Female Venturers and Boy Scout Advancement

[Eagle94-A1]

If we use history as a basis, then things will change. When BSA allowed female SMs and ASMs, BSA had to change how training was conducted because most, by no means all but most, women Scouters did have the outdoor skills needed for Scouting. Further none of the ladies had the experience of the Patrol Method, the foundation of Scouting. Even with today's training there is little to no training on that.

 

My question is this: if the girls want an active outdoor program, then by don't they get GSUSA to change their program?

[qwazse]

 .... My question is this: if the girls want an active outdoor program, then by don't they get GSUSA to change their program?

That's sort of like asking: if your boys want a youth-led movement, then why don't they get their leaders to adjust accordingly?

Isn't it?

 

From the few troops I've meet since my daughter left GSUSA, I've seen movement in that direction.

[Eagledad]

@@ianwilkins, one doesn't need testicles to earn Boy Scout ranks. One just needs to be male. There is no ban on eunuchs.

 

You continue to be in denial that we are saying the same thing. This is not a discussion of changing a single requirement for the award as it is offered to Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouts, and Lone Scouts. So, your reference to "ninja warriors" seems to support granting deserving women access to due recognition.

 

OK, but then you say:

The more important questions (and harder ones to answer):

• are boys missing something important because certain classes are banned from attempting a program designed for them? And,
• do boys lose interest in scouting because certain classes are banned from that program?

Sounds like a requirements discussion to me. Honestly, I don't think we are saying the same thing at all.

 

A percentage of 1st class scouts (by virtue of fulfilling the requirements just for the fun of it) are not eligible for the award simply because lots of other people think they should be denied the path to that award. There are special interest who would like to change things in the face of youth apathy. So we come back to ...

 

Denied the path to that award? Is that a fair statement? We are talking about two "completely" different programs. Isn't that like saying boy scouts are denied selling Girl Scout cookies? The girls are denied the Eagle because they aren't part of the Boy Scout program. And to fair, BOYS are "denied" the Gold Award (or whatever it's called) because they aren't part of the GSUSA program and nobody is complaining. 

 

And youth apathy? Come on, that is a lame strawman that doesn't attempt to fix anything. Apathy is the result of a program that doesn't challenge the maturity of the mind and body of the scout. The patrol method already struggles from ignorance of most leaders today without self-serving adults trying to leverage membership concerns for an emotion advantage. 

 

How will any boy in your troop be dishonored if a girl in Kalamazoo were to get the same award?

-- and on the flip side --

How will a deserving girl in Kalamazoo be dishonored if any boy in your troop gets an award that she can't?

 

How is the Kalamazoo girl deserving if she didn't participate in the program?

 

Any answers to either of those have been less than satisfying.

 

That's because you are only looking at it from the perspective that "Girls Must Have the boys award to measure up to a boys in the Boy Scout program.

 

You aren't satisfied because you have personal expectationsthat don't fit in the program. You keep referencing "classes" and "bannings" as if there is a conspericy to hold girls down. THERE IS NOT. It's not a boys vs girls issue nor is it a moral issue. The BSA built a program over 100 years ago around building men of character. Your vision of the ideal program isn't the same as the actual program, so it is your vision that is intruding on the BSA program. You will never be satisfied because the program will never revamp into the qwasze vision. Until you come to respect the program that you are trying to change, you will never understand the resistance toward your ideas.

 

And if you can't discuss this subject without using condescending trigger words that imply anyone who doesn't agree is morally wrong, then I say you are too deep emotionallyto listen to differing opinions.  

 

The more important questions (and harder ones to answer):

• are boys missing something important because certain classes are banned from attempting a program designed for them? And,
• do boys lose interest in scouting because certain classes are banned from that program?

Right now, I lean towards "no" for both. I'm not sure what data I would need for me to lean towards "yes."

 

These are interesting questions because they basically suggest that the Troop program has no other value than entertainment for preteen boys. The statement implies troops are an after school day care baby sitting program intended only to keep boys out of trouble by keeping them busy tying knots. 

 

Either you don't believe in the BSA Mission or you don't get it. Either way you not only disrespect the boys going through the program, you are disrespecting the girls as well because you are lowering their experience down to just getting some award. 

 

I am curious if you think scouts get anything out the Venture program experience.  

 

I believe in the Mission and Vision of the the BSA. Maybe that sounds idealistic, but I really do.  I used the program toward those goals and have witnessed many boys change into men of character that they may not have become without the program. I don't look at this discussion as boys versus girls, I look at it as ensuring program quality. And I don't see how changing the boys side of the program just to get older teen girls some award helps the quality of the program at all. Lowering the quality of the boys side will never raise the quality of the girls side. It only lowers the quality and reputation of the whole program.

