AwakeEnergyScouter

Yeah, exactly. And it's for good reasons. It's not greed, actually. If scouts, like civil servants, weren't allowed to engage in political actions even as private citizens (not using any scouting logos, not in uniform, etc) then that would undercut the movement's goals, and the mom's frustration would make total sense. But that's not the case. The problem isn't fundraising for a cause that isn't scouts, the problem is associating the movement with political causes. Like you say, which cause doesn't really matter, but IMO it's worse when the cause is very divisive.

It does seem a little harsh to threaten immediate legal action, but I understand it better in this case than in suing the BSA over giving girls the option to scout there as well. GSUSA seemingly, if not actually, getting sucked into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as taking a side could set a whole chain of destructive reactions into motion and tarnished the reputation of the scouting movement as a whole. The same political tensions that are bouncing around politicians (can't please both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian constituents) would follow into scouting, and promptly create a rift between troops. In my mind, there is a very clear line between building strong civil institutions and/or providing humanitarian assistance in an emergency directly and working for a specific outcome or in support of a particular person, party, or nation in a political situation. (I e had they fundraised for Palestinian scouts doing humanitarian work in Gaza, that would be akin to the WAGGGS and WOSM troops that supported Ukrainian scouts, especially within the exception to the political activity rule.) The scouts were even told they could keep selling the bracelets to fundraise for the Palestinian charity, just not in their capacity as scouts. I think we all engage in some kind of political activity at some point, just expressing our political thoughts if nothing else, just not as scouts or scouters. Our ability to Build(ing) a Better World hinges upon that we are able to work together amongst ourselves with all other scouts. If we can't voluntarily suspend our political expressions while representing scouting, that's going to be almost impossible. Selling bracelets that express support for a political cause as a scout is different from selling bracelets that express support for a particular political cause as a private citizen who also happens to be a scout. The whole idea of a worldwide siblinghood of scouts falls apart if politics dictates whom we're willing to work with. We don't have to love each other equally, but taking political action against each other as scouts is going to splinter the movement. Certainly, the scouts can and should be politically active and use their voices. That's the stuff democracy and strong political institutions are built of. But such political activity can't be using scouting logos, uniforms, or anything else that suggests doing it as a scout.

I just saw this article, and because I can see this going a lot of tense and/or political directions I'm putting this in Issues & Politics. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st-louis-mom-says-girl-scouts-warned-troop-stop-selling-bracelets-pale-rcna140257 St. Louis mom says Girl Scouts warned her troop to stop selling bracelets as Palestinian fundraiser A St. Louis, Missouri, mother said the Girl Scouts organization threatened her with legal action after her troop sold bracelets to help Palestinian children. Nawal Abuhamdeh said her daughter's troop decided to make bracelets and donate the money rather than participate in the annual cookie sale. Abuhamdeh, who is Palestinian, has led her troop's cookie fundraising event since 2019. But because of the Israel-Hamas war, she said they troop did not have the "energy to be able to sell cookies to a community, especially in a time of crisis." (...) The eight-member troop, which includes girls from Indian, Pakistani, Somalin, Palestinian, Syrian and Jordanian backgrounds, led the project, Abuhamdeh said. They held meetings about what material to use and where beads should be placed. The girls decided to sell beaded bracelets for $5 and clay designs for $10 and donate the money to Palestine Children Relief Fund. (...) Almost immediately, Abuhamdeh said she received an email from Girl Scouts of Eastern Missouri telling her to remove anything that associated Girl Scouts with the bracelets. "It felt very cold and just full of reprimand and demand," Abuhamdeh said. "Demanding that I remove Girl Scout's logo … disassociate ourselves from the organization and just continue this on our own personal time, deeming it as political and partisan, claiming that they have to be inclusive to all members and that they should be neutral on all sides." (...) A spokesperson for Girl Scouts of the USA said that its policies state that Girl Scouts and volunteers are not allowed to fundraise "for purposes other than Girl Scouting." Fundraising restrictions are lifted in rare cases, which included a brief period in late 2023 and early 2024 that allowed fundraisers related to the Israel-Hamas war, the spokesperson said in a statement. "Girl Scouts of the USA and our local Girl Scout Councils build girls of courage, confidence and character who make the world a better place, and we encourage all members to stand up for the issues important to them," the spokesperson said. "Additionally, girls can always decide as a troop to use their cookie proceeds and donate them to charities of their choice that appear on Charity Navigator." Abuhamdeh said she that was disappointed in the Girl Scouts' response to the troop's bracelet fundraiser, and that after meeting with the other parents, the troop decided to disband. "It triggered emotions I felt growing up. Anytime I would express myself or tell people proudly that I was a Palestinian, I would often be met with words of, like, ‘That’s threatening.’ I would be confused growing up," she said. "That, I think, was what I was feeling. Just disappointment … and I was really sad." The girls continued to sell bracelets, but briefly stopped after reaching 600 orders from across the country, Abuhamdeh said. They plan to begin selling them again this weekend. I see the line GSUSA is drawing here very clearly. I cringed when I saw the picture of the bracelet. I read about what other GSUSA troops did to support Ukrainians (not the nation-state Ukraine as a party in the conflict, and during a special dispensation time) also. It was very similar to what WOSM troops have done, also in collaboration with Scouts Ukraine. I suspect I'm not the only one to whom the line here is clear - but does anyone understand from personal experience why the interviewed mom doesn't see it as far as the scouting movement goes? Selling items that express personal support on behalf of the wearer for a side in an armed conflict is just so obviously not something scouts should be involved in to me that I'm a bit shocked. Is it a lack of understanding the civil nature of the movement? Is it community grief? That feeling of being viewed with suspicion obscuring the distinction between a civil and a political organization? Any Muslim and/or Palestinian scouters here who could offer their perspective?

