Outside Magazine: Boy Scouts Should Allow Girls

[Col. Flagg]

 I have yet to see anyone give any actual examples of what would have to change in the program.  Don't just tell us the program would have to change (and again, remember to keep program separate from administration - I readily admit that there will likely need to be some administrative changes), tell us exactly what you think you would have to change in the program - and why it would need to change. 

 

In several of the exchanges people have stated what would have to change:

• Publications: All BSA publications would need to get rid of male-oriented pronouns at a minimum. 
• Training: Scouters would need to go through a few more training courses. At a minimum YPT would be changed to go through something more aking to what Venturing leaders have to take.
• Facilities: I think we've beat this one to death, but suffice to say councils will need to address this with money they may not have.
• Program: As we have discussed above, some requirements may have to be reviewed for "gender equality". 
• Summer Camp: Currently these programs are designed for all male participants with a small number of female staff and adult leadership. Camps might have to rework schedules for facilities or redesign camps for girl-only, mixed or boy-only troops.

I don't think you can separate "program" from "administration" because the latter can affect the former in many ways.

[Eagledad]

I am, however,  willing to challenge the tropes and memes about how awful Scouting would be and how much would need to change if co-ed Scouting were to take place.  I have no problem challenging anyone's assertion that if girls were allowed in to Boy Scouts, that the program would have to change.  I have yet to see anyone give any actual examples of what would have to change in the program.  Don't just tell us the program would have to change (and again, remember to keep program separate from administration - I readily admit that there will likely need to be some administrative changes), tell us exactly what you think you would have to change in the program - and why it would need to change. 

There has been a lot of logical reasoning to make an intellectual argument presented over the years. So, I think you are presenting yourself to be a bit naive in the tropes and memes on this forum over the years. You were by no means silent through the discussions. You have either chosen to ignore opposing opinions, or, well there is no or. You are ignoring any concern by placing the opposing responses under the category of, "when won't know what will happen until we make the changes".

 

It is still a mystery to me that when the perception of the BSA by the public after a 100 years or so is still one of integrity, some folks want to willingly change that very program. It honestly amazes me. OK,  I get that the Girl Scout program fails where the Boy Scout program succeeds, but does that mean risking the successful program? And please don't use the argument of increasing the declining membership to save the program. If the program is declining under it's own weight now, how in the world would adding more youth fix the cause of the decline in the first place?  The BSA other bigger problems that this change would not even address, let alone fix.

 

Several youth scouting programs in North American have made the program change leap that included accepting membership of the opposite sex. It's not like the BSA would be the first to try this experiment.  I'm an engineer that uses past data to determine future designs. Please point to something that provides some hope of success for such a radical change of a successful program?

 

Believe it or not, I am respected as a pretty open minded and innovative person, in person. I generally like to make changes for gains and don't usually let personal biases get in the way. And those of you on this forum know that I spend a lot of time balancing data to understand trends of the scouting program. I generally don't respond too much on discussions where I don't have experience or knowledge of the subject. So, I'm comfortable in standing against the idea of such a change until someone can present me with some sensible reasoning for the change. I'm even open to other ideas of the BSA getting more involved with girls in the program. But as the direction of the discussion has gone so far, I am not in favor of going coed of the present program.

 

Barry

[qwazse]

Regarding data ... There's the quantitative and the qualitative.

 

Qualitative (although biased through the lens of high functioning scouts - exchange students, jamborees, etc...): these coeds are having a ton of fun. The ill effects of ignoring male mystique are nowhere to be seen. Or, that mystique reappears naturally in groups of kids who self-select into unisex patrols -- no national mandate required. Program remains unchanged (down to the patches in some places: my Italian's shoulder patch still reads "Boy Scouts Italy").

 

Quantitative (although it's mostly perception, not survey results, well maybe a few): there are more parents who will take their boys elsewhere than there are who will be attracted to an American coed program. Venturing is the the test case. Disenfranchised teens of the GS/USA aren't flocking to us in droves. Even in European countries (for which WOSM shared decadal census results) associations lose male membership for a decade or two before regaining past popularity. The exceptions are former communist block countries in which scouting had been banned.

