Hawkwin

Yes, and that is valid. But that isn't the mission statement of BSA today. Just like our original Constitution was written centuries ago but has also changed a few dozen times over the years. The mission statement today is about youth, not boys.

Why do you assume I have an agenda? Soo much hostility here. Earlier in this thread I made a comment that if we left all decisions up to the scouts, that one of the first things that would go would likely be the last G - God. If you read that comment, then you should probably infer that I am not in favor of such a change. Perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt? I'd do the same for you.

With respect, my reply was to Flagg. There is nothing you should infer about your original comment and my response to Flagg. They are two different comments and should not be conflated to be the same thing. Flagg was stating that Boy scouts should not change because 100 years of tradition - that it has always been boys only. I replied to him to illustrate that, "we have always done it this way" is not necessarily a valid reason to keep a policy - that BSA used to exclude people of color, then BSA changed. I don't see how you can talk about one form of segregation and not see correlations to others. It isn't a straw man to bring up the fact that BSA used to be segregated by color and no longer is. But, I digress. I think we have beat this particular horse enough.

Actually, the original question posed by Backpack was a bit of a Straw Man fallacy. To quote: I don't think BSA made such a claim - that adding girls fixes anything that was broken. The, "Why change at all?" question seems rather straight forward - people have asked for the change. The benefit is to those that want to join that were previously excluded. That should be self-evident. The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. This change allows BSA to prepare MORE young people to make ethical and moral choices under the Scout Oath and Law. I would say that benefits all of us - and is the reason for the change. Taken directly from the news release:

In an underground cave. In a sub (Webelos den at the time).

Just a guess but I think that would quickly result in the loss of the last G. I also think if the boys decided all aspects of membership, you would quickly find the organization unrecognizable from the one you originally joined. Young adults rarely have the perspective to see the forest for the trees. If my son, at age 11 was given a vote on everything, my guess is that he would vote for anything that would make Eagle easier and quicker to earn. I keep trying to tell him it isn't all about Eagle but he lacks the maturity yet to understand that.

David, I think you might be using some very old data. Your profile states "Chicago area." Starting salary for Chicago public schools is over $50,000 a year, not $22,000. https://www.nctq.org/districtPolicy/contractDatabase/district.do?id=4 Coach pay varies based but a head coach gets an extra $6000 a year, not $800 (page 355). https://www.nctq.org/docs/CTU_Contract_2015-2019_FINAL.pdf Not winning lottery money but certainly better than poverty level. Hawkwin Married to a HS teacher that does extracurricular work

I'm not convinced of that. The military has separate but equal requirements based on gender. Men and women do not have to perform to the same physical fitness standards. I understand that they do have to perform to the same standard for specialized roles - like Ranger* If, for a very generic example, young women didn't have to hike as many miles as a young man, I would not think that such would necessarily lead to a disaster of epic proportions. In addition, if there were different merit badges (not that I can think of any examples), then I also don't think it would be a disaster. *Where I agree with you that it would be a disaster if they were to make obtaining Eagle any less challenging. Again, my preference is that they be exactly the same but if they are not, I still think I can live with it. Either way, I plan to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see specifics.

I feel a little guilty for tossing this small grenade and then not adding my own comments but I am glad I did wait as it allowed me time to better form my own opinion of his position of SBE. As a supporter of the change to include girls, I don't need full inclusion. I would be satisfied with a program that is indeed, SPE, or even not quite equal. I do not accept his analogy or comparison to racial rights as it pertains to SPE as no one is entitled to the benefits of BSA where as everyone is entitled to a quality education. Education is a Right. Being a scout is not a Right so a change that results in something less than SPE is not only legal, it is and should be acceptable. I can understand why supporters of inclusion may want complete coed (I get it, and would probably prefer it to), but I neither need it nor do girls need it in order to enjoy the benefits of BSA. If the girls program is slightly different, if it is slightly "less", that is still better than no girls in BSA at all. I am a pragmatist. I'd rather my daughter be able to enjoy the benefits (even if that is only 90% of the benefits) of BSA than enjoy none at all and if keeping the programs single-gender vs coed helps BSA be more successful (by not running off all those that want single-gender options), then I am going to support that decision and oppose the idea of going full coed - even though I might personally support it.