 

Barry

 

 

[Eagle94-A1]

That's sort of like asking: if your boys want a youth-led movement, then why don't they get their leaders to adjust accordingly?

Isn't it?

 

From the few troops I've meet since my daughter left GSUSA, I've seen movement in that direction.

True. But a lot of the demand for the BSA to go fully coed is coming from parents. If the girls, and especially their parents, demanded change, it would come. It may be slow, but it will come. And you admit there is movement in that direction.

 

Me personally, I have mixed emotions. On one hand I know how important it for males to be by themselves and be guys. And I admit I am concerned about how the program will change. Let's face it there have been changes in the program since female SMs and ASMs have been allowed. And yes, I admit I did have a negative experience in my coed Sea Scout ship back in the day. The male Sea Scouts were forced to do things for the female members, and they did not carry their own weight.

 

But on the other hand, I know everything else in our society is going coed. I have also met female Venturers who pulled their own weight, and even carried their brother's weight.

[NJCubScouter]

The more important questions (and harder ones to answer):

• are boys missing something important because certain classes are banned from attempting a program designed for them? And,
• do boys lose interest in scouting because certain classes are banned from that program?

Right now, I lean towards "no" for both. I'm not sure what data I would need for me to lean towards "yes."

 

Which "classes" are we talking about here?  Are you talking about atheists?  Or something else?

[qwazse]

... Either you don't believe in the BSA Mission or you don't get it. Either way you not only disrespect the boys going through the program, you are disrespecting the girls as well because you are lowering their experience down to just getting some award. 

 

I am curious if you think scouts get anything out the Venture program experience.  

 

I believe in the Mission and Vision of the the BSA. Maybe that sounds idealistic, but I really do.  I used the program toward those goals and have witnessed many boys change into men of character that they may not have become without the program. I don't look at this discussion as boys versus girls, I look at it as ensuring program quality. And I don't see how changing the boys side of the program just to get older teen girls some award helps the quality of the program at all. Lowering the quality of the boys side will never raise the quality of the girls side. It only lowers the quality and reputation of the whole program.

 ...

Since I don't waste much time in things I don't believe in, I'm probably not understanding something, like that Mission and Vision statement http://www.scouting.org/About/AnnualReports/PreviousYears/2012/MissionVision.aspx which intentionally uses the word "youth" not "boy" in every direct reference to its constituents.

 

I'm sure you also noticed that the requirement for scout rank no longer explicitly mentions "boy". Is the quality of the advancement program lowered?

 

Which "classes" are we talking about here?  Are you talking about atheists?  Or something else?

NJ, the requirements as written explicitly raise that bar.

And the fine print of the BSA vision is "eligible".

 

But we can look back on our history:

.... Exclude adults from advancement

.... Introduce a new scouting program for boys

.... Lose some members

.... Only open to girls in Exploring

.... Keep losing members

.... Endorse exclusion of athiests

.,,. Lose public school COs

.... Lose members

.... Need to recruit female adult leaders, draw finer boundaries

.... Lose members

.... Ban some folks' beloved scoutmasters who "come out"

.... Lose members

.... Deny a nascent homosexual rank,

.... Lose members

.... Deny ovations of O/A Chiefs to tap out Venturing females

.... Lose members

.... Flip-flop on e sexual orientation thing

.... Really lose members

 

We can brag "quality" until we're blue in the face. But "quantity" is a quality of its own.

So, thinking long and hard about who's not being served as a result of how we do things ... that stays on my table.

I guess if I never had girls knocking at my door, I'd think differently.

[qwazse]

One fine point on language.

 

... certain classes are banned ...

 

... simply because lots of other people think they should be denied the path to that award. ...

Denied the path to that award? Is that a fair statement?

 

You keep referencing "classes" and "bannings" as if there is a conspericy to hold girls down. THERE IS NOT. 

... The BSA built a program over 100 years ago around building men of character.

 

In trying to use succinct terms for the prevailing theme in a large movement, there is a possibility that words are chosen that have developed unintended meaning. So, I return to Webster's

• Ban ... 2: to prohibit, esp. by legal means or social pressure.
• Class ... 1a: a group sharing the same social or economic status ... 3: a group, set, or kind sharing the same common attributes.
• Deny ...3b: to refuse to grant.

