the boiled frog approach.

It's coming. http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/29428-official-news-release-girls-as-youth-members-all-programs/?p=465669

Co-Ed 11-18 program will be coming and Chief Scout just let cat slip out of the bag. http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/opinions/girls-boy-scouts-surbaugh-opinion/index.html We acknowledge and celebrate that boys and girls develop differently, and there are times that single-gender learning is most appropriate. That is why we have outlined a structure that enables us to continue providing single-gender environments -- like dens within Cub Scout packs and a single-gender Scouting program for older girls -- within a broader structure that will allow us to serve the whole family. It will be up to local Cub Scout Packs, parents and chartered partners to choose whether to include boys and girls in family packs or only serve boys or girls; we anticipate a similar structure at the Boy Scouts level. No co-ed in 11-18 age girls is a blatant lie.

The original question was about raising boys to be men and girls to be men (as opposed to women). Are we disagreeing that there are fundamental differences in the sexes both biologically as well as psychologically that, in order for the best possible outcome, should be catered to. Riding a bike and climbing a mountain are things that either sex can do (program)... how it's done, and the experience that's garnered from it varies, generally speaking, between boys and girls (mission). I missed the part where it was bad to have girls grow to be strong independent women and boys to grow to be strong independent men was inherently bad... or that the two are the same thing.

I think this one aligns best with my personal standing on the topic.

What's the big deal here? As many have said, including National with regards to girls in Cub Scouts, everyone was doing it anyway, for years. So just play water guns and go tubing, National is ok with breaking the rules.

Look up Feminist scholar Christina Hoff Sommers' War Against Boys

why roll your eyes? I've heard many actual Girl Scouts and Girl Scout alums, not GS brass, state that they are/were proud of the all-girl GS program, having a place were girls could learn to be women in a sisterhood environment.

if their "committed to the single-gender concept" like they say they are, then they would... I have my doubts.

ps, be sure to share this with your troop. it's rather shameful and shocking. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/10/exclusive-former-west-point-professors-letter-exposes-corruption-cheating-and-failing-standards-full-letter/

Your high school debate coach would be wrong. The straw man argument was using the Army Cadets as a defense in the first place.

Why? It seems the parents are in as much need of learning and development as the kids... family camping is the perfect opportunity to build character for all.

If you can't see the difference between a fully developed emotional mind of an adult US Army Cadet, and the still in progress developing minds and bodies of boys and girls... I don't know what to tell you.

lol. yeah, that's not going to happen.

The response on social media that I've seen has been almost completely against this decision. Michael Sarbaugh is a snake in the grass too.

you are taking applications, holding on to them instead of delivering them to district, and then accepting the girls into the Pack. If you don't see that as untrustworthy... there is nothing more to be said.

Ironically, the language is not gender neutral.

A Scout is Trustworthy. You are deliberately being Untrustworthy. On your honor, you will do your best... to obey the Scout law.

in response to the "dad" who remarked "thats what I want for my girls, not selling cookies"... 1. signup and run a girl scout troop for your girls. 2. effect change in the girl scout program. 3. at least appreciate that part of the purpose of selling those cookies aside from "fund raising", is to teach girls business acumen, self confidence, networking skills, and ownership of the program.

I felt the exact same way when I read it. It was like reading an issue of Outdoors magazine, not Scouter.

Honestly, and I'm sure I'm in the vast minority here, but those leaders should be removed from the program. You can't blatantly ignore the Law and the Oath and then pretend to instill those virtues to the scouts.