In preparing for my first Blue & Gold as Cubmaster, another former scout committee member and I wanted to put together something more extensive about BP and the history of the scouting movement. I checked out the online museum of Swedish Scouting as part of the compilation process, and found this piece about a stained glass window of the trefoil-fleur du lis Scouterna (The Scouts, but in Swedish) logo as a metaphor for the scouting program. The picture is attached and the text translated below. A picture of scouting In the stained glass mosaic window, the glass pieces create a pattern. The artist has chosen pieces with the right shape and color, and put them in the right place. Then, they form a symbol for what we want to achieve: Good and proper scouting! Adventures and experiences For the scout, the individual glass piece is probably the most important. The things you do and experience. The Scout program. Which is exciting and qualified, where you’re always learning something new, where you have fun, where you grow by taking responsibility etc. But even for the scout the glass pieces become more important if you see how they relate to each other in the pattern. Maybe when we now and then stop in front of the scout law, that everything is aiming towards? The big picture must be right But if our scout program is to form the pattern, then we must select and place our pieces carefully. Otherwise, it won’t be good and proper scouting. If the pieces in one color are missing, then the pattern doesn’t form. That can happen when we forget what the scout program is based on. For example that scouting is an outdoor activity movement, where the patrol is the important unit. And if some pieces are too big, then the big picture isn’t right. That can happen when we let some types of program activities take up too much space, so that others won’t fit. For example spending so much time indoors that we don’t have time for enough hikes. And if some pieces have the wrong shape, then they of course won’t fit into the pattern. That can happen when we do the right things, but don’t consider how we do them. Maybe go to camp, but let the activities there become more important than camp life itself? As scout leaders, we need to think about both the pieces and the pattern. We need to be clear on the purpose of each thing that the scouts are doing. Each program component needs to contribute to the pattern. Otherwise, it doesn’t fit the picture. And then it doesn’t belong in the scouting program. The Scouts’ web page 2015: Why+How=What Everything we do with the scouts is program. To cook your own food at camp as well as attending the troop’s annual meeting contributes to the development of the scout and is part of the program. What’s special about the scout program is that it doesn’t just consist of what we do (our activities) but also why we do it (our aims and purposes) and how we do it (the scouting method, pedagogy). By thinking through why and how we conduct an activity we ensure that the scouts are challenged at their level and according to their circumstances. This could be why a hike is structured the way it is or what symbols we use. Why? What is the purpose of a specific activity. It simply answers the question of how the scouts will grow as individuals. How? How has to do with our pedagogy, the scouting method. It includes everything from a system for working with small groups (the patrol method) to a way to work with symbols and our own law full of good values. What? When we have the goals (why), and how we should structure what we do, then we can create fun and developing activities based on that. In other words what we do in scouts together. The program!

