Hawkwin

It is interesting that you mention this. My GS daughter just had her first meeting with her new troop and the girls voted on the activities they would do for this year (planning meeting that is scout led, what?!?!?) and the girls voted to go camping. My daughter was one of the majority that voted for that activity. I was both shocked and proud of her.

Why can't a girl both like dolls and Easy Bake Ovens, AND hiking, camping and everything BSA? They are not mutually exclusive. Additionally, there is nothing inherently or exclusively masculine about the activities of BSA. My son just earned his Gardening Merit Badge. What part of that is exclusively masculine? Cooking is a required Merit Badge for Eagle, is that exclusively masculine too? And why is it sad that girls might like Star Wars too??? Why do you think boys need exclusive ownership of this sci-fi soap opera, especially the little franchised dolls? I've read the War Against Boys. I 've also read (and own) Wild at Heart. Neither of those books would suggest that boys need isolation from girls in order to be mature and responsible adults.

Fascinating. Would love to hear from someone that has a more recent experience with Troops from that area.

For me, I signed up to be a MBC for those badges that we can't seem to find anyone locally. That way, my son/scout will not be limited by having a single MBC for the entire District (as we have found with Scuba) that is not responsive to emails or phone calls (he probably quit).

Well, as it pertains to restaurants and numbers served, we can certainly serve a lot more youth at McD prices than at Ruth Chris prices. I doubt many middle and lower class families could afford our organization if we went to such an exclusive model.

The only thing I can remember selling was candy bars, and not very many of those.

I had not considered that before, the burnout factor, but I can certainly see how it can be an issue. I know I had burned out a bit after being a Popcorn Kernel for three years in a row so my first year of boy scouts I basically did nothing as a parent/volunteer. I needed the time off.

One minor quibble. A "C" isn't considered average unless your program is graded on a curve or some other rank-based system; which the vast majority of school programs are not. A "C" generally means you have an error rate of 25-30% depending on the grade system. I doubt one would want any professional to have an error rate as high as 25-30%. Cs are generally not acceptable in my household. I was a B/C student and I want better for my kids than that. [And I am married to a teacher so I have little choice!]

You may have missed my opening paragraph where I stated, " It would be rather unfortunately for them to leave, especially before we have any idea if there will be a change or even what it would look like." I am in no way dismissing them but if they are determined to leave in advance of any announced change or the details of the change, then there is likely nothing we can do about that. My hope, as I also stated in the first paragraph, is that most of our leaders have more patience, grit, and perseverance than that. For example, the inclusion of gay scouts had no impact on my son's Troop. To the best of my knowledge, our CO did not open membership to such. Why quit in advance of a change that may not impact you or your scouts? No, a pilot of whatever BSA wants to accomplish but tested in select number of Councils before rolling it out to the entire nation. This is something often done with new programs. A cereal company may run a pilot program of a new cereal in a single state to gauge sales. A bank may run a pilot program of a new checking account in a single state to see how customers respond. Trails-End may run a pilot program of a new method of selling or a new product to just one area of the country before making it nationwide. BSA should run a pilot program of whatever they are trying to change to find out if it is going to work before rolling it out to the entire country.

As someone that fully support the rule of law, it would indeed appear that this council is breaking the current rules. There is no way she could have taken on the role of a patrol leader without a violation of the rules. She may have "earned" a merit badge by completing the work but she should not have been "awarded" or received a merit badge or the Arrow of Light. Further investigation is warranted. A Troop should no more be providing her recognition for those accomplishments/education than they should be for an adult scout that has aged out of the troop.

Thank you for the clarification. If that is the case, then I would think that BSA-girls would operate in the same manner as GS - In order for their to be a troop at all, there needs to be a parent volunteer. In the grander scheme of things, that may not be such a bad idea. If enough girls want to join, then there needs to be a parent willing to become a trained volunteer. Without such, then no girls troop. That means BSA-boys do not suffer a reduction in leadership based on such inclusion. I don't think that there would necessarily be separate meetings or camping as that would be unnecessary. Just have dens and patrols by gender. I am not quite convinced that the all-boy option would be gone - especially if it is gender-based dens and patrols. Additionally, I would imagine that quite a few religious charting orgs will keep their troops boy-only. My impression is that full co-ed integration is not just around the corner if it is left up to the chartering orgs to approve and implement any changes.

