Girls Just Wanna Be Cub Scouts

[maryread]

To be fair, I've read Scouting for Boys and The Wolf Cub's Handbook​ by BP and the current Cub Scout program is a far cry from his original program. That wasn't brought on by girls, it was brought on by BSA evolving to match the interests of today's kids. To increase registration. BPSA comes much closer. I'm actually also a Scoutmaster of a small BPSA group but my Cub Scout siblings want to be in Cub Scouts with their family.

 

The argument of having girls being a distraction while administering safety instructions became invalid when homosexual boys were welcomed.  

[SeattlePioneer]

Perhaps Girl Scout should begin admitting boys.  That would solve all the problems,  right?

[Sentinel947]

To be fair, I've read Scouting for Boys and The Wolf Cub's Handbook​ by BP and the current Cub Scout program is a far cry from his original program. That wasn't brought on by girls, it was brought on by BSA evolving to match the interests of today's kids. To increase registration. BPSA comes much closer. I'm actually also a Scoutmaster of a small BPSA group but my Cub Scout siblings want to be in Cub Scouts with their family.

 

The argument of having girls being a distraction while administering safety instructions became invalid when homosexual boys were welcomed.  

 

What benefits does co ed scouting bring to both boys and girls?

 

​What negatives?

 

​On the other side:

 

What benefits does single sex programs (Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts) have for both boys and girls?

 

​What negatives?

[Eagledad]

 

The argument of having girls being a distraction while administering safety instructions became invalid when homosexual boys were welcomed.  

That only makes sense at a political correctness level. Lets keep the discussion pragmatic if we could please. 

 

After working with youth of both sexes for 30 years, mixing the genders at this age group is definitely a distraction. You only have to ask them how much of a distraction they are at school. Now you can argue that the distraction isn't a deal breaker in mixing the groups, but the distraction is there. 

 

My two issues are: first, I believe young teenagers need gender role models to observe the behavior of the adult gender. As I said, the Girl Scouts strongly believe in adult gender role modeling, so it's not like it is only a man hangup.

 

Second is that admitting girls will further increase the number of adults leaders who have no experience as boy scouts. I believe the quality of any youth organization is dependent on the quality of the adults who administer it. Adults who don't have any experience as a youth struggle to perform at the level of adults who do have that experience. There is a lot of whining in this forum about the BSA getting away from the good-ol-days of outdoors and patrol method focus. I believe that is a direct result of the increase of inexperienced adult leaders since female adult leaders were allowed in the troop program as leaders. 

 

I know that sounds sexist or gender biased, but I'm more mature and pragmatic than that. 

 

The only reason I could see a national youth program make dramatic membership changes would be to increase the membership. First off that is a huge risk, Canadian Scouts and Campfire have never had the numbers they had before their membership changes. But lets just assume for a second that the BSA numbers would improve, then we should discussion how much increase is worth the loss of quality. Is it really worth the risk? What are the possible gains?

 

From my perspective, why take the risk. I know what the program does for boys now. For that matter, I know what the program has done for boys for over 80 years. Why risk a good thing.

 

Barry

Edited March 15, 2016 by Eagledad

[qwazse]

....

The only reason I could see a national youth program make dramatic membership changes would be to increase the membership. First off that is a huge risk, Canadian Scouts and Campfire have never had the numbers they had before their membership changes. But lets just assume for a second that the BSA numbers would improve, then we should discussion how much increase is worth the loss of quality. Is it really worth the risk? What are the possible gains?

...

To amplify E'dad's perception ... increased membership only matters if, in welcoming girls, we add boys.

In other words, it doesn't matter if 20K girls sign on (in co-ed or unisex troops) if our losses in boys are to the tune of 10K or more per year. It doesn't even matter if growth stagnates. The citizens who we are chartered to serve remain under-served.

 

There are American organizations who are claim to be successfully serving both sexes. They may be well worth a post-modern nomad family's consideration. But, their numbers remain unpublished, which is a good indication that they are not of a magnitude that would lead us to believe that the boys they've recruited could otherwise offset BSA's losses.

[maryread]

Let's just say that BSA allows girls to join, and Girl Scouts still exists. Do we really think they'll be flocking to join BSA? Just because a ballet class allows boys, doesn't mean that it will fill up with them. I would like to think that most girls would still like to continue with Girl Scouts, because they do girlie things, things that most girls are attracted to. I would have preferred BSA, but that's because I liked to do the things that were generally associated with boys, and liked hanging out with boys. I wasn't like most girls I knew.

 

If we were to take Boy Scouts out of the picture, do you really think there is anything wrong with co-ed Cub Scout packs? Den moms are not a new concept. Once girls are done with Cub Scouts there are already other options through BSA for girls. If we were to be open minded I assure you there would be a way to integrate girls into Cub Scouts that wouldn't hurt the integrity of Boy Scouts. Why not add all female Troops while maintaining all male Troops? I'm not sure I see a downside to that option.

