Outside Magazine: Boy Scouts Should Allow Girls

[NJCubScouter]

Our troop has never had a female SM or ASM. In the past there were two female committee members who went camping occasionally (one of whom had to go on any trip that her wheelchair-bound son attended, which was mostly summer camp plus about one weekend trip every two years or so.)  There is one troop around us that has (or had) a female SM.

 

(I guess I should clarify that we have had many female committee members, but only two have gone camping during the time I have been involved with the troop.)

Edited June 28, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[MattR]

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.

 

We had several exchange students live with us and we heard the exact same thing. The difference seems to be the level of trust between parents and kids here vs elsewhere. I see a lot of parents in scouts that very explicitly develop trust with their kids. I also see a lot that are flat out afraid of what their kids will do on their own.

 

Boy led/patrol method/the heart of scouting/whatever anyone wants to call it implies trust between the scouts and adults. Many parents don't trust their kids so scouting has a big challenge. I don't see this having much to do with girls, moms, or previous scouting experience. I've seen moms make it worse but a lot of dads, eagle or not, are also guilty. There were comments on this forum that as soon as girls are let in the male scouters are going to be regularly implicated in sexual misconduct because ... we can't trust girls. I stepped down as SM a month ago and the adults have already started taking over. "We need those tents checked in and the scouts are busy so the adults just decided to do it." I guess we can't trust the scouts anymore. These are all the Eagle scouts that don't trust the boys. A month ago, when I was still the SM, I would have gently asked all the adult Eagle scouts to put the tents down and walk away. I would have asked a few questions of the SPL and then I would have walked away. Not only do I trust the SPL but I trust the system as well.

 

Getting back to the exchange program, those kids have to figure out much much more than any scout I've ever seen. Imagine a 16 year old get on a plane and fly half way around the world and mom and dad are told not to talk to them for the first month. It's not 300 feet, it's more like 10,000 miles. Some kids fail because they won't let go of mom and dad. A few get in trouble. For the most part they learn self reliance.

[TAHAWK]

"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."

 

Which "old" course was that?  Pre-1972 or 1972-2000?

[EmberMike]

Every time this topic comes up, it's always about the bathrooms. 

 

It's not the bathrooms. Never was, never will be. Going co-ed will not hinge on whether all units have proper co-ed facilities. That's a minor detail in a much larger policy change. 

 

I hesitate to open this can of worms, but... Anyone else think there would be far more costly changes that need to be made? I can think of a few possibilities, starting with re-working every handbook. We'd be talking about the book that every single kid has, at every level, millions of books. And leader materials. And we're not just talking about changing the wording to be more gender-neutral. It's reshooting the photos in the books to show girls and boys, re-writing, editing, reprinting and distributing.

 

Even though we pay for the books, there's still a huge cost involved in remaking the content of those books. 

 

And I'm not against co-ed. Just saying the bathroom argument is just plain silly. If anyone is really concerned about the cost involved in going co-ed, it's not the bathrooms you should really be worried about. 

[EmberMike]

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. 

 

I realize you said, "don't use the argument of increasing the declining membership...", so I hate to say it, but...

 

At least in terms of addressing the question of why anyone is willing to change the program, declining membership is a fair place to point to for an answer. And you could apply that answer to any apect of the program, and any type of change, from program to policy and beyond. 

 

When the generation of kids entering scouting today could quite possibly be the last generation of boy scouts in America, I think that's a good reason to want to change something. Anything, really. If the rate of decline we've seen over the last 10 years continues, scouting might not have another 20 years left in it. 

 

Is co-ed the right answer to this problem? Maybe. Maybe not. But at some point we'll get to a place where something major has to be done, even if it's a longshot. There has to be a number at which, if we go below it, National hits the panic button and things really start to change drastically. Surely co-ed is on that list of things to try. 

[AltadenaCraig]

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.

 

Hi, Eagledad/Barry:

This may require its own thread, but I'd like to challenge your assertion that "if the pack program fails, the rest of scouting fails".

 

A recent ScoutmasterCG.com podcast addressed recruiting:  http://scoutmastercg.com/scoutmaster-podcast-342-recruiting-scouts/.  In the episode Clarke Green shares his experience that bridging Webelos correlate less with program retention than does having been asked to join by a current Scout or Scout parent.

 

I'm not challenging your 95% of troop membership figure; I'm inclined to agree with it.  But it doesn't follow that if the pack program fails, the rest of scouting fails.  It just means that if a feeder pack fails, a greater effort to "ask" prospects will be required of Scouts and their parents.

