New controversy...Let's let girls into all levels of Scouting

[DaleEndFarm]

I am the advancement chair, and my husband the committee chair for our BSA troop. We have 3 sons, the youngest are both Life Scouts.

I am also somewhat of a tomboy, and like to camp. I am not a scoutmaster because I want to be able to run the advancement stuff.

 

I think there are benefits of single sex, and I see it all the time on campouts. It isn't actually that the boys are more free to be boys (loud, active etc). It's that they are more free to be kind, affectionate etc. When girls are around, they feel they have to act very manly, and it eliminates the display of the close friendship bond . I went to an all girls high school, and it helped form me into who I am today. In the all girls enviroment, I felt more comfortable in being active, competitive etc, whereas in coed groups I became more girly.

 

I wonder why the venturing crew couldn't start at the jr. high level? Or have some jr. high crews if that nature of the adventures would be too much for younger teens of both sexes. That would offer the BSA scouting program without the donut hole, and yet preserve the single sex option for those who want it.

[walk in the woods]

As I read the posts here, it seems to me one thing is missing. WHY would the BSA even want to consider this? Never mind the obstacles, boys will be boys, tears, sex, whatever. The purpose of Boy Scouting is to put boys in an outdoor environment and offer them fun activities that will lead to their becoming capable adults. Leadership, ability to care for yourself in the outdoors and elsewhere, patriotism and encourage (not teach) spirituality. How exactly would inclusion of girls promote any of these goals?

Mission statement doesn't include the word BOYS becasue the BSA also includes girls in Venturing and LFL. The Mission Statement is for the entire organization. That's a different scope than allowing girls into the Boy Scout program.

[Pack18Alex]

Some of these comments are hilarious. I was a boy. I don't remember hurting for time "being a boy." I pretty much was one all the time. How does having girls present keep boys from being boys? If the boys aren't allowed to swear' date=' go skinny dipping in the pond, or talk about girls & sex with male leaders present, then how does adding girls change anything? The program has already neutered the boy-specific activities and boy-oriented nature of the scouts. It is essentially already primed for girl participation. As for the Cub Scouts, I have no idea why that is not co-ed now. Girls already come to everything, and cub scouts is run by women. What the heck are we resisting there? [/quote']

 

Cub Scouts run by women? Not in my former Pack. Most of the Den Leaders were men, as were all the Cubmasters/Assistan Cubmasters

My Pack is also male led... to our detriment, active mothers don't think that they should step up and take a role, it's seen as a fathers activity. That's fine for the involved fathers, but leaves me short of man power. My understanding is about 65% of Cub Scout volunteers are women. My Den Leader as a child was my mom, and never made it to Webelos when they couldn't get a male Den Leader. Practically speaking, allowing women into all leadership positions has saved Scouting.

[Pack18Alex]

Females generally disapprove of boys behaving like boys.

 

Really? How about some examples?

At a Camp Out, my wife was freaking out at the rough housing and the getting dirty. I pulled her aside and said, "this is a boy scout event, they will be boys, they will get messy, they will rough house, and it will be okay." She backed off and all the kids, boys and girls, had fun.

[Pack18Alex]

I think the biggest limitation would be confusion with GSUSA. That said, I think GSUSA would close up and die pretty fast of BSA went co-ed. The fact is, having dealt with both organizations, BSA is better run, more professional, and better organized. GSUSA survives mostly because BSA doesn't offer a program at the age that GSUSA really operates in.

 

However, beyond that, the goals of the organization are totally different. GSUSA is totally about girl empowerment. While they nominal accept male leaders, it isn't real, and absolutely pushed back. Looking at our local programing, other than a few hour Daisy-and-Daddy program over the summer, there really is nothing for men in the GSUSA program. While BSA-Cub Scouts is a completely family oriented programs. Siblings come to our camp outs, events, etc. On the flip side, Girl Scouts are simply not as family oriented. These things made historical sense, but at this point I think that there is demand for a BSA-quality program for girls that want family, community, and faith with some outdoors activities, and GSUSA is simply moving in the opposite direction.