 

So, although I feel BSA is missing out on good things by being so exclusive, I don't see tens of thousands of parents clamoring to bring their youth in. Quantity is a quality all its own.

 

Special interests are notorious for tugging on the qualitative while disdaining the quantitative. That's been my experience with the last membership change. An activist relative asked me if things were any worse after the changes. I said, "60,000 boys worse" (about what we lost over two years).

She replied "You don't need them."

 

The folks writing these article, repeating claptrap, won't make the effort to survey non-scout parents or potential COs about the matter. They just don't care.

[Peregrinator]

I said, "60,000 boys worse" (about what we lost over two years).

She replied "You don't need them."

 

Where is that figure from? Is that just the losses in Venturing? Because the loss in Cubs and Scouts from 2014-2016 is around 85,000.

[Eagledad]

Quantitative (although it's mostly perception, not survey results, well maybe a few): there are more parents who will take their boys elsewhere than there are who will be attracted to an American coed program. Venturing is the the test case. Disenfranchised teens of the GS/USA aren't flocking to us in droves. Even in European countries (for which WOSM shared decadal census results) associations lose male membership for a decade or two before regaining past popularity. The exceptions are former communist block countries in which scouting had been banned.

 

This is reflective of "one" of my concerns. I believe the boy run or patrol method (which ever you want to call it) took a big hit when females were brought in at the troop level. Not because they were female, but because they were a large portion of the adult membership without a youth scouting experience. In my experience, troops of adult leaders with a youth scouting experience have a three year jump on adults without that experience. Scouters with experience simply know how to apply the game to the purpose. Scouters without experience tend focus too much on the purpose and loose the fun of the game.

 

I believe going coed with increase the percentage of unexperienced scouters even farther and push the benefits of patrol method even farther out of the program. Ideally the young women will eventually become scout leaders of the future and percentage of experienced scouters will grow. But I believe that is twenty years down the road and the program will be so watered down by then, Patrol method will be little more than the small groups the scouts are placed in. The benefit of experiences for making independent choices without outside influence will be gone. 

 

To survive, the program will reshape itself so that the youth are having fun and want to continue scouting. But I see the impact of the character growth side of the present program greatly diluted. 

 

Some folks here believe resistance of change is base more from tradition than performance. Being conservative because they are conservative in nature. But learning life by experiencing life is a method of teaching in simple program of outdoor activities is the heart the program, not the outdoors activities themselves. The fear of progressive changes isn't in the tradition of the outdoor program, but in loosing the tool for learning from experience. I have other concerns with a coed program, but if somehow I was assured that the part of the program where the scouts are given the independence of making decisions without an outside influence was still primary to the program, I would feel more ease about going coed. That would require a very strong team of professionals at National who not only understand the power of independence in the program, but the will to resist change away from it. I'm not confident that adults who prohibit carts wagons on camp outs are the right team.

 

Barry

[RememberSchiff]

This is reflective of "one" of my concerns. I believe the boy run or patrol method (which ever you want to call it) took a big hit when females were brought in at the troop level. Not because they were female, but because they were a large portion of the adult membership without a youth scouting experience. In my experience, troops of adult leaders with a youth scouting experience have a three year jump on adults without that experience. Scouters with experience simply know how to apply the game to the purpose. Scouters without experience tend focus too much on the purpose and loose the fun of the game.

 

I believe going coed with increase the percentage of unexperienced scouters even farther and push the benefits of patrol method even farther out of the program. Ideally the young women will eventually become scout leaders of the future and percentage of experienced scouters will grow. But I believe that is twenty years down the road and the program will be so watered down by then, Patrol method will be little more than the small groups the scouts are placed in. The benefit of experiences for making independent choices without outside influence will be gone. 

 

To survive, the program will reshape itself so that the youth are having fun and want to continue scouting. But I see the impact of the character growth side of the present program greatly diluted. 