Objectively, I thought these are three neutral terms that accurately described actions without putting down anybody who feels these actions are good and just, or elevating any special interest who feels these actions undermine noble intent.

 

But, let's allow the possibility that combined they sound more dark and nefarious than on their own. To be charitable and for the sake of political correctness, let's choose Barry's suggested phrasing (with emphasis on what I think he intends to be important)

 

... lots of other people think that BSA built a program over 100 years ago around building men of character. ...

 

• are boys missing something important because of their program's exclusive focus on building men of character? And,
• do boys lose interest in scouting because that focus is exclusively on building men of character?

Change the rhetoric, the issue is no smaller or bigger than it was before.

[Eagledad]

 

... lots of other people think that BSA built a program over 100 years ago around building men of character. ...

 

• are boys missing something important because of their program's exclusive focus on building men of character? And,
• do boys lose interest in scouting because that focus is exclusively on building men of character?

Change the rhetoric, the issue is no smaller or bigger than it was before.

There is no issue. It's just another political correctness attack.

 

Barry

[NJCubScouter]

There is no issue. It's just another political correctness attack.

 

Barry

 

While I have supported separate Scouting programs for boys and girls (all of my children having been in the Scouting program corresponding to their gender, though for varying lengths of time), when we get back to the tired old line of "political correctness", that's where I get off the train.  We've got a great program in the BSA.  So great that people want to join it.  We should be HAPPY about that.  It doesn't mean the BSA necessarily has to let all those people in, when some of them are of a gender that has a corresponding Scouting program out there.  But we shouldn't treat the fact that these young ladies would like to be part of the program as a bad thing.  It's a challenge that has to be dealt with.  I personally would like to see the GSUSA deal with it by encouraging and assisting their own local leaders to make much more use of the outdoor aspects of the Girl Scout program.  Let's look for positive solutions.

[Eagledad]

While I have supported separate Scouting programs for boys and girls (all of my children having been in the Scouting program corresponding to their gender, though for varying lengths of time), when we get back to the tired old line of "political correctness", that's where I get off the train.  We've got a great program in the BSA.  

I don't know how else to explain it NJ. I can't apologize, when change is pushed without consideration for the program, I consider it under hostile attack. 

 

I feel honored and flattered for the BSA program to hold such high respect that families want all their children to have the experience. But I've said all along in all these discussions that the boys should come first in any consideration of change. And rarely do the boys come first. The program should not be sacrificed for the good of outside interest. It is as simple as that. 

 

Qwazse has been very clear that this is all about the girls. He once said something to the effect, "girls joining the program is inevitable, so MOVE ON". That is the tone of someone willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. And quit franking I find it offensive. 

 

You are offended by my political correctness term, ok, I'm open to other synonyms. In all these discussion where adults want to change the program, I always try to bring pragmatic reasoning. The arguments for change typically start with: "it will eventually happen, so lets move on", "The good ol boys block it", "there is no honor in the system, so why not change it?". All of which are simplistic condescending strawmen arguments that only denigrate the program. They don't justify any advantages of change for the boys at all. There isn't even the attempt. 

 

But as the discussion continues, the justification grew to the same old tired excuse that boys grow into better men of character with girls in the program. Remember, this is a discussion about letting girls earn an eagle. Now it's gone to a self-righteous level of the program needs Girls to improve, without any substantiation to how. This kind of reasoning is used to bully folks into considering alternatives. The supporters of change were tearing down the present BSA program and then leveraging the need for equality to make a positive change. They are using  moral equivalence to justify their change of a respected program. When such arguments have to be used without logical pragmatic considerations, that is political correctness. 

 

I remember a scout once told me that he liked my style of Scoutmastering because I always stood for the Scouts first. I believe that is what I am still doing. Until somebody can present logical reasoning for change that doesn't lower program quality, then I will stand for the boys. It's obvious just by this discussion that the program is being attacked and needs it's defenders. 

 

Barry

[Rick_in_CA]

I don't know how else to explain it NJ. I can't apologize, when change is pushed without consideration for the program, I consider it under hostile attack. 

 

I feel honored and flattered for the BSA program to hold such high respect that families want all their children to have the experience. But I've said all along in all these discussions that the boys should come first in any consideration of change. And rarely do the boys come first. The program should not be sacrificed for the good of outside interest. It is as simple as that.

This is the problem I have with your argument style right here @@Eagledad. It's not that you disagree that the BSA should go fully coed, it's that you imply that anyone that is arguing in favor of a coed BSA "doesn't care about the boys" is representing "outside interests" and is willing to "sacrifice" the program. Basically you are questioning the morals of anyone that disagrees with you, questioning their commitment to scouting, and are implying that they are arguing in bad faith. I'm just not sure if it's intentional on your part.