Clarke Greene weighs in: BSA Separate But Equal Plan for Girls http://scoutmastercg.com/bsa-separate-but-equal-plan-for-girls/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=FeedBlitzRss&utm_content=BSA+Separate+But+Equal+Plan+for+Girls I did not start out as a believer in co-ed Scouting. For most of the last 35 years I’ve been a volunteer with the Boy Scouts of America the status quo worked fine for me, co-ed Scouting was a big unknown, and being unknown it was something to resist. Three Things That Changed My Mind.First – during a week-long international Scouting trip several years ago (and two more since) I watched co-ed Scouting at work. Almost every other Scouting association in the world is co-ed. Most of us haven’t seen co-ed Scouting in action on that scale. It wasn’t complicated, a Scout is a Scout, it was that simple. Second – I’ve talked to Scouters from many different parts of the world at length about co-ed Scouting. I probed for problems or regrets, I didn’t find any. Third – and most important, nearly six years ago our first grandchild was born. Before long she’ll be old enough to have the same experiences and advantages Scouting afforded her Eagle Scout father. ---------- More at the link. I recommend reading all of it as it doesn't end the same way it began. The title gives you a hint.

I must be the only person that uses Velcro. I use adhesive Velcro for all patches these days. No sewing and much easier for 1st year scouts as they progress to 1st Class.

If given my choice, I would simply have us call them Boy Scouts. If we do something silly and call them girl Boy Scouts then by default, we would also have boy Boy Scouts. The double modifier is silly and cumbersome; and unnecessary. I was in a co-ed business fraternity in college. The term fraternity refers to a male organization. My chapter was 70% female. The term we had for members, like any other fraternity, was "brother." Every young woman in our business fraternity was officially referred to as "Brother [last name]." It is fair to assume that with 70% of the organization being female, they were accepting of such language. They knew when they joined that such was the terminology. Since there appears to be a very strong desire for many girls and their parents to join Boy Scouts, I would change nothing about the terms. My daughter will hopefully be nothing more and nothing less than a "Boy Scout." I see no reason at all that she need be identified with any additional gender terminology.

I fail to see how this decision necessitates someone impugning the motives of the professionals. I think both groups (pros and volunteers) feel we need to raise money so there can be programs delivered to scouts - and scouts will now also includes (more) girls. If camps are closing because BSA is losing money, then programs are not being delivered to current scouts. If this change helps reduce the bleed or helps us to actually grow, then we both raise money and deliver more programs to more scouts. It just might turn out that adding more programs for girls helps an existing Boy Scout keep his local summer camp.

I am not an eagle scout, and I think it is a great idea. Any additional ancillary benefits through networking simply add value to the achievement. I guess I always assumed that there was some sort of "alumni" association of Eagles. If there isn't, someone needs to get on that!

I applied for this in my state this week. I will share the results when I get a response.

Again, no one is forcing your den, pack, patrol, troop, CO, district or council to change. Why would you suggest or imply that you would stop donating to your all-boys Troop simply because a girl in an adjacent state earns her Tiger Badge? Why would you punish the scouts in your troop by removing your expertise from the system simply because a young woman [RS] earns a Eagle someplace else? What harm does it cause you and yours? Specifically? You might have assumptions about how things MIGHT change at some point in the future but right now, official word is you can remain just as "traditional" as you want to be. Seems nothing other than spiteful. This would be different, and I would feel differently, if they were forcing you to accept girls, but they are not.

Then don't. No one is forcing you to do so.

I think most of us will simply have anecdotal experience but my local unit always met as dens separately on a weekly basis (differently times, days and locations) and once a month as a pack. Edit: Fixed a typo.

There is a FAQ out there. I was reading it earlier today - but that being stated, I had to hunt for it. I can't find it again as I type this. Sure would be nice if this was all on the front page of www.scouting.org Found it: https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Family-Scouting-FAQ.pdf https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BSA_Family-Entry-Fact-Sheet.pdf

I agree; I am sure there are ways it could have been done better. I think it is a fact of life that there are always better ways to do something (yet not my area of expertise and I don't know how they could have done it better). That being stated, many have complained that they were not told in advance that this change was coming. I just don't see how that would be a reasonable request as any leaking to members would also be leaking to the media. My guess is that BSA has a PR person on payroll and that they applied whatever expertise they have in crafting this message. Doesn't mean it was perfect but there may not have been a much better way either.

You really think we have systemic issues of sexual assault, financial mismanagement, and deficient programming? Really? Might there be quite a bit of hyperbole in all of that?