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

[Peregrinator]

If the "bump" in cubs is real and represents an infusion of more than Lions, there may be room for optimism.

 

Apparently about 30K of the cubs in this year's report are Lions. So there's your answer.

[Pack18Alex]

On a few pages of this thread, people would probably call my program "co-ed" -- and I guess it is.

 

Our sibling den evolved into a Girl Scout Troop, which tried to forge it's own identity and collapsed under the crappiness of GSUSA.  At this point, the GS Troop functions without our Pack as a Patrol (or two, depending as size), where they work of GS Advancement during Den Meeting nights and the Pack Activity during Pack Activity nights.

 

We got a lot of amused looks at a district cub event last year where I had two patrols of girl scouts at it.

 

My take on the matter:

Cubs could go entirely co-ed.  The new program is very "boy" oriented but not gendered as strongly as the old one.  The old one I'd make tweaks for a Cub-Girls program, and designate Den's co-ed.

Boy Scouts should not be Co-Ed, but I'd create a middle school Girls program that is similar.  Alternatively I'd permit a CO to charter Male and Female troops, but not co-ed ones.

 

In our neck of the woods, the major Council Events all invite GSUSA units to participate, and some did.  There was huge excitement when a Girl Scout Troop won a "Chief's Choice" gateway competition at Camporee.

 

I'm just not seeing the issue.  I think it's a regional cultural issue, and Councils should have some flexibility.

 

But it does bug me that our Girl Scout "Troop" sends money to GSUSA instead of BSA, and they'd all drop GSUSA in a heart beat.

 

Caveat: my wife is the Girl Scout Leader, our GS Troop was started as an adjunct.

Our units are very religious in nature, with strong gender separation, so I don't see co-ed patrols/dens in our future anyway.

We don't use the LFL backdoor, doesn't seem trustworthy.  Our events are all "family" events and open to the family members of all unit members.  The participating "girl scouts" are almost always siblings of "boy scouts."  In the few cases where they aren't, we signup and train a girl scout dad as an Adult Leader, and they participate as the Adult Leader's family.

 

It works for us.  When our Boy Scouts visit the Pack campsite and discuss pioneering with Daisy/Brownie girl scouts, it's an utter riot.

[4CouncilsScouter]

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.

 

@@Back Pack

 

Why would Venturing need these changes? Having been an adult leader in a crew currently and a youth back when Venturing was Exploring, I have to again ask why?

 

The current programming in Venturing is designed for older youth. Adding younger ages to Venturing defeats the program's purpose. That being said, Venturing, by its nature, is meant to be adaptable and flexible. Before the updates to the Venturing program, less than 1% of Venturers actually pursued advancement. This isn't so much an issue on the BSA-side but more so a testament that most Venturers join Venturing for the experience not the number of medals you can wear on a shirt. Besides that, the merit badge system is designed to introduce 11-18 Boy Scouts to future hobbies and careers. Venturing crews are intended to specialize around a hobby or interest that they have previously encountered or want to develop in.

 

No problem with your third idea though! Let's get more Greenshirts on the radar!

 

My two-cents.

Edited March 22, 2017 by 4CouncilsScouter

[Back Pack]

Answer: To leave Scouting as it is because we already have a coed program.

[Stosh]

Dropping the age of Venturing to 11 and making it a Boy Scout program with the MB's and advancement for girls is nothing more than an end-around co-ed scouting that drops the patrol method and boy led from it.

 

It kinda reminds me of the putting lipstick on a pig analogy.

[NJCubScouter]

Dropping the age of Venturing to 11 and making it a Boy Scout program with the MB's and advancement for girls is nothing more than an end-around co-ed scouting that drops the patrol method and boy led from it.

 

One person's "end-around" is another person's "compromise".  And let me ask you this:  As long as Boy Scouts remains all-male, why do you care whether the BSA has a separate program for 11-to-17 year olds that is coed?  Forget the fact that some people want Venturing to be that program. (I don't, because there needs to be a program for older youth.)  The BSA could create a separate program that is exactly the same as a Boy Scout troop, same ages, same ranks and advancement system, same leadership positions, youth-led, same everything except that both boys and girls can join and coed units would have to follow the YP guidelines applicable to coed units, which already exist for Venture crews.  You and I agree that Boy Scout troops should be for boys.  But why not a parallel program?