I hope you get reinstated. It's a tricky balance, but not trying to walk it and just falling to one side or the other won't do, no matter how hard that balance is to walk. We want to kick out 100% of the dangerous people and 0% of the non-dangerous people. Gotta keep trying.

That's why we who have youth scouting experience have to share our experiences with anyone who will listen. I mean, what's the alternative, keep the patrol method a guarded secret? Of course not. Nobody's saying that the patrol method needs to change. At least I haven't heard that. That would be nuts. My purpose in reminding people of what they already know is that in order to keep up the good work, sometimes we need to refresh ourselves and raise some windhorse, create some feeling of flow, so that we don't get beaten down. Reconnecting to our purpose can help with that. Each moment is fresh. Each moment contains many possibilities. It is up to us to take right action.

I - and I imagine everyone else here - thinks that holding on to the patrol method and preventing Webelos 3 is essential to delivering a quality program and, therefore, creating a culture of growth. This phenomenon of less scout-led pops up a lot here. The question is, what practices and what organizational culture will create the conditions for quality scout-led programs for not just select units but for the BSA in general? I think other who have been in the BSA longer than me have better opinions on specific organizational practices, but we shouldn't forget that what gets measured is what gets done. Our pack easily qualifies for JTE gold, but none of us are that proud because it doesn't consider what we're the proudest of. All the stuff in there is just the basics, and that's not the bar we hold ourselves to. Scouts BSA unit's success should be evaluated in large part on how well they have implemented the patrol method. What we can do as individuals, though, is consciously create an organizational culture where the patrol method is The Way. Talk like it is (even when it isn't... yet), explain it to everyone new to scouting. Easier said than done of course, but without engagement from a critical mass of leaders of creating such a culture organizational practices won't make a difference.

Agree completely. And like I was saying way back, I think de facto blended troops will become more and more common, making the situation less and less tenable, as groups of cub scouts cross over. I can't know for sure, of course, but I think it's going to turn into a situation like the one-night camping for cubs where the rules are widely ignored because they don't make sense to neither the people running the program (those who want what I think of as normal scouting in this case) nor the scouts themselves. Like we were also saying before the suffering of impermanence segway, the command structure also ends up being either confusing or wasteful. The rules strike me as the outcome of a lot of wrangling in meetings between people who wanted different things. I fully expect this to be some kind of transitional phase followed by ditching the dual command structure requirement after people digest the change a little.

Your posts above are neither. As you quote me telling you previously above. Asking you to stop attacking a fellow scout's character is frankly something that shouldn't even need to be said at all, yet here we are. Attacks are not nice. Being asked to stop attacking isn't not-nice. Every time you say girls are ruining the program for boys, you're reducing our chances of growing membership and creating a culture of growth. You're spinning that wheel of cause and effect every time you say that here. So please stop. Let's move forward.

