What if the Boy Scouts went coed?

[NJCubScouter]

When the Future Farmers of America branched out from their farming roots to general agribusiness they just changed the name of the organization to FFA.  The Boy Scouts of America could just change their name to BSA and let it go at that.

And it once seemed as if they might do just that. The shirt I have hanging in my closet that I last wore when I was an 18-year-old ASM does not say "Boy Scouts of America" over the pocket. It says "Scouts BSA." I don't know how long they sold the shirts with that strip on it, but I know they sold them. I remember some of us sitting around speculating about what it meant, and one of the possibilities was a merger with the Girl Scouts. This was right around 40 years ago.

[blw2]

When the Future Farmers of America branched out from their farming roots to general agribusiness they just changed the name of the organization to FFA.  The Boy Scouts of America could just change their name to BSA and let it go at that.

now that you mention it, YMCA is a great example of that....

well I don't know if it's formally just YMCA or not, but since it's really just family oriented I'd guess maybe so

[ProScouter06]

now that you mention it, YMCA is a great example of that....

well I don't know if it's formally just YMCA or not, but since it's really just family oriented I'd guess maybe so

I believe they are calling themselves " the y" now. They dropped the rest.

 

I like the us scouting association. Seems we could take some pointers from the UK.

 

It would be interesting. Anyone ever attend any world jamborees and experience coed scouting? Thoughts?

[qwazse]

I believe they are calling themselves " the y" now. They dropped the rest.

 

I like the us scouting association. Seems we could take some pointers from the UK.

 

It would be interesting. Anyone ever attend any world jamborees and experience coed scouting? Thoughts?

Their trademark and logo still includes "YMCA" so as not to be confused with "YWCA".

 

Re-branding rarely improves membership. As @@NJCubScouter noted, for a decade and a half starting in 1972, this organization's logo used "Scouting/USA". Didn't go very well. Of course, the re-branding was linked to a number of changes that didn't appeal to folks. But the logo-shift certainly didn't help.

 

In the near term "Boys" in the name carries a lot of credibility. It marks the things that a youth who would commit to this sort of thing in his/her formative years is looking for.

 

I've talked to attendees of several world jamborees (starting years ago with my buddy who had gone to national jambo with me a year or two earlier).  Some BSA members were more positively enthused than others about the co-ed contingents. None of them were patently offended by them. Scouts from other countries seem to see our sex-segregation as one more bastion of adult micro-management.

Edited October 16, 2015 by qwazse

[Stosh]

Their trademark and logo still includes "YMCA" so as not to be confused with "YWCA".

 

Re-branding rarely improves membership. For a decade and a half starting in 1972, this organization's logo used "Scouting/USA". Didn't go very well. In the near term "Boys" in the name carries a lot of credibility. That's the mark that youth who would commit to this sort of thing in their formative years are looking for.

 

I've talked to attendees of several world jamborees (starting years ago with my buddy who had gone to national jambo with me a year or two earlier).  Some BSA members were more positively enthused than others about the co-ed contingents. None of them were patently offended by them. Scouts from other countries seem to see our sex-segregation as one more bastion of adult micro-management.

 

Going co-ed isn't going to change adult micro-management one bit.    

[NJCubScouter]

Scouts from other countries seem to see our sex-segregation as one more bastion of adult micro-management.

Far be it from me to sort-of agree with Stosh on something, but it would only be "adult micro-management" if we knew that the boys, as a group, wanted their troops to be coed and the adults were saying no. I don't know if that's what the boys want. I've never asked any about it.

[qwazse]

Going co-ed isn't going to change adult micro-management one bit.  

I was talking about perceptions.

But, in fact, what youth had a hand in the policy that units should be sex-segregated across the nation -- no matter what youth in any particular hollow thought about it?

 

Far be it from me to sort-of agree with Stosh on something, but it would only be "adult micro-management" if we knew that the boys, as a group, wanted their troops to be coed and the adults were saying no. I don't know if that's what the boys want. I've never asked any about it.

Really, have you polled every troop in the nation to determine what the youth wanted for their particular community?

 

My general perception is that most boys and girls are fine with sex-segregation until they see the other sex doing something that they'd enjoy, or until they go to world jamboree, or are visited by scouts from another nation, or until they are a lodge chief and learn about a young woman who is a first-class scout ... absent the patch ... and to the adults in the room, the patch becomes their paper tiger.

[NJCubScouter]

 

...it would only be "adult micro-management" if we knew that the boys, as a group, wanted their troops to be coed and the adults were saying no. I don't know if that's what the boys want. I've never asked any about it.

Really, have you polled every troop in the nation to determine what the youth wanted for their particular community?

 

Every troop? I just said I have never asked any Scouts about it. In my troop or any troop.

 

That's why I said "I don't know if that's what the boys want." That was not meant to imply that the boys don't want it. I meant what I said: I don't know.

[walk in the woods]

I would often get questions from parents at scout rallies asking if cub scouts was coed. I'd be told that mom was bringing the daughter to one activity and dad and son to another. I've heard from so many parents many many times how counterproductive that was and how nice it would be to have both kids in one all encompassing activity. In today's busy world with endless activities I wonder if have a coed scouting program would not only grow the movement but also strengthen it by creating a more inclusive family program.

There are many "all encompassing" youth activities, 4H, Campfire, YMCA, Church youth groups, etc.  If the parents really want an all encompassing activity then why didn't they choose one?  Why did they choose Scouting knowing it was a boys-only club?  Maybe because BSA offers value in the rearing of male youth that no other organization can offer specifically because we are a boys-club.  Maybe that's the differentiator that makes us viable at all.  Maybe if we go co-ed we become just another all encompassing activity, no different than any of the rest.  When faced with a decision to follow the crowd my grandmother used to ask me "if all your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?"