 

We should be able to discuss this issue without denigrating the opposition. Instead we should assume that we all love scouting, are people of good character and are just trying to make the BSA better. I don't believe that anyone here is part of some insidious plot to destroy the BSA in the name of some sort of political agenda. Disagreeing with me (or you) doesn't mean that someone isn't a "real scouter", no one here has a monopoly on the "one true way" of scouting.

 

In the many years I have participated in this forum, I have had some strong disagreements with many posters. But I have never doubted that the people I have disagreed with were people of good character that loved scouting (with a few rare exceptions). Someone that I would love to sit around a campfire with while sharing a beverage and shooting the breeze. Someone I would be honored to call "Friend".

[Eagle94-A1]

I just saw this:

 

https://voiceofscouting.org/chief-scout-executive-asks-us-serve-entire-family

 

Looks like the top man is looking at us going coed. Going to get interesting, especially with LDS units.

[JosephMD]

ahh, going to pust in issues & politics!  Against my better judgement, but here goes.

 

I think as long as GSUSA exists as a seperate entity, girls will not be boy scouts and won't be able to earn first class, eagle, etc.  You always hear about girls wanting to be boy scouts, but boys wanting to be girl scouts, a lot less, unless they think they are actually girls.  Oh, and while I've seen all female boy scouts of America leadership, I've never seen that with the girl scouts, have you?

 

I think the next step for our female scouts is OA membership.  There are a couple of instances where ranger award requirements create a first class equivilenc.  This plus camping nights and a crew election would make it so. 

 

That being said, I don't really have a strong opinion on it either way.  If they add venturing elections to OA, including female members, that works, if they don't, that works too.  I know people that really want to see it happen, and people who will never pay another cent in lodge dues if it does.  But me personally, whatever happens happens.

Edited September 3, 2016 by JosephMD

[qwazse]

@@Rick_in_CA, for the record, I don't feel denigrated. It's a big country. Someone from the heartland is welcome to pick apart the pernicious East Coast ideas crossing Appalachia. As long as nobody's cussing, I'll discuss his contentions ... in a later post as time allows.

@@Eagle94-A1, I saw this quote in a sidebar on Bryan on Scouting's forums a few days back,  but the link to it was bad. Your link quotes the title and not much more. So I suspect someone was taking something out of context, and the Scouting story editors could not get elaboration from the chief scout executive's office. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, gets released more widely.

@@JosephMD, a youth, male or female, cannot be in venturing exclusively and qualify for O/A. Ignoring historical precedent, it  makes sense as expounded here http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/07/18/female-youth-order-of-the-arrow/;however, in the ensuing comments of that blog, there is an observation by Mike Walton, "... National Explorer Presidents were also OA members. Females could not be OA members normally but did become OA members under a loophole which was closed in the late 90s." In other words, Crews tend to come with female youth, and national advisors don't feel that female youth should be in O/A, thus O/A is not for venturing or any co-ed program of the BSA.

 

The formula for GS/USA and BSA is quite simple: keep the opposite sex at a distance.

[MattR]

I think Eagledad has a good point in that the BSA model is getting watered down and could get watered down a lot more. Irrespective of girls, the program is getting micro managed with more and more detailed requirements that is turning the scout oath and law into a facade for a laundry list of requirements to be checked off. The difference between that check list and the great youth we help mold are the adults that know how to work the system. That knowledge is slowly dissipating. I have fewer and fewer adults that get it or did scouts as a youth. Throw in the idea that all girls will be encouraged to get Eagle and I see problems. Some girls want to do what the boys are doing and I'm all for having them in the program. What I don't want is a program that's made for all girls. I do everything I can to motivate scouts to push themselves. My biggest fear is not the girls, it's their moms. Sure, there are a few moms that like to rough it in the outdoors, but the majority do not. Right now it's really easy for me to tell a mom we go camping every month, including February when it gets really cold, and they are welcome to join us. If they don't like it when it gets below zero, they shouldn't go with us. But if I have their daughters, and they feel obligated to go, then it's going to be a harder push. What do I say when none of the moms want to go to the winter campouts, sorry, your daughters can't join us because none of the moms will go camping? That will quickly turn into lets replace the winter campouts with cabins and/or lock ins. A lot of boys need a kick in the butt to try something hard and this is the type of excuse they would use to not try. That would piss me off.