One, Cub Scouting is something like 65% of BSA's Youth Members. Once you've crossed over it's easy to focus on the flagship Boy Scouts program, but when 95% of Boy Scouts are former Cubs in some regard, so Cub Scouts is the core of BSA's membership, even if the least focused on by the leadership.

 

Two, I think that integrating Cub Scouts is more straightforward than Boy Scouts because of the family orientation. I think that a Tigress program would be nearly identical to the Tiger program, swap the Achievement/Elective for Go See It: Sporting with Elective: Performance and you pretty much have the Tigress program. Wolf/Bear are more complicated, I'd have the Wolfess/Bearess programs do more sewing, less whittling, and a few other things. One of the strengths of scouting is that it plays to gender stereotypes while society as a whole fights them.

 

The family orientation of cubs also makes it a more natural realm to integrate, since the family participates in things.

 

So you're left with a donut hole. The fact is, your Girl Troops should be separate from the Boy Troops. You'd need a Scout Handbook for Boys and a Scout Handbook for girls. You'd be teaching citizenship and values through similar life skills. If you added some merit badges that were more girl focused, and created different "requirements" for Eagless, you'd be there as well. I think that you'd need new literature/uniforms, but otherwise have it more straightforward.

 

I mean, why else is there a partnership with American Heritage Girls? As GSUSA moves into a more liberal feminist direction, and BSA moves in a more conservative traditional values direction, there is a logical need to create programming for girls.

 

GSUSA's camping problem is that they are focused on Mother/Daughter which ignores our modern world where both parents work and are stressed. Dad doesn't come home at 5 PM Friday done while mom has been home all day. So the lack of Family Camps, the lack of a Pack style infrastructure for Girls, etc., means that you basically spin up a Troop for your daughter and her friends in Kindergarten and they stick around until they drop out over time. They aren't always recruiting like we are.

 

I think that GSUSA would remain as a Arts and Crafts -> Service club for pampered rich girls, which is where GSUSA is really shining. But BSA-Girls would do better in the middle class core where BSA does well and offer adjunct stuff for sisters that want a real Scouting program.

[WAKWIB]

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that while on one-hand many forum members seem fine with holding the door wide open to allow homosexual boys and adults into Scouting, going totally co-ed seems to produce a bit more hesitation. As the original poster pointed out there is a lot of things in place that would make the transition to co-ed pretty easy. The general public would likely give us a standing ovation for this instead of all the negativity we have been getting from both sides of the "gay issue." I truly believed that GIRLS would be the first of the 3-G's Scouting would tackle. It would have been the easiest and most acceptable to the most people; adding members without worrying about more running away than joining. In this situation the highly-touted "local option" that everyone thought was the wonderful solution to the admittance of gay folks would actually work without a lot of push-back. It works already with Venturing.

It looks like some of us are saying, "Come and be welcome all gay men and boys, but you girls, please stay home." A cheesy comedy writer for SNL or MadTV could have a field day with that...

 

[perdidochas]

Why do we need girls in BOY scouts? There is no place for a boy just to be a boy without some meddling woman or girl around to tell him he is doing it wrong. There is already Girl Scouts. If girls/women don't like what their organization offers' date=' change Girl Scouts. Women have a lot to offer. [/quote']

 

I do agree with that. Boys need a place to be boys. Like it or not, boys act differently with girls around. Sometimes they act better, others worse. I feel the same that girls should have a place to be girls. Like it or not, girls act differenly with boys around. Sometimes they act better, others wors.

 

 

But boys and young men need some time to be boys and young men. Females generally disapprove of boys behaving like boys.

 

Depends on the female. Most Moms of ONLY boys are pretty accepting of boys acting like boys.

 

Boys and young men need some time to run around' date=' be rough and tumble, and hang out with other guys, and discuss how to get along with females without females interfearing. [/quote']

Pretty much.

 

We have female ASMs. The scouts act differently when the females ASMs are around. The female ASMs have a subtle but different way of dealing with the scouts.

 

We don't have female ASMs, but it is true that females have a different way of dealing with Scouts than do males. IMHO, boys get enough of the female way of dealing with them in schools. Scouts is a good place for them to learn how to deal with other males.