 

Some folks here believe resistance of change is base more from tradition than performance. Being conservative because they are conservative in nature. But learning life by experiencing life is a method of teaching in simple program of outdoor activities is the heart the program, not the outdoors activities themselves. The fear of progressive changes isn't in the tradition of the outdoor program, but in loosing the tool for learning from experience. I have other concerns with a coed program, but if somehow I was assured that the part of the program where the scouts are given the independence of making decisions without an outside influence was still primary to the program, I would feel more ease about going coed. That would require a very strong team of professionals at National who not only understand the power of independence in the program, but the will to resist change away from it. I'm not confident that adults who prohibit carts wagons on camp outs are the right team.

 

Barry

 

I agree with the first paragraph but for different reasons. My point, if the BSA did not want a coed youth program in the future, then they should have kept all-male leadership. But the BSA could not attract those males because, IMO, the ill-conceived, and later overturned, program changes made at that time. So with trained female leaders, coed scout programs will follow.

 

Your second paragraph, I agree somewhat. I would like to know the percentage of adult leaders today (1million+) who were scouts. Then compare that percentage with 1950, 60, 70, 80, 90, 2000, Back in the day, my troop had only one adult leader, an ASM, who had been a scout. The rest of the men in my troop, there were no women, had considerable outdoor and military experience.

 

There appears to be a considerable number of trained female leaders now and there are also too many former scouts (80's and 90's), now adults, using troop method..

 

IMO, Boy Scout membership continues to decline due to a program which lacks the adventure of old and access to the largest  youth pool - public schools. Note coed, secular 4H, Boys & Girls, school outdoor clubs, and STEM  scouts have access to public schools.

 

My $0.02,

Edited June 28, 2017 by RememberSchiff

[qwazse]

This is reflective of "one" of my concerns. I believe the boy run or patrol method (which ever you want to call it) took a big hit when females were brought in at the troop level. Not because they were female, but because they were a large portion of the adult membership without a youth scouting experience.

 

... if somehow I was assured that the part of the program where the scouts are given the independence of making decisions without an outside influence was still primary to the program, I would feel more ease about going coed.

My acquaintances among international scouts are somewhat baffled by the existing lack of independence of American youth in general. So, I don't think staying unisex is helping to address that concern.

 

I've observed that similarly-aged scouts (male or female) from another country are ready to hum at 60mph while their American peers are puttering about at 25mph. This applies to basic scout skills, knowledge of Baden Powell's writings, uniforming, organizing as a patrol, and that "once a scout, always a scout" attitude. Admittedly, I have a biased sample. (It takes uniquely motivated youth to uproot and study in a strange land for months and years on end.) But, those examples are what put me at ease.

 

What concerns me is talk of bureaucratic hurdles (e.g. revised YPT) that people will throw up as a consequence of coed scouting. Hurdles that have nothing to do with any real need to secure a youth's well-being. But, rather are to mitigate the fears of National's legal consultants. Each such regulation is a nuance that some scouts won't understand. And, it will cause them to lose interest in the program. E.g., overnight camping -- which since 2008 can't be done without adult supervision in the BSA -- some boys in my community do quite well on their own. Why would they want to waste membership $$ on BSA? Well, what if someone says an SM/ASM can't take their co-ed troop to campsites with only one latrine? Those leaders could point to the Brits and any other WOSM group to say this wouldn't be a problem, but if its coded into the American psyche, those examples won't matter.

 

As a result, no matter how much spit and polish we put on a coed program (e.g. open access to boy scout ranks, O/A, etc ...), if it comes with too many hoops, we quickly loose the interest of candidate youth and parents.

Edited June 28, 2017 by qwazse

[Eagle94-A1]

This is reflective of "one" of my concerns. I believe the boy run or patrol method (which ever you want to call it) took a big hit when females were brought in at the troop level. Not because they were female, but because they were a large portion of the adult membership without a youth scouting experience. In my experience, troops of adult leaders with a youth scouting experience have a three year jump on adults without that experience. Scouters with experience simply know how to apply the game to the purpose. Scouters without experience tend focus too much on the purpose and loose the fun of the game.

 

 

I agree 110% with Scouters who were not Scouts as youth being on a 3 year learning curve. I would further the 3-5 years of Cub Scout Leader training makes it worse. 

