Boys and Girls (Co-Ed) Cub and Boy Scouts Are Coming

[Back Pack]

This is an interesting discussion thread, and one where many commenters have no concept of what Girl Scouting is/does. 

 

I get very tired of the argument that "girls already have Girl Scouts, it's just as good!"  NO, it's not.  Take it from a former scout, a leader, and a mother of a Girl Scout - their program has been utter garbage since their last overhaul about 6 years ago, and that's the way their HQ likes it.  Girls spend up to 9 months of their year doing nothing but fixating on selling products for the Girl Scout machine (who makes billions off of the girls labor, then acts like they're too broke to invest in any local programming for the girls).  As a leader, make no mistake, GS wants product sales to be all life consuming, and it's become one step shy of a pyramid scheme like Pampered Chef.  GS are closing camps left and right, but it's not because girls don't want to camp, as some have suggested on here (my own daughter camps in our private woods every chance she's allowed).  Girl in Girl Scouts aren't camping because families can't afford to participate when the financial aid rates that GS offers are still twice the cost of a full-priced week at BS camp - and girls don't even get to earn any badges or awards at most camps! 

Not to mention the lack of accountability for the girls and lack of respect from their parents.  You could never have ranks in GS because parents would stomp their feet and cry out that it's not fair how their daughter does no work, never shows up, and doesn't get the same awards as everyone else.  I can't tell you how many times parents have called the council on me to complain about just that problem!  You may see problem parents in Boy Scouts too, I have no doubt there, but you have no idea how much more respectful women tend to be towards male leaders over female ones.  And, the entire reason I became a leader is because the first troop my daughter joined had tons of money vanish (in the 5-digit range) and when I went with others to complain to council, they looked at us and said "after we get our money, it's none of our business what happens to the girl's portion!"  It's a ludicrisly bad program, with staff that has no clue or care about the girls they're supposedly working for, and it's been re-tooled to only cater to kids in metropolitan areas.  GS doesn't even pretend to care about anyone else, which is likely why GS keeps complaining about hemorraging members, because it's largely an arts and crafts mini-daycare these days.  They do not truly develop leadership programs, and most girls have to be Juliettes (ie non-troop members) by the time they're in 6th grade, because there is so little interest in the program as girls get older/more unhappy with their lack of options.  So, in short, Girl Scouts is NOT the same as Boy Scouts!

And, to users like Back Pack, who think Venturing is just the same as Boy Scouts, again, you are so very mistaken.  First, a female has to be 14 to join Venturing, whereas a Boy Scout can technically start at 10 1/2.  So Venturing is only open to girls who are roughly high school aged, meanwhile younger girls have a great, if not greater, interest in scouting too.  Second, you cannot earn merit badges or Boy Scout rank in Venturing, which, whether you want to admit it or not, are very respected things to earn - to the point that the military will give you an automatic promotion if you have Eagle Rank.  Third, I live in a highly active state for BSA, you can't go down the block without tripping over a troop, and, yet, with all that support for scouting here, the Venturing units exist on paper only.  They don't meet, they don't have activities, and every Crew leader I've met tells me the same thing - they're ready and willing to have their Crew be amazing, but there are too many competitors for time, money, etc to get the high school aged kids active. 

So, to say the GS/Venturing are the same quality as the Boy Scout program is like going into a hotel and being given the option to have a room with a bed, or a room with a pile of rocks.  Yes, I'm sure there are some areas where GS and Venturing are amazing and active and well executed, but that is not the case for many youth.  And no girl who would enjoy the BS program would mind being called a BOY Scout.  Just like women don't get offended if they join the military and get called a soldier, even though that always implies a male (just ask my mother the veteran, who can't wear a veteran hat without being asked if her husband/father served!).  When you love a program and you believe in what you're working towards, being called a Boy is not the issue they're concerned with.

But see? You still miss the point:

 

- Change VENTURING to allow girls to join at 11.

- Revamp the VENTURING program to allow MB-like activities.

- Have BSA help folks like you invest your time building strong VENTURING crews.

 

You see? I'd like my kid to get things they can't have too? Cheap student loans would be nice. But I don't tear down an entire organization to get my way.

