Female Venturers and Boy Scout Advancement

[NJCubScouter]

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.

 

The BSA was "looking at" (meaning, considering the possibility of) "going coed" (meaning, at least, the Boy Scouts) more than 40 years ago.  I have to believe they have been "looking at" it, at least on and off, ever since then.

 

The CSE's statements in this article are very vague and generic.  He never says "coed".  He says he doesn't have the "answers."  The one concrete example he gives of a program involving both genders was a "partnership" (a word that can mean a wide variety of things) between local BSA and GSUSA units. That is not necessarily a "coed unit".  That is two (or more) units, including at least one made up of male BSA members (Cubs or Boy Scouts is not specified, maybe it was both) and at least one made up of female GSUSA members, working together (in an unspecified way) to deliver a program for both genders.  What exactly did that look like?  We are not told.

 

Might this mean a serious investigation into coed units?  It might, but I doubt it.  I think it would have been made clearer.  I have learned over the years that trying to "read into" what top BSA leaders say is often a fruitless exercise.  If every idea that a CSE ever ran up the flagpole was actually put into practice, the BSA would be a much different place.

Edited September 4, 2016 by NJCubScouter

[gumbymaster]

First, I will concede to Eagle dad that these comments are more focused on the needs of (a subset of) girls, and not the current male youth membership.

 

One of the challenges in our discussion is that it devolves into statements like "the girl scouts have their own program, if they want more outdoors let them change their program".  OK, this is a fair enough statement; however, the girl scout program has evolved into its current form because that IS what the MAJORITY of their membership/leadership want, if not, it would change.

 

If the BSA opened up to girls, it would not be the instant death of GSUSA with everyone coming over.  The BSA program is not what MOST of the GSUSA members want - but there are a few, a subset of girls for whom the BSA program would be a better fit for them than the GSUSA program is.  Currently we make they wait until they are 14 before they can participate as anything other than a sibling, and even then, the offerings of the program do not include advancement (at least the BSA vs. venturing advancement).

 

Likewise, there is probably another subset of boys for whom the GSUSA program would be a better fit for their interests, if they could overcome the stigma of joining - the GSUSA has already accepted transgendered youth to whom this might apply.

 

Admitting Girls to the BSA might solve the equivalent of one or two years worth of membership goals (e.g. our district is only looking for 40 more youth than last year), but it will not be an organization saving membership migration.  Similarly, we have enough sponsors, leaders and youth members that would likely drop the program if such a change were made to wipe out any likely membership gains.

 

In my view, we (i.e. internally to the BSA) seem to have two paths here...

1. The boys really do deserve their own program, and place where boys can be boys without the expectations of co-ed appropriate behaviors, challenges, etc.  Women (girls) mature faster than boys, and many have argued that they would thus dis-proportionally absorb leadership roles in a co-ed unit.  This may be true - it did not seem to be with the explorer posts I was involved with as a youth, but they were three to five years older on average than BSA exclusive ages.

2. Society has / is changing.  It's a backlash against millennia of male domination.  While we (society) seem to accept that women should have their own spaces (i.e. shapes health club) and accept discrimination to support that, men are not permitted the same option.  Our job as Scout leaders is to prepare our youth to be successful in the real world; not a fair world; not the world as we would like to see it; not the world that we used to have 50-70 years ago.  We are not doing our job if we do not prepare them - and that may include preparing them to deal with a world where boys are not allowed to be boys anymore.

 

Numerous studies have indicated that both boys and girls (generally) do better when educated (i.e. school) exclusively with their own gender - it removes (some) distractions and competitions, it acknowledges the biological reality that men and women mature at different rates; but no one could reasonably presume that public institutions would be permitted to explore this option on any wide scale - there is too much (justified) fear that separate is not equal.

 

Now most of the above have been addressed to the general issues of co-educational BSA.

Venture / Explorers are already coeducational - so here it comes down simply to should the advancement program be open to the girls who are already part of the BSA program.