 

As for the purpose vs. fun comment I definitely see it.  I have parents and some Scouters even, do not understand the purpose of "Game Time," Interpatrol Competition," or whatever you want to call it.  I had one just crossed over Scouter upset because this past camp out was not focused on working on advancement. Instead it was a fun camp out.  Here's the irony: he thought it was the worst camp out in his Scouting career because it was so disorganized, Scouts got wet when they didn't set up the tent properly, etc.  However for those of us in the troop a while, this was the best camp out so far because the Scouts took on the responsibility and worked together. Were their issues, Sure.  BUT THE ADULTS DID NOT HAVE TO INTERFERE! (emphasis)

 

One caveat though. I have seen Adults with youth Scouting experience use the "troop method" instead of the Patrol Method.  Some came up in the 1970s, do not know if the Improved Scouting Program had something to do with it or not,  and some came up in adult run troops.

 

I believe going coed with increase the percentage of unexperienced scouters even farther and push the benefits of patrol method even farther out of the program. Ideally the young women will eventually become scout leaders of the future and percentage of experienced scouters will grow. But I believe that is twenty years down the road and the program will be so watered down by then, Patrol method will be little more than the small groups the scouts are placed in. The benefit of experiences for making independent choices without outside influence will be gone. 

 

 

Agree, and National's training materials do not help. New Scouters are not getting the Patrol Method concept.

 

 

To survive, the program will reshape itself so that the youth are having fun and want to continue scouting. But I see the impact of the character growth side of the present program greatly diluted. 

 

And there is the problem.  In today's highly regimented society, parents do not appreciate the importance of play.

 

 

Some folks here believe resistance of change is base more from tradition than performance. Being conservative because they are conservative in nature. But learning life by experiencing life is a method of teaching in simple program of outdoor activities is the heart the program, not the outdoors activities themselves. The fear of progressive changes isn't in the tradition of the outdoor program, but in loosing the tool for learning from experience. I have other concerns with a coed program, but if somehow I was assured that the part of the program where the scouts are given the independence of making decisions without an outside influence was still primary to the program, I would feel more ease about going coed. That would require a very strong team of professionals at National who not only understand the power of independence in the program, but the will to resist change away from it. I'm not confident that adults who prohibit carts wagons on camp outs are the right team.

 

Alas, I do not think the powers that be understand the importance of the outdoors.

 

Barry

 

 

 

 

My acquaintances among international scouts are somewhat baffled by the existing lack of independence of American youth in general. So, I don't think staying unisex is helping to address that concern.

 

I blame society. Lets face it, when you can be considered a "child" until age 26, that is a major problem. I remember the wife and I in grad school getting letters addressed 'To the Parents of....."

 

I've observed that similarly-aged scouts (male or female) from another country are ready to hum at 60mph while their American peers are puttering about at 25mph. This applies to basic scout skills, knowledge of Baden Powell's writings, uniforming, organizing as a patrol, and that "once a scout, always a scout" attitude. Admittedly, I have a biased sample. (It takes uniquely motivated youth to uproot and study in a strange land for months and years on end.) But, those examples are what put me at ease.

 

What concerns me is talk of bureaucratic hurdles (e.g. revised YPT) that people will throw up as a consequence of coed scouting. Hurdles that have nothing to do with any real need to secure a youth's well-being. But, rather are to mitigate the fears of National's legal consultants. Each such regulation is a nuance that some scouts won't understand. And, it will cause them to lose interest in the program. E.g., overnight camping -- which since 2008 can't be done without adult supervision in the BSA -- some boys in my community do quite well on their own. Why would they want to waste membership $$ on BSA? Well, what if someone says an SM/ASM can't take their co-ed troop to campsites with only one latrine? Those leaders could point to the Brits and any other WOSM group to say this wouldn't be a problem, but if its coded into the American psyche, those examples won't matter.

 

Lots of reasons for the above. Helicopter parenting, adults running their kids lives, etc is one reason why there is a lack of independence. And even in Scouting, I bet you've seen the parents pushing, prodding, and "helping" their Scouts. 

 

As for all the rules and regs, yes the lawyers have gone overboard. However with the sue happy society we live in, I can understand.  I've heard of too many parents threatening lawsuits if their Scout doesn't get Eagle. Heck I personally know 1 Scout whose mom threatened a lawsuit when he completely screwed up his project ( to the point that Scouts are now banned from working with that organization despite 15+ years and numerous projects of cooperation), and the district advancement committee would not give him an extension to do a second Eagle project. Council or national  granted the extension.

