What if the Boy Scouts didn't go coed?

[Stosh]

We've put in well over 100 comments on speculating what would happen to the BSA if it went co-ed, but how about some constructive ideas on what would happen to the BSA if it DIDN"T go co-ed, and even went back to being an all-male program like it once was?

 

It's my contention that the original program grew into it's Golden Age of Scouting (pre-1970) with it being an all male organization both on the youth and adult levels.  Scouting ranked well above any youth organization in America as providing quality character development and leadership in our society.  Since going co-ed, the numbers have declined.  How does one justify continuing that course with such evidence at hand?

 

We've hemorrhaged now for the last 40 years, maybe it's time we did something about it that entails fewer bandaids and more curative medicine.

 

Let's also see how long it takes for the moderation of the forum to get this out of the PROGRAM part of the forum and into the Dead Letter Office part of the program.  This issue IS THE PROGRAM of the BSA and whether or not it is going to survive. 

[KenD500]

IF the BSA went back to an all male organization, there would be a huge hole left. 

 

I can only speak for my Troop as I don't have data on others - the # of positions that females fill on the committee 3 of 6.  I only have 1 ASM - male.  But we've had camp outs when it was just myself & the CC (female).

 

The females add value to the program in their skill set & their willingness to work.  They set good examples (adult association).

 

Do all females set good examples and add value?  No.  But on the flip side, do all males set good examples and add value?  No.

 

I don't care if they are male or female.  If an adult volunteer adds value to the program, is willing to work & sets a good example, they can be in my Troop.

[Krampus]

I would not mind. Women add value, but in a society that is placing less and less emphasis on religion and family (especially households with one father) I would not mind to see an organization that was male only.

[qwazse]

If venturing doesn't change its trajectory and STEM dries up with the external funding, that's what we'll have:

• There are independent scouting organizations that would fill the void ... on paper at least.
• Venturing going all-male is unlikely to do anything good for its numbers. But it's numbers being small already, that would hardly impact the organization overall.
• O/A would not have to reckon with hard questions from sympathetic lodge chiefs.
• On the ground, GS/USA and BSA leaders and youth would find work-a-rounds. Occasionally, they'd make the evening news. Folks like @@Stosh would rant how that is undermining the integrity of the respective programs.

 

Regardless, without adult leaders being welcomed to follow the trail to Eagle (also part of the "Golden Age of Scouting") and encouraged/required to do so at least until 1st class, we will continue to build a program that's so "age appropriate" that our leading boys will move elsewhere as soon as they realize they can.

[BDPT00]

The all-male model is pretty much what Trail Life is now offering.  Their gender identity is very much like BSA was prior to 1990ish when women could fill leadership roles other than Den Mother.  I hope they're successful in their mission, because they're certainly filling a need.  BSA also fills a need, and I'm one who likes things as they are/were.  To me, it's a matter of trying to please all of the people all of the time.  We need to realize that that isn't a good way to do things.  The line in the sand will continually move.  We do need to figure out who we are and where we are, and that's pretty foggy to a lot of folks.  We're never all going to agree on everything (unless committed to the same values that Trail Life is).  If we're willing to change to keep up with society, we'll always have an identity crisis. 

In response to the original stated question; I don't see it as going back to what it used to be.  I see it as not changing as many might wish in the future.  Stosh, can you clarify the question?  Are you talking about not changing, or are you talking about eliminating Venturing females?  All females?  I don't think that's what you meant.  I think this means that we need to decide (hypothetically, of course) where we go in the future, starting where we are right now.

[desertrat77]

I don't think scouting went into decline because of coeds.  The BSA began its grim descent when it introduced the Improved Scouting Program in '72, which gutted the traditional approach.   Women and girls were not part of the BSA in the '70s, except for den mothers.

 

I don't recall when women became eligible to be scout leaders ('80s) but that was more of a practical move as there were fewer and fewer males willing to step up.

 

Girls/young women comprised a very small population sample of Explorer scouts.

 

So it wasn't a gender issue that put the BSA in a spiral downward.  It was National's rejection of its own successful programming from decades past.

 

Gender is not the cause nor the solution for the BSA's woes.   Sedentary programming, rejection of successful methods from the past, and emphasis on sideline stuff like STEM and soccer are the heart of it.

 

Stosh, I hear what you are saying.   But old scouting is not coming back.   It can still be practiced at the unit level, but National has moved steadily away from it for decades.   Truly, the ship has sailed.

Edited September 9, 2015 by desertrat77

[MattR]

I don't see that coed has nearly as much to do with survival of the BSA as adventure, fun, and the outdoors do. I'm excited about starting a venturing crew not because it has girls in it, but because it will get back to what scouting is all about; outdoor adventure and service. No Eagle. No kids that have to be there. No resume stuffing. No pushy parents. No merit badge schools at summer camp. No kids that are waiting around hoping for Eagle to drop in their lap.

 

On the other hand, if you do a good job then you'll know it, your friends will tell you that, and that's all you need. You'll stick around because of having fun in the outdoors and you'll gain real experience at giving service and leadership.

 

The greed behind getting Eagle is diluting the program with people that are more interested in getting a patch than learning anything. A few kids and a lot of parents have twisted the program into something that has little to do with outdoor adventure and service. If the boy scout side can remove that problem then the program would be a lot stronger in the long run. It would sell itself.

 

It would also start by cutting membership in half and that will never fly.