@Eagledad I see that this transition is hard for you. I hope you can find your way to equanimity. But girls and boys scouting together isn't new for me at all, and I personally had nothing to do with BSA changing its policy on that. I'm here because BSA is now providing the scouting experience I wanted for my scout, that's all. If somebody forced and intimidated the BSA, it wasn't me. To the generic insult of my character, and that of past generations of scouts as well as current scouts, you now add personal insults of my leadership? Not getting friendlier. I just want you to be quiet if you can't say anything nice. That's not censorship, that's manners. I don't think the inverse of what you think. I don't think that there's no way that gender-segregated scouting can produce the best character. I think it can produce people of the best character. That's not my objection to gender-segregated scouting. But I don't really care if you agree with me or not as much as I care that you don't make my scouts (or anyone else's scouts) feel like they're doing something wrong for joining an organization they're allowed to join. Not telling girls that they're ruining scouting for their male den- and troopmates isn't for my personal benefit. You're not going to be able to sway me to take the idea that my childhood scouting was all wrong and nobody in the whole country realized it, just you, seriously. I did not lower my male patrolmates' character. Like I've already said, you're not the only one with experiences, and nothing makes yours real and mine a fantasy. My childhood really happened, just like yours. No, it is for the benefit of current BSA scouts. I will be the lightning rod for anger about this change so that my scouts don't have to receive it. May this be of benefit to all sentient beings. 🙏🏼 As for scouting not being a movement - I refer you to BSA being a National Scouting Organization of the World Organization of the Scouting Movement, and the World Organization of the Scouting Movement's history of scouting. https://www.scout.org/who-we-are/scout-movement/scoutings-history I've learned elsewhere on this form that a lot of BSA scouts and scouters don't quite realize that the BSA is not a stand-alone organization, so perhaps you didn't know this. But you can easily verify what I'm saying here by exploring scout.org. I didn't create WOSM as part of a secret coercive plot to ruin everything, I promise 😂 There is also the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, WAGGGS, which is the other international umbrella organization for the scouting movement. You can verify that they also conceptualize scouting as a transnational movement. Most scouting organizations are in both, as Scouterna (and Svenska Scoutförbundet before the creation of the single organisation) is. Again, you can have a different conception of scouting if you like, but me holding the most common view doesn't mean that I'm out to get you somehow.

Gender equality and everyone scouting together isn't some newfangled progressive ideal, it's the faît accompli mainstream of the scouting movement. At a movement level, it's not controversial in the slightest, it's the status quo. 95% of WOSM NSOs scout together. 95%. I'm not proposing or doing anything new at all or trying to intimidate you. BSA has been in the 5%, so I understand that in your personal experience it's new, but that's not the same thing as it being new in scouting as a whole, and both WOSM and WAGGGS embrace gender equality as a goal to strive towards and that scouting is meant to help achieve. Some top hits off a search on "WOSM gender equality": https://www.scout.org/iwd2020 https://www.scout.org/what-we-do/young-people-and-communities/diversity-and-0 https://www.scout.org/gender-equality-ethiopia-gambia https://treehouse.scout.org/topic/wosm-services-equips-nsos-tools-be-champions-gender-equality https://issuu.com/worldscouting/docs/gender_equity_guidelines_en_final_final Same for "WAGGGS gender equality": https://www.wagggs.org/en/our-world/europe-region/about-us/our-impact/working-men-and-boys-gender-equality/ https://www.wagggs.org/en/blog/calling-decision-makers-let-young-women-lead/ https://www.wagggs.org/en/blog/calling-decision-makers-let-young-women-lead/ Which is what makes it so striking that you're calling the vast majority of scouts out as not having the best character. That's quite a statement. This is why I made sure I wasn't reading more into your words than you actually meant, but you confirmed that you did mean that virtually all WOSM and most WAGGGS scouts don't have the best character. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but bringing it up every time something as normal as girls and boys scouting together comes up is going to get tiresome, especially if you keep angling it personally. Like I already explained, it comes off looking probably more pointed than you realize to any scouts reading this, scouts for whom this is also something relatively new. You don't have to scout with us girls, just don't keep telling us that our presence is ruining our male den and troopmates' character. Think it, don't come say it here every time someone mentions scouting together. I'm sure not everyone remembers or has previous read this, but my own simultaneous WOSM and WAGGGS scouting experience was in Sweden, where we have scouted together since 1960. So, if no scouts that scout normally can develop the best character, than I didn't either, and neither did my dad, my uncle, my patrolmates, etc. Insulting other scouts' character really isn't a friendly move. All my old hike and Jamboree pictures of my patrol with both girls and boys in them isn't some political statement, they're just old personal pictures of someone's patrol from 30-40 years ago. Just like your old pictures with just boys or girls in them. That's just what it was. Me talking about my scouting experience with both girls and boys isn't a political statement any more than you talking about yours with just boys or girls. That my old is your new doesn't mean that I forced the change in your world, or that it's somehow alien to scouting. I want my scout to have the experience I and my dad had many, many decades ago, and I've got a scouter crew that want the same all on their own, no convincing or intimidation required. Talking about what we do as scouters in a family den also isn't a political statement, it's what this forum is for. I have never heard a GSUSA scout or scouter say any like what you're saying here, IRL or online, so I'm not going to go stir up that forum with my opinion that they should admit men and boys as well, and for that matter that GSUSA and BSA should merge, both of which I've previously expressed here. If I do ever hear that, I will say something, but there's a difference in impact and frankly intent to respond to something in a conversation stream and in starting a conversation to criticize how someone else is scouting. GSUSA must be doing more right than wrong, after all, and they are our sisters in scouting either way. I am always glad when a new scout mom is a former GSUSA scout. Loyalty to scouting trumps disagreements about how to deliver the best program.