 

Clearly, the advancement program was deliberately designed to prevent this.

While male members of venture units can earn BSA (vs. venture) advancement - they can only do so if they have already earned first class.  This permits the exclusion of girls, because there is no means for them to legitimately earn first class before they become venture scouts.

 

This may also be practical, while many venture units do outdoor skills, follow patrol method, etc., many do not; many units would not be set up to do those skills - leading to a lot of confusion across the program.  This could be solved (if we wanted to) by permitting venture scouts of either gender to participate in IOLS / NYLT or something equivalent to learn those skills AND earn those awards when warranted.  I include NYLT knowing those programs do use the basic S-1 skills, and is already open to all venture scouts - it would not be a stretch to allow NYLT patrol leaders to sign off on successful mastery of those skills.

 

I'll be honest, I probably have more respect for the Girl Scouts who succeed in earning their Gold award than I do in the average Eagle Scout.  I think is it more challenging and requires more dedication for them to succeed than it does for the boys to earn their Eagle.  But, the reality is the world knows what an Eagle Scout is, and at least thinks they know what that represents - not so much for the Gold award.  We've got a better marketing department in that respect.

 

Is it fair to girls that they cannot get the equivalent recognition that boys can from an Eagle Scout award?

If it fair to boys to take what they have, what their program has worked hard to achieve, and make it available to the girls (who earn it) just because they want that equivalent recognition?

 

And, it seems to me, this is what the argument boils down to, because if it were only about the skills (or activities) to be an Eagle, the girls in venture units so organized, could very easily achieve all the knowledge and skills, do the same activities - with or without advancement badges to acknowledge it.

[Rick_in_CA]

If the BSA opened up to girls, it would not be the instant death of GSUSA with everyone coming over.  The BSA program is not what MOST of the GSUSA members want - but there are a few, a subset of girls for whom the BSA program would be a better fit for them than the GSUSA program is.

My understanding is that when the UK boy scouts went coed the UK girl guides didn't see a drop in membership, and they are still going strong. I have no real idea how the program of the UK's girl guides compares to our GSUSA program, but I imagine it isn't drastically different. I would think we would see something similar here. The BSA going completely coed won't have a big effect on GSUSA numbers. Nor would it have a huge effect on the BSA numbers. I think the BSA would see a small bump in numbers (mostly at the cub scout level where the bump might be substantial), or a small drop if the transition is handled badly.

[Snow Owl]

Its only a matter of when, not if

[meyerc13]

 

The one concrete example he gives of a program involving both genders was a "partnership" (a word that can mean a wide variety of things) between local BSA and GSUSA units. That is not necessarily a "coed unit".  That is two (or more) units, including at least one made up of male BSA members (Cubs or Boy Scouts is not specified, maybe it was both) and at least one made up of female GSUSA members, working together (in an unspecified way) to deliver a program for both genders.  What exactly did that look like?  We are not told.

 

We know exactly what it looks like, because we have the post here on this forum showing us:  http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/27649-what-if-the-boy-scouts-went-coed/?p=443564 While they may be multiple units on paper, as we've seen in the posts about this unit they function as one coordinated group for all intents and purposes.

[NJCubScouter]

We know exactly what it looks like, because we have the post here on this forum showing us:  http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/27649-what-if-the-boy-scouts-went-coed/?p=443564 While they may be multiple units on paper, as we've seen in the posts about this unit they function as one coordinated group for all intents and purposes.

 

Well, that post said they have some activities that are separate.  It is not clear to me whether all of their meetings (in any particular age range) are "joint" meetings.  Who is the "unit leader"?  Is there one from each organization?  Do they follow the YP requirements of both the BSA and GSUSA?  I presume there has to be at least some separate instruction and advancement work since the requirements are not the same (though I am sure there is some overlap.)

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not questioning whether this could work.  I am sure it could be made to work.  I am just somewhat curious as to how it works, and I am also not clear on whether this is the model the BSA intends to follow, if indeed they intend to follow any model at all.