 

I do think that if people think Girl Scouts isn't as appealing to many girls as Boy Scouts, they need to reform Girl Scouts.

 

 

[Pack18Alex]

I think the biggest limitation would be confusion with GSUSA. That said, I think GSUSA would close up and die pretty fast of BSA went co-ed. The fact is, having dealt with both organizations, BSA is better run, more professional, and better organized. GSUSA survives mostly because BSA doesn't offer a program at the age that GSUSA really operates in.

 

However, beyond that, the goals of the organization are totally different. GSUSA is totally about girl empowerment. While they nominal accept male leaders, it isn't real, and absolutely pushed back. Looking at our local programing, other than a few hour Daisy-and-Daddy program over the summer, there really is nothing for men in the GSUSA program. While BSA-Cub Scouts is a completely family oriented programs. Siblings come to our camp outs, events, etc. On the flip side, Girl Scouts are simply not as family oriented. These things made historical sense, but at this point I think that there is demand for a BSA-quality program for girls that want family, community, and faith with some outdoors activities, and GSUSA is simply moving in the opposite direction.

Despite all the cookie sales and cookie revenue, they are dysfunctional. Too many service units, all run by volunteers. I don't know what they do with cookie money, but they don't run a quality organization. People bitch about BSA national and high salaries, but you underestimate what having a high quality leadership behind the scenes does for the program. If all you do is activities with your Den/Pack, you don't get much, but if you are in a great district/council (like we are), you really see the benefits.

[Rick_in_CA]

Two' date=' I think that integrating Cub Scouts is more straightforward than Boy Scouts because of the family orientation. I think that a Tigress program would be nearly identical to the Tiger program, swap the Achievement/Elective for Go See It: Sporting with Elective: Performance and you pretty much have the Tigress program. Wolf/Bear are more complicated, I'd have the Wolfess/Bearess programs do more sewing, less whittling, and a few other things. One of the strengths of scouting is that it plays to gender stereotypes while society as a whole fights them.[/quote']

 

Because everyone knows, girls can't be interested in sports? Because we don't want to encourage them to do any "manly" things like whittling? Gender stereotypes are a GOOD thing???? One of BSA's strengths??? Really?

 

Since there are plenty of girls that want to do the current cub program, why would we have to change any of it (other than adjusting a few of the pronouns in the hand book)?

[King Ding Dong]

I think the biggest limitation would be confusion with GSUSA. That said, I think GSUSA would close up and die pretty fast of BSA went co-ed. The fact is, having dealt with both organizations, BSA is better run, more professional, and better organized. GSUSA survives mostly because BSA doesn't offer a program at the age that GSUSA really operates in.

 

However, beyond that, the goals of the organization are totally different. GSUSA is totally about girl empowerment. While they nominal accept male leaders, it isn't real, and absolutely pushed back. Looking at our local programing, other than a few hour Daisy-and-Daddy program over the summer, there really is nothing for men in the GSUSA program. While BSA-Cub Scouts is a completely family oriented programs. Siblings come to our camp outs, events, etc. On the flip side, Girl Scouts are simply not as family oriented. These things made historical sense, but at this point I think that there is demand for a BSA-quality program for girls that want family, community, and faith with some outdoors activities, and GSUSA is simply moving in the opposite direction.

I am all for sewing skills for the boys. They should be in First Class or at least a MB. I bet they are required in SeaScouts or should be. A sewing kit is as standard for a sailor as a first aid kit.

[Pack18Alex]

Two' date=' I think that integrating Cub Scouts is more straightforward than Boy Scouts because of the family orientation. I think that a Tigress program would be nearly identical to the Tiger program, swap the Achievement/Elective for Go See It: Sporting with Elective: Performance and you pretty much have the Tigress program. Wolf/Bear are more complicated, I'd have the Wolfess/Bearess programs do more sewing, less whittling, and a few other things. One of the strengths of scouting is that it plays to gender stereotypes while society as a whole fights them.[/quote']

 

Because everyone knows, girls can't be interested in sports? Because we don't want to encourage them to do any "manly" things like whittling? Gender stereotypes are a GOOD thing???? One of BSA's strengths??? Really?