So it looks like a bunch of posts did get moderated in the end, which is probably just as well for the good name of the BSA because what was still there is the same old gender essentialist stuff I've heard since I was my scout's current age and that still doesn't ring true. It didn't ring true even before I studied emptiness and it certainly isn't going to now that I have. I have so much to say about that that I end up with nothing to say because it's all been said for decades if not generations, in books and around dinner tables. There's nothing I'm going to say here that's going to change a dyed-in-the-wool gender essentialist. I just need them to not stop me from living my life any way I please (within good morality, of course). (My female preschool teachers made me jump through all kinds of sewing hoops before they very reluctantly let me build the wooden boat I wanted to make and sail, for example. None of the boys had to sew first, it turned out later.) And they mostly can't, because enough men like yourself @yknot also see through it now. We can just get on with business, in this case scouting. I know my committee all feels the same, I and my scout are absolutely welcome in our pack. So we're just getting on with delivering the scouting program. What hasn't already been said a million times is that, like @yknot and the moderators here have recognized, it is going to be detrimental to female scouts and therefore the BSA to keep dumping negative feelings about scouting all together into public spaces where those scouts are going to see it. Exactly as they're saying, it does say "go away, you're not welcome, secret boys club girls not allowed". (Even if that honestly wasn't what you meant, because it's hard to believe that you didn't given the volume of people who really did.) It makes the BSA look weak on its foundations - in the best case. In the expected case, it isn't just a look but an actual weakening of our standing as an ethically grounded youth organization. Given the two other major ways in which the BSA has openly struggled with its own values foundation in the same way for a long time, dumping negative feelings about scouting together creates even more drag on recruiting, vitality, and windhorse. It is not loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, or kind to your brothers and sisters in scouting to say that they could never have the highest character because they didn't scout gender-separated, especially when that is the movement norm. This is not the spirit to bring to the campfire. There are families in our pack that have very different political opinions than mine. (Seen political slogans at their houses.) And you know what I do in scouts? I shut up about politics. I do not bring that to the campfire. I rouse compassion and genuinely consider them my friends. I like them, they're good people. (As, of course , literally everyone is in the primordial sense.) I am very alarmed by the policies proposed by the politicians they support, but breaking scouts isn't going to make that any better. In scouts, we build community, not break it apart. Another thing that hasn't been said a million times is the overlap of religion and therefore reverent with rejection of gender essentialism. I imagine most here aren't familiar with the story of Noble Tara Bodhisattva's human birth Yeshe Dawa, so here the pith of it is: Princess Yeshe Dawa developed genuine, impartial love and compassion for each and every living being. She was not enchanted by the luxuries of palace life; instead, she vowed to show the way to liberation to millions of beings each day before eating breakfast, to millions more before eating lunch, and to even more before going to sleep at night. Because of this, she was called Arya Tara, meaning “The Noble Liberator.” “Arya” indicates that she has directly realized the nature of reality and “Tara” shows her liberating activity. When religious authorities suggested that she pray to be born a man in future lives, Tara refused, pointing out that many Buddhas had already manifested in male bodies and vowing to attain full awakening in a woman’s body and continuously return in female form in order to benefit others. https://thubtenchodron.org/2005/03/practice-of-tara/ Not denigrating women is one of the traditional vajrayana vows. There is no equivalent for men - sexist on the surface, but let's be honest, we all know why. It didn't need to be explicitly called out because it wasn't much of a problem. The reason for both Noble Tara's lesson and the vow inclusion is that gender essentialism is a mistaken view not just according to many modern Western feminists of all genders but also according to core traditional Buddhist teachings. Gender is empty of independent essence, as per noble Avalokiteshvara in the Sutra of the Heart of Transcendent Knowledge: "O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound prajñaparamita should see in this way: seeing the five skandhas to be empty of nature. Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. This, Shariputra, all dharma are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no cessation. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no increase and no decrease. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas; no eye dhatu up to no mind dhatu, no dhatu of dharma, no mind consciousness dhatu; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no nonattainment. Therefore, Shariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no attainment, they abide by means of prajñaparamita." This isn't comprehensible without knowing some terms, foundational teachings, and the two truths view, and I don't this anyone really cares here so I will just make the note that if this makes no sense to you, it's because hearing this without knowing that background is like hearing that all matter is both a wave and a particle at the same time without knowing the background and sequence of both theory and experiments to understand how to understand it. I still wrote out that whole segment because it's the most well-known sutra that makes it very clear that gender is absolutely one of the "things" that doesn't really exist at the ultimate truth level. It exists at the relative, everyday level, but such existence is a little random and comes together and falls apart, so we shouldn't take it too seriously. It's just a concept. Reifying concepts into some sort of Eternal Absolute Truth Beyond Impermanence is grasping and solidifying something that is only there temporarily and is a form of ignorance (mental dullness, refusing to look properly, and/or just not knowing how things work), one of the Three Poisons, which are the roots of Samsara and therefore suffering. Just like it's not helpful to scouts, scouters, the BSA, nor the scouting movement to go around telling people they're going to go to hell if they don't repent, even if you honestly think that, going around telling people it's a grave mistake to scout with anyone who's interested is unhelpful. As a movement, we logically have to hold such different opinions - no way millions of people with different spiritual views happen to hold the same opinions to the extent that they don't think others in the movement are making spiritual mistakes, logically speaking. But we're here to build community, not tear it apart, so we agree to disagree and focus on building friendship instead. I don't lose any sleep over that the Jehovah's Witnesses think I'm going to hell, they can think whatever they like, but I still don't want them ringing my doorbell again and again to tell me so. That's just annoying. Think it, but don't come interrupt me living my life to tell me.