On what possible grounds could they revoke the charter? Are tag-alongs banned from participating in activities? I would think that as long as she is not doing anything that might create liability (e.g. being in a canoe with a scout without having passed the BSA swim test) then she would be free to participate. In looking at the various merit badges required for Eagle, I don't see anything that would directly violate a BSA rule. If you know of one, please share.

Perhaps such a response, "I will quit if you do X" in advance of any details, especially before any decision is made, says more about the quiter than it does about the issue at hand. It would be rather unfortunately for them to leave, especially before we have any idea if there will be a change or even what it would look like. Such a biased opinion does not seem to be one that is open to the opinion of others. I would hope that BSA has a greater percentage of both leaders and scouts that have more patience, grit and perseverance than that. I don't think I commented conclusively one way or the other on that issue. I am not informed enough on the specific details of their decline to have an informed opinion. I was simply illustrating that one cannot draw a conclusion based on the data we have. There are too many variables. It is entirely possible that without girls in Venturing, it might have dropped even more and faster. Since Venturing starts at 14 and cub scouts start much younger, I don't think one can draw any sort of logical extension based on the membership of either organization. They are too different. Of course not. This issue is too new. I am rather active in our Troop and I learned about it quite by accident. It is so new in fact that a single person - an adult leader that was at Jambo, is the only one to have even mentioned to me (favorably) when my daughter was at our most recent COH. No one else, to my knowledge, is even aware or is discussing such at the Troop, and we have 96 scouts in the Troop. I also have not spoke to parents that are excited about the idea. The issue has not been openly discussed in our Troop. Anecdotal responses, both for and against, likely add little value to the discussion. They don't really inform. I don't think I suggested that. It is necessary to draw correlations when you have many variables. Trying to determine why membership may be growing or falling cannot be done by examining a single variable (co-ed). Someone trying to say that Venturing didn't grow with the inclusion of girls so BS won't grow with the inclusion of girls is using faulty logic. You can't make such conclusions without examining the other variables. Certainly you know this if such is your profession. Again, I don't see how that is relevant. Just because one, or even many say that would quit doesn't mean we should not make a change. I am sure many scouts and parents said they would quit when we dropped our ban on blacks but it was the right thing to do. Not saying the issues are the same but just because I talk to a few people, just because I may end up with a tiny sample pool that isn't necessarily representative of the whole, why would you expect me to form an opinion based on that? You are basically asking me to go out and create my own cognitive bias. Even if I went out and spoke to 20 scouts and 100% were in favor of the change, that would not be "data to counter [yours]" as it is nothing more than anecdotal and in no way representative. I should no more support this idea based on a tiny sample pool being in favor than a tiny sample pool being against. Reminds me of a quote I once read where a lady in a liberal city after an election stated, "I don't know a single person that voted but Bush, I don't know how he could have won." Her sample pool clearly was not representative. Complete agreement. But, we also don't have a lot of evidence to the contrary. To obtain that, BSA likely will need to do some actual pilot programs. Surveys of members won't really tell us what we need to know since, as you state, "future scouters" are a critical group in this analysis. Two things: 1. We will clearly have some quitters over such a change. There will always be people less open to change, both for good or bad reasons. Just a fact of life. While we can probably do a decent job of studying the future behavior or our own members, there is little if anything we can do to study the future market without a few pilot programs to test it out. 2. This decision should not necessarily be all about membership growth. EVEN IF we were to determine that membership would grow, that in and of itself, should not be a reason for a change, just as if we determine that membership would shrink it should not necessarily be the reason not to change. I am sure that there are a number of actions and changes we could make that could increase membership but that doesn't mean that we should do them. BSA has a mission to better youth. We, the collective we, have to decide if that is going to include more girls than it currently does, what that would look like, and if it is worth WHATEVER impact, positive or negative, it has on membership trends.

I don't understand your response. Are saying that it won't work due to a lack of leaders or space, yet you also state that instead of going to two separate meetings during the week it would add convenience. Just what doesn't work logistically? I am really confused as to what you are trying to communicate. I currently take my daughter to GS events and my son to BS events. If they were coordinated in some manner, I would have MORE time to volunteer instead of less.