[Col. Flagg]

 

The BSA could create a separate program that is exactly the same as a Boy Scout troop, same ages, same ranks and advancement system, same leadership positions, youth-led, same everything except that both boys and girls can join and coed units would have to follow the YP guidelines applicable to coed units, which already exist for Venture crews.  You and I agree that Boy Scout troops should be for boys.  But why not a parallel program?

 

Marketing Rule 101: Never create a competing product that cannibalizes your best performing brand. 

[Stosh]

In the late 70's when Exploring was tanking because it was a parallel program to compete with the high school boys where they wouldn't have to hang out with middle school boys.  The powers that were introduced this new program, known as Learning for Life, oops, I mean co-ed Exploring with the career/hobby emphasis.  Now after a wait period they do now call it Learning for Life, but now have the excuse of running a parallel program to compete with the high school boys where they won't have to hang out with the middle school boys, but they have completed the end around introducing the program as co-ed.  Shell-and-Pea marketing.

 

However, now that they have completed the cycle, the girls are asking why can't they be Eagles?  Simple enough question, and like everything else male in the program, that, too, will be worked around.  There hasn't been anything parallel these past 40 years, it has been nothing but jockeying and positioning to accommodate an agenda that's been around a long time and now coming to fruition. 

 

Scouting isn't for the boys anymore, no matter how much we give that idea lip-service.  It's only for the sake the program that needs to be sold/marketed to the public.  There's been a bait-and-switch done on the consumer and they never saw it coming.  Marketing 101.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Stosh

[qwazse]

...

However, now that they have completed the cycle, the girls are asking why can't they be Eagles?...

We always need to be clear about this: some girls are asking why they can't be recognized via the Boy Scout advancement program. The majority of gilrs couldn't care less.

 

This is a matter of special interests. I personally don't think they are malicious. Nor do I think they are morally bankrupt. As far as I can tell, they are mavericks.They are principled. They often don't appreciate the loss of market share.

 

This weekend, a family member asked what I thought of BSA's recent membership changes. I pointed out that 10,000 boys are no longer being served nation wide. She said, "Well, isn't it better to do the right thing? Those numbers wont be missed."

 

As much as I think the "bastion of virtue" mentality held by unisex proponents has multiple shortcomings, I am more certain that the "scorched earth" mentality held by pro-inclusion folks will alienate more than it will ameliorate.

[Col. Flagg]

This is a matter of special interests. I personally don't think they are malicious. Nor do I think they are morally bankrupt. As far as I can tell, they are mavericks.They are principled. They often don't appreciate the loss of market share.

 

This weekend, a family member asked what I thought of BSA's recent membership changes. I pointed out that 10,000 boys are no longer being served nation wide. She said, "Well, isn't it better to do the right thing? Those numbers wont be missed."

 

As much as I think the "bastion of virtue" mentality held by unisex proponents has multiple shortcomings, I am more certain that the "scorched earth" mentality held by pro-inclusion folks will alienate more than it will ameliorate.

 

Apparently "acceptance" only goes one-way. If feel like Inspector Renault in Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked to find that acceptance of transgender only works one-way."

 

http://www.outsports.com/2017/3/20/14983388/transgender-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-wins

[Stosh]

We always need to be clear about this: some girls are asking why they can't be recognized via the Boy Scout advancement program. The majority of gilrs couldn't care less.

 

This is a matter of special interests. I personally don't think they are malicious. Nor do I think they are morally bankrupt. As far as I can tell, they are mavericks.They are principled. They often don't appreciate the loss of market share.

 

This weekend, a family member asked what I thought of BSA's recent membership changes. I pointed out that 10,000 boys are no longer being served nation wide. She said, "Well, isn't it better to do the right thing? Those numbers wont be missed."