 

Since there are plenty of girls that want to do the current cub program, why would we have to change any of it (other than adjusting a few of the pronouns in the hand book)?

Because a belief that the "manly arts" are dying, and Scouting is a way of preserving them. Our boys live in a world where "boy things" are discouraged at school, etc., which is part of the "crisis of boys," scouting counteracts that.

 

I didn't say they can't be interested in sports, my cousin was a state championship competitive team as a freshman (they got damned close), my sister-in-law was a NCAA recruited athlete. Those are great things, I have lots of sports-oriented women in my family, both playing and spectators. Just like boys into sewing, tailoring, cooking, etc., are all good things.

 

Again, it's swapping the requirements/electives, mostly. The Cub Scout program is using classical "boy" activities to teach values. A girl Cub Scout program should, therefore, use classical "girl" activities to teach values.

 

i'd create a more female oriented "collecting" achievement, things like that.

 

For example, we "expect" girls to like cultural things like performances, we "expect" boys to like sporting events. That's why the Tiger Cub REQUIREMENT is to See a Live Sporting event, while the ELECTIVE is to see a live performance. If I were doing a girl program, I'd swap that. I'm not sure why that's saying that girls can't like sports, and more than the current program is saying the boys can't like live theatre? I think in the Tiger program I'd make a swap there, and in the wolf program, swapping collecting with a more sharing about yourself. I think that most of the program through Bears transfers perfectly.

 

I wouldn't say that girls can't whittle, but I'd move it to the elective section, and move an art-oriented equivalent skill in the required section.

 

I'd move the Tools stuff for the girls program to the elective, and move some of the crafting stuff from electives to requirements. I'd also dial back the Indian Lore old-western components and instead do more modern multi-cultural things in a female oriented program.

 

Guys that can't bond over sports are seen as weird, so in our training boys to be men, we train them in guy stuff like watching a sporting event. Women are expected to be able to bond over shoes and clothes, girls that can't do that are seen as weird, so we should train them in gal stuff like that.

 

Part of Cubs is training Boy Scouts. Another part of cubs is raising men that are men. Girl cubs should be raising women that are women. Part of the obesity crisis is that we have women who haven't had anyone know how to cook in three generations. I think that a Girl cub program would introduce cooking alongside the gender neutral healthy nutrition section.

 

Assuming you have the same number of requirements, you can't just add, you have to swap.

[Just A Rebel]

I think the biggest limitation would be confusion with GSUSA. That said, I think GSUSA would close up and die pretty fast of BSA went co-ed. The fact is, having dealt with both organizations, BSA is better run, more professional, and better organized. GSUSA survives mostly because BSA doesn't offer a program at the age that GSUSA really operates in.

 

However, beyond that, the goals of the organization are totally different. GSUSA is totally about girl empowerment. While they nominal accept male leaders, it isn't real, and absolutely pushed back. Looking at our local programing, other than a few hour Daisy-and-Daddy program over the summer, there really is nothing for men in the GSUSA program. While BSA-Cub Scouts is a completely family oriented programs. Siblings come to our camp outs, events, etc. On the flip side, Girl Scouts are simply not as family oriented. These things made historical sense, but at this point I think that there is demand for a BSA-quality program for girls that want family, community, and faith with some outdoors activities, and GSUSA is simply moving in the opposite direction.

Pack18Alex:

 

The whole point of what I observed is that these girls didn't necessarily WANT a different program. They wanted to do what the boys were doing, and they were perfectly capable of doing that program. In my mind, no program changes are even necessary, because those girls WANT to do the same things the boys are doing. There is NOTHING gender-specific in the Cub program that boys and girls can't do, and looking at the Boy Scout program, nothing gender-specific there either.