 

If people like you put your energy into BUILDING UP something -- say a cool new Venturing program that would give girls most of what you say, then you'd have TONS of support. But you'll continue to get opposition from "people like me" when all you do is advocate for tearing something down. Be a builder not a demolisher.

[qwazse]

...

- Change VENTURING to allow girls to join at 11. ..... -- say a cool new Venturing program that would give girls most of what you say, then you'd have TONS of support. ...

Except from any venturer anywhere.

[Back Pack]

Except from any venturer anywhere.

So changing Boy Scouts is the answer?

 

How long would bsa even keep Venturing if Boy Scouts went coed? Could time that with an egg timer.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Back Pack

[NJCubScouter]

How long would bsa even keep Venturing if Boy Scouts went coed? Could time that with an egg timer.

 

This assumes that the "point" of Venturing is to have a coed program.  I don't think that's the case.  The reason there is a Venturing program, and before that the old Exploring program, was/is to have a program geared to the interests and abilities of "older youth".  The BSA has been struggling almost from the beginning with the issue of how to provide different opportunities for "older boys", and then for "older" boys and girls.  (There is some interesting history here: http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/overview.html )

 

The point is, there were Explorer posts (and specifically posts geared to outdoor activities) when the program was boys-only.  A decision was made to admit young women of the correct age, so now the successor program, is an "older youth" program rather than just an "older boy" program.  So lowering the age for Venturing for the purpose of making it "parallel" to the Boy Scout program, but "coed", would defeat the whole purpose of Venturing.

Edited March 1, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[Col. Flagg]

This assumes that the "point" of Venturing is to have a coed program.  I don't think that's the case.  The reason there is a Venturing program, and before that the old Exploring program, was/is to have a program geared to the interests and abilities of "older youth".  The BSA has been struggling almost from the beginning with the issue of how to provide different opportunities for "older boys", and then for "older" boys and girls.  (There is some interesting history here: http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/overview.html )

 

The point is, there were Explorer posts (and specifically posts geared to outdoor activities) when the program was boys-only.  A decision was made to admit young women of the correct age, so now the successor program, is an "older youth" program rather than just an "older boy" program.  So lowering the age for Venturing for the purpose of making it "parallel" to the Boy Scout program, but "coed", would defeat the whole purpose of Venturing.

 

Let's face it, Venturing is not doing what it was designed to do: Retain and engage older youth. So I too would be in favor of changing it for the purposes making it a more robust coed program. 

[qwazse]

Let's face it, Venturing is not doing what it was designed to do: Retain and engage older youth. So I too would be in favor of changing it for the purposes making it a more robust coed program. 

You all seem to realize how few adults have a say in the matter.

 

But, keep chatting. If I get a moment with someone on the National venturing youth cabinet next month, I'll run your concepts up the chain. Maybe even start at age six ... look out for them lion-venturers.

[Col. Flagg]

You all seem to realize how few adults have a say in the matter.

 

But, keep chatting. If I get a moment with someone on the National venturing youth cabinet next month, I'll run your concepts up the chain. Maybe even start at age six ... look out for them lion-venturers.

 

Of course WE don't ever get a say in anything, so this whole discussion is moot.

 

Just musing, but I cannot think that BSA keeps Venturing around if Boy Scouts goes coed. What would the point be? It doesn't meet the mission it was designed to for now. Less than 2% of crews actually work on Venturing rank advancement. Many crews are "adventure clubs" and that's it. Cannot see BSA keeping them around and diluting the coed Boy Scout experience. Can you?

[NJCubScouter]

Just musing, but I cannot think that BSA keeps Venturing around if Boy Scouts goes coed. What would the point be? It doesn't meet the mission it was designed to for now. 

 

As I said before, Venturing is a program for older youth.  That's the point.  The "mission" is not simply to have a coed program.  Before young women were admitted into Exploring in the late 60's/early 70's (it was a two-step process according to what I have read so it didn't happen all in one year), there were Boy Scout troops and Explorer posts and every single member of all of them were male.