 

As much as I think the "bastion of virtue" mentality held by unisex proponents has multiple shortcomings, I am more certain that the "scorched earth" mentality held by pro-inclusion folks will alienate more than it will ameliorate.

 

The point is not whether or not girls want to reach the Eagle rank, it's just that some CAN.  It's no different for boys.  It would seem from the statistics about 95% of them don't care about getting Eagle.  If that be the case, why is the subject even broached?  Reason?  The Oooooh Aaaahhh factor associated with the Eagle pin on a girl.  For some, that's the only goal in the whole process..... just like it is for some of the boys.  At the present time, the political dynamics is more important than preserving the program.  Your mileage may vary.

[MattR]

On a few pages of this thread, people would probably call my program "co-ed" -- and I guess it is.

 

Our sibling den evolved into a Girl Scout Troop, which tried to forge it's own identity and collapsed under the crappiness of GSUSA.  At this point, the GS Troop functions without our Pack as a Patrol (or two, depending as size), where they work of GS Advancement during Den Meeting nights and the Pack Activity during Pack Activity nights.

 

We got a lot of amused looks at a district cub event last year where I had two patrols of girl scouts at it.

 

My take on the matter:

Cubs could go entirely co-ed.  The new program is very "boy" oriented but not gendered as strongly as the old one.  The old one I'd make tweaks for a Cub-Girls program, and designate Den's co-ed.

Boy Scouts should not be Co-Ed, but I'd create a middle school Girls program that is similar.  Alternatively I'd permit a CO to charter Male and Female troops, but not co-ed ones.

 

In our neck of the woods, the major Council Events all invite GSUSA units to participate, and some did.  There was huge excitement when a Girl Scout Troop won a "Chief's Choice" gateway competition at Camporee.

 

I'm just not seeing the issue.  I think it's a regional cultural issue, and Councils should have some flexibility.

 

But it does bug me that our Girl Scout "Troop" sends money to GSUSA instead of BSA, and they'd all drop GSUSA in a heart beat.

 

Caveat: my wife is the Girl Scout Leader, our GS Troop was started as an adjunct.

Our units are very religious in nature, with strong gender separation, so I don't see co-ed patrols/dens in our future anyway.

We don't use the LFL backdoor, doesn't seem trustworthy.  Our events are all "family" events and open to the family members of all unit members.  The participating "girl scouts" are almost always siblings of "boy scouts."  In the few cases where they aren't, we signup and train a girl scout dad as an Adult Leader, and they participate as the Adult Leader's family.

 

It works for us.  When our Boy Scouts visit the Pack campsite and discuss pioneering with Daisy/Brownie girl scouts, it's an utter riot.

Alex, long time no see. Welcome back.

[fred johnson]

Apparently about 30K of the cubs in this year's report are Lions. So there's your answer.

 

Sadly, I'm betting that 30K bump from the new Lion program will cost in Boy Scout numbers.  In addition to all the other challenges, I really think there is a cub scout burn-out thing going on.  It's 5.5 years with heavy adult involvement and very repetitive year after year.  Also, cub scouts was viewed as bow-and-arrow, knife, fire, etc.  Now, it's more entertainment for the little guys.  I really think it's lost it's place.  I even question having Tigers in the pack.  Starting in 2nd grade was the right age.  

Edited March 23, 2017 by fred johnson

[NJCubScouter]

At the present time, the political dynamics is more important than preserving the program.

 

If that were the case, packs and troops would already be coed.  I think National is trying to preserve the program AND allow the "entire family" to participate, at the same time.  Some local people in some areas are trying to do the same thing, like Pack18Alex, whose post quite frankly surprises me a little bit.  It's very clear to me that his pack did not start a "sibling den" for "political" reasons.  They did it because that is what the families in the community wanted.  There are posts scattered between I&P, Open Discussion, Cub Scouts and probably other sections of this forum where people have come up with their own little ways of doing the same thing or something close to it, whether through LFL, Girl Scouts, American Heritage Girls, Frontier Girls or some other method.  Some of them may be good ideas, some may not be.  But it's not some sinister plot to destroy the program.

[Stosh]

It's always easier to rob a bank than it is to earn a wage.