 

I had heard that GSA had gone more 'liberal', and that AHG had started up as a reaction to that, but in my mind, I don't understand why BSA formed that partnership. National formed a partnership with an outside religious organization with very specific religious beliefs woven into their program and with no interest in BSA membership, but is very willing to use their program, and their facilities, recruiting girls that otherwise would be BSA members (if BSA allowed girls). This sounds to me like the conservative membership drove along that agreement, but I don't see any direct benefit for BSA in general from this partnership. In fact, they will likely LOSE female membership in the Venture program as these AHG girls stay in their program, instead of moving over to Venturing. Girls starting at age 6 are actually a key demographic segment for BSA, IF they allowed girls to join. Girls that join AHG more because of the program, rather than the religious aspect, are girls that should be in BSA.

 

My wife was talking to a Venture Crew advisor yesterday about girls in BSA, and she told my wife that all of the female Venturers she knew were there because of brothers in Boy Scouts, and because they wanted to do the same thing the boys were doing. Imagine the impact to the Venture program if we could GROW Venturers (or female Scouts), just like we grow Boy Scouts through the Cub Program.

 

King:

I am 100% with you on that. My mother, bless her, had the foresight to teach each of her sons how to clean, simple sewing, do laundry, cook amazing meals, and in general take care of themselves. I agree there should be a sewing requirement at some point before Star. Maybe not a MB, but at least a requirement for a couple of simple sewing tasks.

 

My wife was talking to a Venture Crew advisor yesterday about girls in BSA, and she told my wife that all of the female Venturers she knew were there because of brothers in Boy Scouts, and because they wanted to do the same thing the boys were doing. Imagine the impact to the Venture program if we could GROW Venturers (or female Scouts), just like we grow Boy Scouts through the Cub Program.

[skeptic]

Seems to me the issue is simply enough at the lower levels. Do what they do in other parts of the world. Have an all girl unit under the BSA program; have an all boy unit under the BSA program; have a coed unit with both men and women leaders under the BSA program. How hard is that? Like everything, it just takes making it happen as the group would want.

[Just A Rebel]

Two' date=' I think that integrating Cub Scouts is more straightforward than Boy Scouts because of the family orientation. I think that a Tigress program would be nearly identical to the Tiger program, swap the Achievement/Elective for Go See It: Sporting with Elective: Performance and you pretty much have the Tigress program. Wolf/Bear are more complicated, I'd have the Wolfess/Bearess programs do more sewing, less whittling, and a few other things. One of the strengths of scouting is that it plays to gender stereotypes while society as a whole fights them.[/quote']

 

Because everyone knows, girls can't be interested in sports? Because we don't want to encourage them to do any "manly" things like whittling? Gender stereotypes are a GOOD thing???? One of BSA's strengths??? Really?

 

Since there are plenty of girls that want to do the current cub program, why would we have to change any of it (other than adjusting a few of the pronouns in the hand book)?

Exactly, Rick. They DON'T want to do things generally associated with a female gender stereotype to the exclusion of other things. They see the boys doing 'fun' things and want to do them too. And Alex, I hardly see continuing 1930's stereotypes as productive. I have to keep coming back to the mission and vision statement. In this modern day, don't we owe it to these girls to give them the exact same skills these boys have in order to be successful? And let's not forget that the VALUES are the real goal of Scouting, not that one can start a fire, or whittle a stick...but how to make life choices and life decisions in accordance with the Scout Oath and Law.

[AZMike]

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that while on one-hand many forum members seem fine with holding the door wide open to allow homosexual boys and adults into Scouting, going totally co-ed seems to produce a bit more hesitation. As the original poster pointed out there is a lot of things in place that would make the transition to co-ed pretty easy. The general public would likely give us a standing ovation for this instead of all the negativity we have been getting from both sides of the "gay issue." I truly believed that GIRLS would be the first of the 3-G's Scouting would tackle. It would have been the easiest and most acceptable to the most people; adding members without worrying about more running away than joining. In this situation the highly-touted "local option" that everyone thought was the wonderful solution to the admittance of gay folks would actually work without a lot of push-back. It works already with Venturing.

It looks like some of us are saying, "Come and be welcome all gay men and boys, but you girls, please stay home." A cheesy comedy writer for SNL or MadTV could have a field day with that...

What is the 3rd G? The Godless?