 

 

 

As I stated previously, I do not want the program further watered down. I want stuff the Scouts earn to actually mean something, and not just be a participation award. My oldest commented on some of the BSA's advancement policies, as well as some of the practices some summer camps and merit badge universities do.  When he first encountered an issue as a new Scout, he didn't understand. But when someone got Chess MB for just being in a summer camp tournament, he was ticked off. 

[Stosh]

I agree with @qwazse on this one.  I really don't think the issue is co-ed as much as it is quality of program.  Girls will be turned off for the same reasons the boys are now.  

 

The lack of helicopter scouters was a big draw when it came to adventure when I was a scout.  If the troop didn't have a program planned for a weekend my buddies and I had free, we dumped the uniforms and went anyway.  Parental approval trumped the BSA policy anyway.  If they said, "Have a good time," we did.  We may not have had our uniforms on, but we did everything according to the way we were taught in Scouts.

 

Now, all the scouters are whining about helicopter parents and in turn do the helicopter scouter troop method instead.  All the parents say, go have a good time, call if you have a concern give us a call, so then the boys in the patrol dump the uniforms and go camping for the weekend.  End result, the SM refuses to give them "credit" because it wasn't a scouting activity.  Going camping IS A SCOUTING ACTIVITY.  But the national policy works against the boys having the adventure they were promised when they signed up!  

 

Yes, I promote age based patrols and if a patrol of 16-17 year olds, who are all old enough to drive to the campground want to go camping without adults, why is BSA standing in their way?  They are entrusted with a $20,000 car, but can't be trusted to behave themselves in the woods?  I'm thinking they could get in more trouble driving there than once they get there.

 

Until BSA puts real adventure back into the program, things will not get any better.  Watered down skill sets and lack of opportunity are two of the biggest challenges facing the program today.  

 

Reading some of the early literature of the BSA, having boys go on a two week outing into the woods in a desolate place and having the SM show up half way through for a day to see how things were going seemed to be the norm.

 

If we are preparing these boys to be adults, it would be nice to let them try out what they are learning by proving their adult skills before they are 18 and have to use them 24/7/365.  Only in America do we have adolescence that run from 12/13 years of age until 40 in some cases.  Otherwise at 18 we dump them on society, a kid one day, Happy Birthday, you're an adult the next.  Where do they go to learn how to be an adult, if not BSA?  No many kids pick up adulthood through osmosis as our society seems to suggest.

[Stosh]

Oh, by the way, DON'T THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, just think OUTSIDE.  That's were we need to start.

[Eagledad]

Your second paragraph, I agree somewhat. I would like to know the percentage of adult leaders today (1million+) who were scouts. Then compare that percentage with 1950, 60, 70, 80, 90, 2000, Back in the day, my troop had only one adult leader, an ASM, who had been a scout. The rest of the men in my troop, there were no women, had considerable outdoor and military experience.

 

 

Yes, that would be interesting to learn as well. Here is what I know through research, the old Wood Badge course (one example) was designed to teach experienced scouters new methods for teaching scouts. It is that simple. But I remember talking to a Council Wood Badge Course director in 1995 who was frustrated because even the staff resisted the purpose of the course mainly showing teaching techniques and styles. He said that even then the newer generation of staff was becoming more focused on the scouts skills and patrol activities part of the course than the teaching skills part. Nationally, the BSA was finding that adults were going back and turning their troops into copies of the Wood Badge program. Even to the detail that adults were eating meals with the scouts, just like in the course, but not for the same reason. The course syllabus was completely changed.

 

It wasn't just females who were the problem of course, many males without a scouting background were joining the program as well. But, they were a smaller minority before the induction of females and could be assimilated into troop program easily because most of the leaders were experienced.

 

It's uncomfortable talking about female leaders like this because some of them are the hardest most dedicated volunteers in scouting. Many are very close friends who are highly respected. I worked and advised four female Scoutmasters guiding them in patrol method and the value of it's purpose.