This! We have dens and patrols for a reason. My preference would be to keep the dens and patrols gender-based (within those chartering orgs that want such in the first place) and the troops (again those want coed) would then get together at a troop level to be coed. Boys that want a boy-only experience could get that at either the den/patrol level or even at the troop level if they wish to belong to a chartering org that wishes to keep the existing restriction in place.

It need not be all or none. As someone recommended on another thread, let each chartering organization decide, just like they do today with sexual orientation. If Stosh and Ankylus do not wish for their chartering organization to allow for girls, then I fully support their decision, but then allow me and mine to do as we wish with ours. Our decision and inclusion should in no way impact their decision and exclusion. Perhaps Venturing is floundering for reasons other than gender. Perhaps it is floundering because their members are not part of the core program of BSA advancement. Perhaps it is floundering because the age at which the program starts is generally too late to recruit co-ed members when they are already actively involved in many other extra-curricular activities. Just a guess but I assume that very few boys join Boy Scouts at age 14 without having ever been in cub scouts. Why should we expect Venturing girls to be significantly different in that regard? There are a multitude of reasons for Venturing to be struggling that have nothing to do with girls.

Very cool, thanks for sharing!

The congressional charter also doesn't include Cub Scouts, or co-ed Venturing yet we have such. My assumption is that we are not bound by any specific wording of that document. From the Bylaws: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/bsa_charter_and_bylaws.pdf ARTICLE VII. YOUTH MEMBERSHIP Section 1. Those eligible to participate in programs designed for youth and young adults shall collectively be known as “youth program participants.†Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all who meet the membership requirements. Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Varsity Scouting are for boys. Venturing is for young men and young women. Those youth program participants who are at least 18 years of age and eligible to participate in programs designed for youth shall be referred to as “adult program participants.†Section 2. Both membership in Scouting and advancement and achievement of leadership in Scouting units are open to all boys and, where authorized, young women, without regard to race or ethnic background, and advancement and achievement of leadership in Scouting is based entirely upon individual merit. --------------- Seems like all it would take is a change in the Bylaws to change the gender requirements.

Both the Gold Award and Eagle are promoted to E-3.

Of course the devil is always in the details but as you indicated with your first hand experience that it can be successfully done. Venturing has demonstrated that it can be successfully done. 90%+ of the rest of the world's scouting organizations have proven that it came be done. I don't see, and you don't offer any details, as to how it would be "destroyed" by allowing more. That simply does not logically follow. As long as the same standards are maintained, like they were for the first female Army Rangers, then we should be just fine. As a member of that older generation, we are just less open to change. We are more wedded to tradition than younger generations, which is why your nephews likely have no problem with it but your grandfather does. Few of us can point to actual first hand experience as none of have had girls in cub or boy scouts before. Nearly all of us are operating from assumptions. And the fear of the unknown drives a lot of it.

Just what do you think, specifically, would be made worse with the inclusion of girls? The mission of BSA is "youth" not boys, after all. My son is also a Boy Scout. I do not feel his experience would be made worse by the inclusion of girls.

On the back of their shirt like girl scouts. *runs and hides*

Decades ago when I was in college, I worked with an organization in conjunction with my business fraternity that seemed to specialized in this stuff and it would probably fit very well with scouting. I've not looked at it since then so I can't speak to how it may be different now: https://www.greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/ Servant leadership is a philosophy and set of practices that enriches the lives of individuals, builds better organizations and ultimately creates a more just and caring world. You might consider giving them a call or sending them an email to see if they have a program that would help develop what you are looking for. Also, lot's of "crawl walk run" stuff on the web that you could perhaps adapt.

Totally correct. My wife ran into one of the parents of the new troop last night - someone I had personally called to request information (she never returned my call - I had to email the district person in charge), and her comment to my wife was, "I am glad your daughter was accepted into the new troop." The clear implication was that she could have been turned away if the troop did not approve. Upon further discussion, my wife got the clear impression that the other parents were emailed and asked if they wanted her before we were extended an invite. Makes me think that my daughter could have easily been discriminated against for any number of reasons that would never have been disclosed. As much as I want her to be active in GS, that is just a real ugly process and one wide open for abuse.

You have my vote for the metric system. Ford was right, Reagan was wrong.