 

About leaders, we can barely fill spots as it is. We do have dads in the Pack with scouting backgrounds but they're so busy with their jobs that they are unwilling to volunteer. Our women leaders do at lease 75% of the work, easy. Cubmaster, Committee Chair, Treasurer, Registration Chair. All positions vacated by men and filled by women because they're the ones willing to give their time and effort.

 

It's not about changing Girl Scouts to be more attractive to most boys, or BSA changing to be more attractive to most girls, it's about allowing them to choose which path they would like to travel down.

Edited March 16, 2016 by maryread

[maryread]

The fact is that the girls are already there in our Pack. They can participate in almost everything we do, they're already doing it. There's no boy/girl separation. They can participate in some district activities, in our summer camp program. They're just not recognized for their achievements.

[Stosh]

Would these girls be covered by any insurance or legal protection if they were injured?    Also what about leader liability?  male leaders female girls,

 

Until some policy mandates are established, I would be kinda edgy about having them around on a regular basis.

[Cambridgeskip]

Let's just say that BSA allows girls to join, and Girl Scouts still exists. Do we really think they'll be flocking to join BSA? Just because a ballet class allows boys, doesn't mean that it will fill up with them. I would like to think that most girls would still like to continue with Girl Scouts, because they do girlie things, things that most girls are attracted to. I would have preferred BSA, but that's because I liked to do the things that were generally associated with boys, and liked hanging out with boys. I wasn't like most girls I knew.

 

 

It's not about changing Girl Scouts to be more attractive to most boys, or BSA changing to be more attractive to most girls, it's about allowing them to choose which path they would like to travel down.

 

Again that sounds familiar. From 1991 each group here could chose whether to admit girls. From 2007 all groups became coed. Quarter of a century since the first change, thick end of a decade since the second and girls still make up only around 20% of scouts in the UK. Most still prefer to go to Girl Guides (there's a few that go to both).

 

About 5 years ago we held a joint evening with the Girl Guides that use our building. We went out to a local campsite for a wide games and camp fire night. Even if you didn't know the kids you could pick out the girls who were scouts from the girls who were guides very easily. The scout girls came in walking boots or trail shoes, chose dark coloured fleeces or water proofs so they couldn't be seen in the woods etc. The girls who were guides were all wellie boots and floral hats and gloves. Just a case of horses for courses!

 

That said, I think that last post from Stosh has some words of wisdom. I won't pretend to know what your rules and regs are but I would be very wary about taking kids along who were not official members.

[maryread]

Going forward, if things were to change, I'd say absolutely. They should be afforded the same benefits, including liability insurance. To be honest, BPSA does the male/female leaders. If they're both present as kids, they need to both be there as leaders as well. If it's something that BSA felt was necessary, I'd be all for it if it meant heading in the right direction. It can be somewhat of a hinder to be honest, and I'm not sure I feel the need when 2 deep leadership is already required.

 

Having the siblings participating currently isn't anything new for our pack I believe, it's been goin on long before I've been there. I'm not positive if they're covered, they'd be covered just the same as the parents, if they are. We tend to be very family oriented, parents are always there with their kids along with any siblings. They're allowed to participate in pretty much every activity we do as a pack. Not sure how it works for liability for district activities, they must be covered for that stuff, especially the summer camp. I've tried looking it up before, and I read somewhere in these forums that as long as their included in the head count on the activity plan submitted they should be covered. Still not something I'm 100% on.

 

 

Would these girls be covered by any insurance or legal protection if they were injured?    Also what about leader liability?  male leaders female girls,

 

Until some policy mandates are established, I would be kinda edgy about having them around on a regular basis.

Edited March 16, 2016 by maryread

[maryread]

Again that sounds familiar. From 1991 each group here could chose whether to admit girls. From 2007 all groups became coed. Quarter of a century since the first change, thick end of a decade since the second and girls still make up only around 20% of scouts in the UK. Most still prefer to go to Girl Guides (there's a few that go to both).

 

About 5 years ago we held a joint evening with the Girl Guides that use our building. We went out to a local campsite for a wide games and camp fire night. Even if you didn't know the kids you could pick out the girls who were scouts from the girls who were guides very easily. The scout girls came in walking boots or trail shoes, chose dark coloured fleeces or water proofs so they couldn't be seen in the woods etc. The girls who were guides were all wellie boots and floral hats and gloves. Just a case of horses for courses!

 

That said, I think that last post from Stosh has some words of wisdom. I won't pretend to know what your rules and regs are but I would be very wary about taking kids along who were not official members.

Pretty much how I would picture it going. I really can't imagine BSA filling up with girls just because they're allowed to do so.

[Eagle94-A1]

'Skip,

 

Unless things have changed in the UK since I was there in '95, the Girl Guides had a  MUCH (emphasis) more active outdoor program than the Girl Scouts on this side of the pond. I would say the Girl Guides had an active outdoor program like our old Cub Scout program. Thankfully our Cub Scout program has been revamped to have more outdoor activities.  If only we can get the old fogeys who believe "Cubs don't need to camp" out of positions on council camping committees. On this side of the pond, unless you get a leader who likes the outdoors, the Girl Scouts rarely go camping. They mostly do cookie sales.