[qwazse]

...  Maybe if we go co-ed we become just another all encompassing activity, no different than any of the rest.  When faced with a decision to follow the crowd my grandmother used to ask me "if all your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?"

That's a very good point.

If all my friends (while practicing Safe Swim defense) said "come on in, the water's perfect!" I might join them.

 

Here's the deal: youth will find a way.

• You say "Always two adults." They say "Thanks for the training, me and my buddies are gonna keep the $28 registration fee, buy some provisions, and hike and camp on our own.
• You say "Unisex". They say "No worries, my buddies (male and female) are going to camp on gampa's back nine that weekend."
• You say "No purple tents." They say, "No problem. No tents!"
• You say "Arrowmen: 1st Class Patch. Troop camping nights count only," They say, "Keep your sash, The ladies and I are gonna build this bridge in this camp over here."

And frankly, I'm fine with that. I'll teach them the skills, and review their plans if they knock on my door. I don't check membership cards. The boys with the cards can earn bling if they want to and when they've got the skills and the plans, go hiking and camping with their mates -- their real patrol ... not the one defined by their membership restrictions.

 

As far as I can tell. It's not a matter of if the greatest character-building organization this nation has ever known will be co-ed. It's a matter of if BSA will be that organization.

Edited October 20, 2015 by qwazse

[Stosh]

99% of the world is co-ed and the BSA is holding out as an all-boys club.  Society won't be satisfied until that number reaches 100%.

 

All that means is that the choice is no longer available.

[NJCubScouter]

99% of the world is co-ed and the BSA is holding out as an all-boys club.  Society won't be satisfied until that number reaches 100%.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I am not aware of any significant clamoring in "society" for Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts to become coed. I see nothing in the media about it. (Unlike, for example, the "gay issue", before the changes were made... or going further back, the "female adult leader" issue, before those changes were made.) I don't hear people in my community or in my troop talking about it. Admittedly I do not hang out with Cub Scout parents much anymore, but the parents/leaders involved in the troop who are still involved with Cub Scouts don't mention it as an issue that they hear about. I'm not aware of any "outside groups" that have this as their big issue. When Robert Gates comes to the podium and makes a speech or the new CSE lists his four priorities for growth, neither of them are saying we have to have female Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts or we're all doomed.

 

It's just not a subject that I hear talked about or written about - except in one place, and that's in this forum. But in my opinion some of us here imagine it is a much bigger issue "out there" than it really is.

Edited October 20, 2015 by NJCubScouter

[DuctTape]

I have noticed that bsa has transitioned from using the term boy-led to instead youth-led, or scout-led. This signals a change has been considered and the change of vocabulary was intentional. While I agree with an inclusive BSA in regards to all other aspects, I do believe it should remain Bsa.

[Cambridgeskip]

Every troop? I just said I have never asked any Scouts about it. In my troop or any troop.

 

That's why I said "I don't know if that's what the boys want." That was not meant to imply that the boys don't want it. I meant what I said: I don't know.

Quick apology. Looking at this thread earlier today via my phone I accidentally touched the wrong bit of the screen and gave you the red -1. Purely unintentional! Sorry!

[Sentinel947]

(Disclaimer!!! I don't speak for all boys, or my region, or 22 year old ASMs. The following are my observations and should not be seen as some national groundswell of anything...) 

The BSA uses the term "youth" led because we have female venturers.. not because the BSA is planning some overnight stealth change to co-ed Boy Scouting. 

Society changes. Baden Powell created a male only youth organization, while his Wife started the Girl Guides because the assumption at the time was that Boys wouldn't be caught dead doing things girls were doing. 

I have no statistically evidence for this, but that dynamic is not as strong anymore, partially due to society putting less emphasis on traditional gender roles. 

When I talk with my Scouts, (not that my little slice of suburban Ohio represents anything) I don't ever hear a groundswell of "You know what would make our Troop better? Having girls." I think this forum MASSIVELY blows this issue out of proportion. 

My experience in Scouting and Camp Staff puts me in the middle of the two sides here. (Not that it speaks to some broader all encompassing experience.)  I'm comfortable with the status quo BSA being all male Scouts with female venturers. However, I'm aware that for many girls, they want that same outdoor adventure we promise to boys. Often the Girl Scouts or the American Heritage girls can't provide that adventure for them. While I will say that the dynamics of the camp staff were different with girls on staff than they would be with just guys, I don't think that different dynamic was a bad one. I became a believer that the "sky is falling" folks don't have much to stand on. 

I do take exception that if the BSA becomes Co-Ed, especially a mandatory co-ed, then the girls still have organizations to be girl only, but Boys wouldn't have that same option. So I'm willing to get behind a Troop Level Co-Ed. 

The BSA still has to evaluate whether by fixing an issue for girls(they can't get what they want from the GSUSA or the AHG) they we don't throw out a program that has worked quite well for millions of Boys. The BSA should make this change because we can teach both boys and girls to be excellent adults and leaders for tomorrow, not because the BSA needs bigger numbers or because the GSUSA or the AHG can't get their outdoor skills together. 

As a personal rant: We all need to avoid the fallacy of assuming our local conditions are the be all end all. In a county as big and diverse as the US, this is a flawed assumption. Anybody's claims to be speaking for all of America should seriously evaluate if they have the data to back up such a big assertion. This applies to the "gay issue", the "girl issue", the "god issue" the "WoodBadge is awesome/sucks" issue, the "NYLT is great/useless issue", the "Knots show experience/banana republic generalship issue." 

I'm stepping off the soap box now. Thanks for reading folks,

 

Sentinel947