Thanks for the warning. I'll go back and read that, prepared for the usual from the "manosphere". Hopefully no one held Andrew Tate out to be a male role model for male Scouts to emulate. I hear the root of all modern society problems is that men don't walk around with swords enough 😂 he's a true paragon of being morally straight, that man is 😂 No death threats or rape threats from anyone here though so that's a plus. I wish I was being sarcastic but the chans set the bar real low. Don't think anyone's doxxed me and no SWAT teams have shown up so everyone is verifiably holding up to that level of civilized discourse so far. Can't say that for the Internet at large.

A major drawback to discussing anything even tangentially related to feminism on the internet is Schrödinger's unpleasant person (https://imgur.com/gallery/wEhXGrr) and the hordes of people in the state of Angry Jack. It seems a lot of the folks here are older and maybe didn't grow up with the Internet, especially the influence of 2chan, 4chan and 8kun on Internet culture. The reason I was up front with that I know I am biased towards assuming the worst about possibly misogynistic posts on the internet is that I have seen a lot of it since I was a teen. I'm middle-aged now. So I know I come with baggage. But the thing is, that baggage isn't just paranoia, and there are clear patterns in how misogyny plays out in Internet arguments. Maybe you - the reader - would never, but some would and do and keep going. So I gave you an explicit heads up on that I'm not going to be able to assume positive intent but here's something you can do real quick to show that you're not what I'm fearing. The reason I asked for an explicit acknowledgement of the equal human worth of men and women is that neither Schrödinger's unpleasant person or Angry Jack can bring himself to say that sort of thing, like he can't fire off that people of all skin colors have the same intrinsic human value or what-have-you. Can't make a clear moral stand on any specific aspect of the equal dignity of all human beings. So if you say similar things but have no problem saying "Oh I'm so sorry, of course men and woman have equal human value" you're obviously not Schrödinger's unpleasant person or manifesting as Angry Jack and the seeming similarity is my prejudice. Playing the plausible deniability is their game, so such a clear and straightforward acknowledgement of morality is anathema to them. They won't do it. Can't shift around in the shadows anymore and that's all the fun, trolling people from the shadows. Throw a bomb and retreat, throw another bomb and retreat and maybe play the victim to boot. Seen this game a million times and they're just trying to get a rise out of you. This, presumably, isn't anyone who's still here. I hope not. But I see what people who were so angry about girls being welcome said before they left, and, well... It fits certain patterns. Very familiar patterns. So I can see that being a scouter doesn't necessarily mean that someone recognizes my - or many of my scouts' - intrinsic human value. I'd like to think that in reality, all of you here do. But if someone posts the kinds of things Angry Jack or Schrödinger's unpleasant person might say, I can't be silent because that's part of the plan. If I speak up, it'll be joking (or persecution if it's Angry Jack). But if I don't, it's tacit approval. And anyone reading this should know that I will protect my scouts from that kind of BS, just like I will call the cops first and the council second if I see signs of CSA. So part of my duty is to take the attacks so my scouts won't have to. I hope. Eagledad broke the pattern in a different way, though. He explicitly said I belong here and went on to say that there's no real practical harm in disagreeing and wished me a good weekend. Schrödinger's a-hole and Angry Jack never do stuff like that. They never stop going after you, they'll just keep shifting the arguments they're making even if it's not consistent. That's part of how you can tell the agenda is never the argument made, it's actually just going after outspoken women although they take care to find cover behind some other issue like "integrity in gaming journalism". And whatever they're claiming to be upset about is always the end of civilization, not a minor point. So while I don't think he made his point about gender segregation being required for developing the best character, it also doesn't really matter because it wasn't a front for that women are lesser than men. It's just a disagreement. Disagreement isn't a problem. You might not be familiar with these patterns of behavior of others if you don't drift into the state of Angry Jack yourself and don't have friends who do. It is possible to live in a bubble of people with such similar good, strong morals that you just can't imagine what's actually going on somewhere else, and this could quite possibly apply to a good number of folks here. So, here you go. If that's you - unfortunately it's a bubble, not all of reality. All of reality should be in the bubble so that it's not a bubble but we're not there yet. So people who can't stay in the bubble have to keep checking on whether they're inside or outside, but that's not a real reflection on people inside the bubble, it's a reflection on what's outside it. @Eagledad, @qwazse, I'm not sure how you experienced this but if you truly had no idea of these patterns that others have worn grooves into the floor with then I'm sure my reaction seemed over the top. If that was the case, then I apologize.