 

Maryread,

 

At the moment, you are experiencing Cub Scouts. When your son hits Boy Scouts, it will be a HUGE (emphasis) difference. Cub Scouts focuses on family outings and family involvement. Boy Scouts is completely different. Boy Scouts focuses on individual growth and independence. In my experience, parents have a harder time adjusting to Boy Scouts than the boys themselves.  Worst offenders are former Cub Scout leaders who cross over. They have spent anywhere from 1-5+ years doing stuff and being in charge, and the former CS leader needs to be "deprogrammed" as one friend calls it, or "Unlearn what you have learned" as Master Yoda puts it. Even those of us who know better have a hard time.  Just as I had to adjust from working with Boy Scouts to Cub Scouts ( a lot easier transition I might add) I had to adjust working with Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts. Heck just this weekend I had to get an recently crossed over leader away from members of his old den who were screwing up putting up a tent. 

 

Regarding females in Scouting, there will be changes, and it will be detrimental to the boys in the program. Yes there are a few great female Scout leaders. I've had the pleasure to work with them. But they are less than 1% of the female leader population. Someone pointed out to me the decline in standards since the introduction of female SMs and ASMs in the late 80s/early 90s. While I personally think OPERATION FIRST CLASS is the biggest reason for the decline in standards, after observing units with large numbers of females in leadership positions, I do believe that has been a factor.  I also believe having adult male leaders, growing up in the 1970s "Improved Scouting Program" which took OUTING out of Scouting by not requiring a camping program is another factor.

[Stosh]

We have a program that allows for choice after the age of 14 for the females.  Yet they don't avail themselves of it very much.  I believe I heard at one time it was running about 2:1 males.

 

I am currently working on organizing a new Crew in a neighboring community which my wife and I will lead and from what I hear from the interest survey, the bulk of the potential participants were female.  As long as BSA provides an all-male choice for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, I don't have a problem.  We have all-male Cub and Boy Scouts.  We have all-female Daisy, Brownie, Cadet and Girl Scouts, if people want co-ed programs there are church and community groups for those that wish.  Lots of options out there to choose from and as long as BSA doesn't go along with the same-old, same-old as everyone else, they will continue to offer males a real choice besides take it or leave it.

 

For what it's worth, churches CO BSA units all the time, they CO Venturing Crews as well.  If one were to actually roll up their sleeves instead of whining about it, there are a lot of churches out there that would be willing to set up young people youth ministries that focus on outdoor adventures.  When I was in in the ministry the kids that were too young for Bible camp went with the Mrs. and me camping for a week.  Always had a fun time with them, both the guys and gals. They didn't have to wear a uniform either.

[Cambridgeskip]

'Skip,

 

Unless things have changed in the UK since I was there in '95, the Girl Guides had a  MUCH (emphasis) more active outdoor program than the Girl Scouts on this side of the pond. I would say the Girl Guides had an active outdoor program like our old Cub Scout program. Thankfully our Cub Scout program has been revamped to have more outdoor activities.  If only we can get the old fogeys who believe "Cubs don't need to camp" out of positions on council camping committees. On this side of the pond, unless you get a leader who likes the outdoors, the Girl Scouts rarely go camping. They mostly do cookie sales.

 

.

Girl Guide groups here vary massively. Far more than scouts do.

 

A good friend is a guide leader. She's a doctor that regularly does aid work in war zones around the world. She's pretty tough and even having cancer didn't stop her. At one point she was administering her own chemo while sheltering in a shell hole with mortar bombs wizzing over her head somewhere in West Africa. As I'm sure you can imagine her group is VERY active and very popular and recently won the district scout and guide incident hike competition by a healthy margin.

 

On the other hand there are groups that spend lots of time drinking tea. Sadly the latter seem to be on the increase.

[Eagle94-A1]

We have a program that allows for choice after the age of 14 for the females.  Yet they don't avail themselves of it very much.  I believe I heard at one time it was running about 2:1 males.

 

  As long as BSA provides an all-male choice for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, I don't have a problem.  We have all-male Cub and Boy Scouts.  We have all-female Daisy, Brownie, Cadet and Girl Scouts, if people want co-ed programs there are church and community groups for those that wish.  Lots of options out there to choose from and as long as BSA doesn't go along with the same-old, same-old as everyone else, they will continue to offer males a real choice besides take it or leave it.

 

 

 

The Finns I worked with described their organization as such:

                         Cub Scout ( 7-11?) = coed

Boy Scouts= All Male        (12- 15?)        Girl Guides or Scout (can't remember)= All Female

                         Rovers(?)  (15+?) = coed

 

 

 

I know the SA's pre-2007 policy was popular when I was over there. I ran into an all male Scout troop, and a friend started an all female Scout troop since the Guide troop wasn't meeting her and others expectations.  I don't think BSA will ever mandate all units going coed anytime soon. Some COs will not go for it.