 

To be sure, my own experience as Webelos Den Leader, then Cubmaster, then ASM, and now Scoutmaster is that the more successful a Pack is, the greater the "unlearning" required of their bridging Webelos and their parents when joining a troop that aspires to being Scout-lead.  I've found it much easier to assimilate boys with no Pack history than those who have become used to a "show" featuring parents who do all the work.  Frequently those Webelos and their families are better off bridging to a "Webelos III"-model troop --

-- Craig

Edited July 3, 2017 by AltadenaCraig

[Back Pack]

Every time this topic comes up, it's always about the bathrooms. 

 

It's not the bathrooms. Never was, never will be. Going co-ed will not hinge on whether all units have proper co-ed facilities. That's a minor detail in a much larger policy change. 

 

I hesitate to open this can of worms, but... Anyone else think there would be far more costly changes that need to be made? I can think of a few possibilities, starting with re-working every handbook. We'd be talking about the book that every single kid has, at every level, millions of books. And leader materials. And we're not just talking about changing the wording to be more gender-neutral. It's reshooting the photos in the books to show girls and boys, re-writing, editing, reprinting and distributing.

 

Even though we pay for the books, there's still a huge cost involved in remaking the content of those books. 

 

And I'm not against co-ed. Just saying the bathroom argument is just plain silly. If anyone is really concerned about the cost involved in going co-ed, it's not the bathrooms you should really be worried about.

 

If you read, bathrooms are but one of issues mentioned. All the things you mentioned were pointed out above. But you're wrong about bathrooms. Those and shower facilities are HUGE issues in some councils. In mine there's not one camp that has non-communal shower AND bathroom facilities IN THE SAME LOCATION. So adults have to wait for Scouts. Then adults have their time. No wonder we stop actitivea at 3:30 so everyone can shower before dinner at 5pm. Now add girls? That's TWO more shifts!!! Morning and night. Don't tell me it's not about bathrooms. It sure as heck is!

 

But yes, the other things already me ruined will need to change too.

[RememberSchiff]

Our scouts average 2 showers a week and only if we remind them.

[Back Pack]

Our scouts average 2 showers a week and only if we remind them.

That's just sad.

[qwazse]

The collapse of GS/USA camps in Western PA leaves us with thousands of girls in search of camps to spend summers in. Someone's gonna be building bathrooms for them.

 

I can see some underutilized BSA camps rotating in a Girl Scout week or two.

 

Some GS troops and districts already use our council's facilities for training weekends.

 

Since we already are collecting coin from folks, seems only fair that we build facilities that work for them.

 

We have hired camp staff who got their start in GS camps. So, there's nothing magic about that transition.

 

Basically, I would advise a council to not lift a finger toward revamped facilities until payments from girls are in hand.

 

Same for the handbook and other literature. No point rewriting unless there is proof that girls aren't buying them.

 

There are plenty more pictures of young women in the new venturing handbook ... Hasn't helped me recruit a one of them.

 

Ultimately at is where the "show me the numbers" comes into play. Membership numbers need to be made on real demand, not political posturing. Thousands of girls buying the handbook regardless of their eligibility for the program would speak volumes to me.

[desertrat77]

Showers?

 

Doesn't open swim count as a "bath?"

[Stosh]

Sure does.  There are even those that speak out against using soap that destroys all skin bacteria, even the good ones.  In that case, a dip in the lake is better than soap in the shower.

[DuctTape]

My "summer camp" has been 2+ weeks in the wilderness with no facilities. Toilets were cat holes dug far from camp, we bathed in the lakes. Besides not killing good bacteria, "no soap" also allows the body to equalize in its body oil production. Shampoo in particular strips all oils, and the body reacts. After 2-3 days of rinsing off in lakes (some barely above 50 deg F) hair isn't greasy anymore as the body equalizes.

[sst3rd]

We've always attended mountain camps with cold clear lake water. Yep, go take a swim is the same as a shower. Or maybe a canoe class and accidently fall in. Yep, that counts too.

 

I've learned something new about bacteria and body oil. Go figure.

 

On topic: For all the reasons having been listed, I still want BSA to remain boys only. If it goes co-ed, me and hundreds of volunteers in my area will be gone. That's a fact jack.

[AltadenaCraig]

On topic: For all the reasons having been listed, I still want BSA to remain boys only. If it goes co-ed, me and hundreds of volunteers in my area will be gone. That's a fact jack.

I just returned from a week of backpacking in the Sierras which included several younger (~13-yr-old) scouts. During a layover day we discussed the issue and I posited three "models" of co-ed Scouting: 1) girls sprinkled in all patrols throughout the Troop, call that "full integration"; 2) girls in the Troop but contained in their own patrol(s), call that "girl patrol"; and 3) girls in their own troop, call that "separate charter". I'm curious, sst3rd, if either the "girl patrol" or "separate charter" options would fly with you or the volunteers in your area (as I assume "full integration" would be DOA in your world).

 

FWIW I was surprised my Scouts were strongly supportive of option #2, girl patrols.