[Col. Flagg]

As I said before, Venturing is a program for older youth.  That's the point.  The "mission" is not simply to have a coed program.

 

And Boy Scouts is a program for BOYS. That's the point. I think we all get that.

 

The discussion is about making Boy Scouts coed OR options available. I think we all get what each group is for. The discussion is around how to appease those who want in to Scouting while meeting the perceived goal of offering a Boy Scout-like program without having to open Boy Scouts up to girls...hence the discussion about Venturing. 

[NJCubScouter]

And Boy Scouts is a program for BOYS. That's the point. I think we all get that.

 

The discussion is about making Boy Scouts coed OR options available. I think we all get what each group is for. The discussion is around how to appease those who want in to Scouting while meeting the perceived goal of offering a Boy Scout-like program without having to open Boy Scouts up to girls...hence the discussion about Venturing. 

 

I don't think Venturing is a viable option for providing a coed program with the same age range as Boy Scouts.  I'm not even sure it was a good idea to lower the age for crews from 14 to 13.  If there is to be a "coed" program that has the same age range as Boy Scouts, but is not Boy Scouts, I think a new program would have to be created.  But I don't think any of this is going to happen, including making Boy Scouts itself coed.  Of course, I think I predicted in 2012 that any changes to the membership policies would not happen for about 15 years, and it didn't even take one year.

[Col. Flagg]

I don't think Venturing is a viable option for providing a coed program with the same age range as Boy Scouts.  I'm not even sure it was a good idea to lower the age for crews from 14 to 13.  If there is to be a "coed" program that has the same age range as Boy Scouts, but is not Boy Scouts, I think a new program would have to be created.  But I don't think any of this is going to happen, including making Boy Scouts itself coed.  Of course, I think I predicted in 2012 that any changes to the membership policies would not happen for about 15 years, and it didn't even take one year.

 

As you aptly point out, it's almost not worth predicting anything BSA will do. 

 

Redesigning BSA's various offerings (CS, BS, Venturing, Explorers) would be a monumental task, to be sure. 

[MattHiggins]

We Now Have Our 1st Cub Co-Ed Pack (Boys And Girls) As A Pilot Program. The entire meeting room went silent when given this news by our district.

 

It was just a matter of time...

Is this an official pilot program?

[qwazse]

Is this an official pilot program?

Short answer: no. It's a cleverly slapped together manipulation of Learning for Life.

[NJCubScouter]

Short answer: no. It's a cleverly slapped together manipulation of Learning for Life.

My question is, "manipulation" by whom? If a local unit, on their own and unbeknownst to council, is getting girls and their parents to register with LFL under the guise of doing an LFL program but is actually using that as a "cover" to have the girls meet with a Cub pack or Boy Scout troop, that's one thing, and it's probably their problem if anything goes wrong.  But if the "manipulation" is being done by the council, or even just with the council's knowledge, that begins to look "official", regardless of whether National knows about it, and regardless of whether you call it a "pilot program" or something else.  There have been a number of posts in the past few years about people using LFL, either to have a "Lion Cubs" program before the current "official pilot", or to involve girls in Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts in various ways.  Recently there was a thread in the Cub Scouts section in which someone said: My girls are also part of coed BSA programs, one being a pilot program based on Venturing but for middle school ages (which I am associate advisor for)." (http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/28828-running-a-frontier-girls-program-concurrent-with-a-cub-scout-pack/?p=450597)  In that person's next post, she said that program was being run through LFL.  I find it difficult to believe all this stuff is being done without councils knowing about it, and as I said before, once council knows about it, it becomes more than just some rogue local thing.

[jrush]

Redesigning BSA's various offerings (CS, BS, Venturing, Explorers) would be a monumental task, to be sure. 

 

Which is why they won't be redesigned.  They'll just announce that Charter Orgs have the option to charter co-ed Packs and Troops.  The Packs and Troops that already allow female siblings to attend events will hand them a membership form and parents will go buy a uniform.  BSA will update YPT and that will be it.

 

At this point, I can't even see it causing any disruption.  The Charter Orgs that are with the BSA for the long haul have already reconciled with homosexual leaders and transgender youth.