 

 

There appears to be a considerable number of trained female leaders now and there are also too many former scouts (80's and 90's), now adults, using troop method..

 

 

I'm sure you are right, I have been out long enough that I couldn't give a fair observation.

 

 

 

IMO, Boy Scout membership continues to decline due to a program which lacks the adventure of old and access to the largest  youth pool - public schools. Note coed, secular 4H, Boys & Girls, school outdoor clubs, and STEM  scouts have access to public schools.

 

A LOT of things are contributing to it's decline, but National is also doing harm to itself. One thing that is important to understand is that 95% of troop membership (give or take) comes from the Packs. If the pack program fails, the rest of scouting fails. And I think most pack leaders will tell you the program is hard work for adults. And it shouldn't be. Without getting into the details again, adult leader burnout is killing the pack program.

 

It's even predictable. When National change the Tiger program in 2000 to required more adult volunteer time, not less, we predicted that the Troop membership would show a decline in about five years. And it did. If the National wants to at least slow down the membership decline, they need to start at the bottom, the pack program. It needs some bold changes. Help the packs and you will help the troops and venturing.

 

Barry

Edited June 28, 2017 by Eagledad

[Col. Flagg]

There appears to be a considerable number of trained female leaders now and there are also too many former scouts (80's and 90's), now adults, using troop method..

I wonder how many units have 2 or more trained female ASMs. We have a medium-sized troop (large for other areas) in a major metro area...and we have three. Most units in this area do NOT have a female ASM. Some only have 1 if any.

 

I cannot imagine what other units in smaller markets have.

[Eagledad]

I wonder how many units have 2 or more trained female ASMs. We have a medium-sized troop (large for other areas) in a major metro area...and we have three. Most units in this area do NOT have a female ASM. Some only have 1 if any.

 

I cannot imagine what other units in smaller markets have.

Really! We usually had at least 2 female ASMs back in 1990s. Our committee was 45% female and typically our CC was female. Our Wood Badge course averages 50/50 male/female participants. Two of our 22 troops in the district had female Scoutmasters at the same time for a couple of years. We are pretty big district in a huge council, so that is a lot of females. I personally coached one female who earned Silver Beaver. She certainly wasn't the first. I kind of though we were normal with councils in the nation.

 

Barry

[Col. Flagg]

Really! We usually had at least 2 female ASMs back in 1990s. Our committee was 45% female and typically our CC was female. Our Wood Badge course averages 50/50 male/female participants. Two of our 22 troops in the district had female Scoutmasters at the same time for a couple of years. We are pretty big district in a huge council, so that is a lot of females. I personally coached one female who earned Silver Beaver. She certainly wasn't the first. I kind of though we were normal with councils in the nation.

 

Barry

 

I am drawing a distinction between trained TC members and trained ASMs, since the latter will be needed to cover the "trained female" requirement that will no doubt be required (as with Venturing today).

 

I would say my district (25+ troops) is the opposite of yours. None have a female SM. Few have more than one female ASM. Many have no female ASMs what so ever. 

 

Maybe we just live in too much of a "good old boy" area.

[qwazse]

I am drawing a distinction between trained TC members and trained ASMs, since the latter will be needed to cover the "trained female" requirement that will no doubt be required (as with Venturing today).

 

I would say my district (25+ troops) is the opposite of yours. None have a female SM. Few have more than one female ASM. Many have no female ASMs what so ever. 

 

Maybe we just live in too much of a "good old boy" area.

Not just that. We have not been able to recruit female ASM's for love nor money. (Okay, we only promised them the undying affection of dozens of boys, and some coffee and chocolate -- which almost counts as currency. )

The moms who've really camped with the troop have done so because their boys have special needs.

Even venturing, I've had one female co-advisor ... my other female chaperons are MCs.

And, I honestly don't believe that my guys are "good old boys". Moms tell us that they are surprised at how open and inviting we are.

 

There is a firm belief 'round here that SM/ASM is "man's work" and I don't think that will change if we go co-ed. That male role-model thing? The parents who would consider the program want that for their daughters as well as their sons. At least, that's the "vibe" I get in our neck of the woods.