[desertrat77]

I don't see that coed has nearly as much to do with survival of the BSA as adventure, fun, and the outdoors do. I'm excited about starting a venturing crew not because it has girls in it, but because it will get back to what scouting is all about; outdoor adventure and service. No Eagle. No kids that have to be there. No resume stuffing. No pushy parents. No merit badge schools at summer camp. No kids that are waiting around hoping for Eagle to drop in their lap.

 

On the other hand, if you do a good job then you'll know it, your friends will tell you that, and that's all you need. You'll stick around because of having fun in the outdoors and you'll gain real experience at giving service and leadership.

 

The greed behind getting Eagle is diluting the program with people that are more interested in getting a patch than learning anything. A few kids and a lot of parents have twisted the program into something that has little to do with outdoor adventure and service. If the boy scout side can remove that problem then the program would be a lot stronger in the long run. It would sell itself.

 

It would also start by cutting membership in half and that will never fly.

Good thoughts, Matt.

 

Eagle has been over-touted for a couple decades now.   At all levels, it is the ultimate shiny object.   There have always been pushy parents and scout leaders, but nothing on the order of what we see today.

 

It would indeed be better to get outdoors instead of chasing rank.   If the rank comes, fine, it would be based on the scout's own initiative and not dozens of helping hands dragging him across the goal line.

[ScouterAdam]

Scouting in the LDS is all Male.  Except for Primary.  Moms fill the roles.  Outside of that, Moms fill a lot of roles because Dads are busy working or just not there.  I do not see it happening.  It also would go counter to what the rest of the WOSM is already doing.  We need to stop being so isolationalist.  Did not work for Japan or China. 

[Horizon]

I don't have any female ASMs in my unit, but women were the backbone of my committee for 10 years (one just retired, and we had to replace her with two men). It depends on what roles we would allow women to have in a unit. My nephew is in a Troop that does not allow women on campouts, and then they cancel campouts because they don't have the necessary adult leadership. With our ongoing challenge finding enough adult leaders in general, I don't see how cutting 50% of population out will help grow things. It would be interesting to compare the success of units with rules against women in leadership roles vs. those that open up, but I don't know if the data could be parsed out effectively.

[Sentinel947]

I'd lose some fantastic friends and role models if women were not allowed in Scouting. Furthermore, the BSA would have to change how they hire employees for summer camps. Since they must follow discrimination laws, but require summer camp staff to BSA members, removing women would cause some unintended issues. 

[gumbymaster]

I guess it depends on how far you want to extend the model?

If just Boy Scouts - it could probably be workable.

From my experience, cub scouts - which is billed to some degree as a family program - would not do well.  While in my pack, almost all the uniformed leaders are male, this is not the norm for cub scouts.  And we have far too many roles to fill without our moms helping things go.

Ventures - I thought half the point of the program was for women to have a program - the other half as a focus area (high adventure, fire, police, etc.)

 

Addressing an earlier comment - in my exploring years (84-93), I was a member of three posts.  Most of them stayed around 40% female, none were less than 25% female.  So, to me, not a small proportion.

 

Now, back to Boy Scouts .... It is really hard to roll back the clock.  Regardless of if there were or weren't any benefit to the boys; I just don't see a mechanism that would ever, effectively, kick out our female leaders - we need them, they do a good job. 

 

Trying not to cross the line into politics (although I am sure this thread will move there anyway), our society has moved in the direction of what it consideres to be gender equality; the notions of the "old boys club" are stamped out by societal pressure at every step (when was the last time a country club could be all male?), I fear that the backlash to the BSA program for even suggesting the change would be fairly devistating.  Donor organizations could not be caught by the public as sponsoring us, public support would instantly be more that 50% against us.  And in the end, we would not be teaching our boys to survive in the world the way it is.

 

To circle back the the original question of how it could be done.  The current model is that the CORs choose the leaders.  Using current guidance, if the troop were the extension of a Church's ministry - it might be possible for an orthodox sect sponsoring a unit to justify only having male leadership; beyond that I just don't know how.

[BDPT00]

I see no problem whatsoever with segregated (oh, there's that dirty word) groups. The Red Hat Society fills a need. I doubt our society will try to integrate that, even though it looks like fun. There are men's leagues, women's leagues, and mixed leagues for bowling. Is that a bad thing, even if a woman wants to bowl with the men (or vise versa)? If the sign says 'Men Only,' there's a lawsuit. Girl Scouts is for girls. Boy Scouts is for boys. They both have age restrictions. Are these things bad? Why do we need to constantly try to change things? Maybe, just maybe, some things are good just the way they are.

[vumbi]

This thread might also get shuffled into the cesspool called Issues and Politics. Nevertheless I will respond by observing that this and other units I know of would lose a lot of their leadership, many of whom I consider to be good friends and superior to most of the men. It would hurt.

 

To those who are responding to this thread, please don't give the moderators an excuse to move it. Thanks.

[blw2]

This is an interesting parallel @@Stosh

In that other thread, it was criticized when we look outside to Britain and scouting programs from other nations....

 

Personally, I don't think that's nearly as off kilter as comparing our society today with that of the pre 1970's "golden age" as you put it.  We were a very different culture then, likely more different that we are compared with many other nations now!

 

Regardless.... to your question, what would happen.  Nothing.  And that's probably what will happen in the foreseeable future anyway..... we'll keep on like we are now....