Thanks, @Eagledad, I appreciate the response. It seems we've had very different life experiences, so I doubt we're going to convince each other of the value or lack thereof in gender segregated scouting, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil.

Also forgot to add the Declaration of Independence to the list of places where inherent equal human value shows up. Probably the most famous line of the whole thing.

I want Thank you for saying this. This is exactly right - scouting isn't gendered. Its raîson d'être is not gender identity exploration. Like someone said above, we can't be doing every good thing there is to do, we should stick to our core activities which is outdoor adventure. Up until you said this - spontaneously without my prompting, even - it seemed quite possible that you were in the camp of people who do think gender-segregated gender identity exploration is in fact a core part of scouting. So now it's clear that you're not, thank you. Well, my friend, you entered this discussion waving a lot of flags that seem to be red, as did Qwazse in his post earlier. (Bringing up that gender integration is a mistake in response to someone saying that it was the best thing the BSA has done in 50 years, saying and confirming that you do not think that I or any of the other former scouts in my family have the best character or integrity, counting your life experience but not mine as evidence, declaring your experience as normal reality but mine as not normal, dismissing a classic movie based on a bestseller written by a counselor about girls' behavior as generalization without offering any specifics of your own.) Maybe others' past behavior has made me so weary that I'm seeing light pink flags as red, or perhaps they're actually white but the sun is setting.. So before jumping to conclusions, I'm asking you both to tell us what hex color your flags are. In response, you throw up more red-looking flags and refuse to answer. So... if I am mistaken, it shouldn't be hard to clear the misunderstanding up, right? I view this conversation as a time to step in as a protector to see what this situation needs. My loyalty to the scouting movement may require that I protect scouts, mine and those in other units, from confused beliefs. Many people who say similar things to what you're saying here - and 100% what @qwazse said about patriarchy - do not believe that women have equal intrinsic value to men (and sometimes no intrinsic value at all, only extrinsic value), and this causes them to harm girls and women both mentally and physically, and like I said earlier scouters who believe that aren't going to be able to help the BSA grow. So clarification of whether you and Qwazse believe that both men and women have equal intrinsic value or not is very important. I thought that all Westerners were familiar with the philosophical concept of intrinsic human value. If you had to look it up, then perhaps I should clarify for all what I'm talking about. Kant wasn't the first, but is in the West perhaps the best known proponent of the moral philosophy of intrinsic moral value, something he considered a moral categorical imperative. “What is related to general human inclinations and needs has a market price; that which, even without presupposing such a need, conforms with a certain taste has a fancy price; but that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself has not merely a relative value, that is, a price, but an inner value, that is, dignity … Morality, and humanity insofar as it is capable of morality, is that which alone has dignity.” (Kant's Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals) So, intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic value is for its own sake; in this case, that women are not valuable for their usefulness to men, but rather we have value for our own sake. It shows up as EU value number one: Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected, protected and constitutes the real basis of fundamental rights. It shows up in a number of Mahayana sutras, such as (of course) the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, in these cases in a somewhat different philosophical system than Kant's. So - could you please confirm whether you do or do not believe that men and women have equal inherent human value?

Exactly. Scouters who think that women have less intrinsic value than men are not going to be able to do a good job of growing units with girls, and if they're teaching boys that, then they are also failing to deliver good moral training. Clarifying whether we have such problems is practically important. I doubt Eagledad is trying to recruit girls, but this is not a private conversation and girls reading something in that direction here aren't going to be magnetized.

Do you have anything at all supporting this theory? In my experience, groups of just or almost only girls/women are prone to Mean Girls dynamics, and groups of almost only boys/men (and so presumably also only men) are prone to Dude Bro dynamics. Enough boys breaks up the mean girl dynamic and enough girls breaks up the bros, and both genders get the opportunity to see the strengths of the other gender's default way of handling something. Whatever gender you are, you can learn something from others. When it comes to character and integrity, I'll just share my observation that there is a very tight inverse relationship between how much time men spent around girls when they were kids - before puberty - and how much they objectify women. It's striking on the individual level and mirrors rape and other sexual assault statistics at a country level. Men who spent a lot of time around girls as children clearly have a much easier time recognizing that we are also human beings like them. If gender segregation created people of high integrity and character, Saudi Arabia, India, and Pakistan should be paragons of integrity and character. I submit that they are not, because of the general lack of respect for women. Or - and I want to clarify that I'm only asking because someone else actually brought this up earlier - do you think that viewing women as having the same intrinsic human value as men is also a mistake, and as such not related to character and integrity?

Do I understand you correctly to be saying that all the millions of scouts that have scouted in gender-integrated programs over the decades did not develop the best character or integrity?

What does "the patriarchy" mean to you? What exactly do you think is laudable about it?

Yes, yes, and yes! This is our "thing", our wheelhouse. April is Earth Month... It's not too late to plan LNT training, OC-focused hikes, conservation projects, etc to teach scouts to respect their mother 😉 Our pack just set the aim that our cubs should all master LNT by the time they leave us.

They have the lineage and the Scout Promise and Law to go with it, do they not? What makes you say that two aligned scouting organizations are only similar in name?

I'm not really sure what you mean by my program - the Cub Scout Program? Scouterna? For Cub Scouts, single-gender dens are allowed. In Scouterna I don't actually know because who would want that? Hard to imagine. So I'm going to guess that single-gender units are not allowed in Scouterna.

I'm not a lawyer, but given that they lost the trademark infringement lawsuit I don't see how they could win another as long as 'girl' isn't part of the new name. (E g Girl And Boy Scouts of America.) They might not like it, but girls can be WOSM NSO members and them's the rules. They are assured by the same rules that BSA under any name can't join WAGGGS, because the US MO slot is already taken by them, so I'm not sure what they'd be worried about. If the two organizations did merge in the future, I would expect the new joint organization to be both in WAGGGS and WOSM like most others. Pure pattern guessing on my part, of course. The Congressional Charter thing is interesting, never heard that. But it's also prima facie incorrect, and presumably National knows that.