Outside Magazine: Boy Scouts Should Allow Girls

[EmberMike]

Facts not in evidence. Are you saying that, by renaming unisex, Cub- and Boy- scouts will not waste millions revamping logo and literature? How's that worked out over the past couple of decades?

 

I said that I think they will spend millions revamping the logo and literature. 

 

 

I would suggest that the boy scouts should not change a stitch of logo if they open to girls, and I'm not just basing this on one Italian exchange student who proudly wore her uniform with its "Boy Scouts Italy". The girls who joined my crew over the years were proud to be members of the BSA.

 

The girls who want to join us want to do so because of who we are and what we offer. Changing logo and literature would represent a level of pandering that would undermine recruitment efforts.

 

I don't think they need to change anything, but they will. Or the change could be gradual. I think it has to be, actually. But knowing how National operates, I think they'll want to fairly quickly roll out a name change and at least a text update to the logo if they go co-ed. If they're going to go co-ed, they'll want the benefits that come along with it, including a (hopeful) membership boost from girls signing up. They'll try to capitalize on that PR with some sort of announcement about the change and likely a name change at least to something more gender-neutral. Scouts of America or something like that. 

 

I don't think they'd mandate that everything change right away. But eventually it will, and it will all cost money at every step, every change in badge, book, document, photo, sign, etc. 

[Col. Flagg]

Facts not in evidence. Are you saying that, by renaming unisex, Cub- and Boy- scouts will not waste millions revamping logo and literature? How's that worked out over the past couple of decades?

 

 

I pointed this out a few days back. BSA would have to re-touch any logo that had the name "Boy Scouts of America", to something like "Scouts of America". Not a major design change, but anything branded "BSA" or "Boy Scouts" would have to be re-produced. All materials would have to re-worded to include girls or make gender neutral. When you think of the plethora of program and training materials this covers, it is quite a large sum of money that would need to be spent.

 

This does not even count the re-work you'd need to do for photography to work in girls, in uniform or otherwise, doing the various activities.

 

Then there's uniforms. That's a whole different problem.

[EmberMike]

So, you are proposing that if passing ships could have handed over their passengers with bailing buckets, the Titanic might have been saved. Hmm, an interesting approach to a successful business models.

 

No, I'm not saying that. I acknowledged in that post that going co-ed might not be a good idea. All I was suggesting is that I can see why National might consider doing it because of declining membership. 

 

Do you really think BSA is a "successful business model" today? I'm not sure I'd call these kinds of drops in membership year after year for more than a decade "successful".

[Col. Flagg]

The scouts do not care about the showers. As long as they take a shower on Friday I don't care either. Move on. Scouts can figure out shower schedules.

 

 

It's easy to be dismissive of this issue unless you've been a camp director. Try pushing 500 plus people of single sex through old, communal, inadequate facilities and stay on schedule for 7 weeks. Now try to do that with another two shifts (adult women, youth girls).

 

Ever wonder why program and dinner runs late at many camps? That's why.

[Eagledad]

Do you really think BSA is a "successful business model" today? I'm not sure I'd call these kinds of drops in membership year after year for more than a decade "successful".

No, that is exactly my point. Fix the problem before adding complications to it.

 

Barry

[qwazse]

I pointed this out a few days back. BSA would have to re-touch any logo that had the name "Boy Scouts of America", to something like "Scouts of America". Not a major design change, but anything branded "BSA" or "Boy Scouts" would have to be re-produced. All materials would have to re-worded to include girls or make gender neutral. When you think of the plethora of program and training materials this covers, it is quite a large sum of money that would need to be spent.

 

This does not even count the re-work you'd need to do for photography to work in girls, in uniform or otherwise, doing the various activities.

 

Then there's uniforms. That's a whole different problem.

Why?  When doing so would further alienate the base and not impress the target membership?

 

Like Mrs. @@Eagledad (if I may gather from the way he described her comment to him), some model of the same sex as her on the BSHB cover would not be enough to attract a disenfranchised Girl Scout to us.

 

More importantly, take away the "Boy", and the girls who we might attract will no longer trust the brand.

 

There is an established (all too rapid, IMHO) cycle for rotating in revised handbooks, etc. I don't see that accelerating because of this.

 

More generally, this is not a merger of two organizations or programs. This is opening a gate for some special interests. That alone should give us reason for skepticism.

 

The if-you-give-a-mouse-a-cookie arguments presuppose that we know how many mice want the cookie to be remixed. I think that's a very small number indeed.

[Col. Flagg]

Why?  When doing so would further alienate the base and not impress the target membership?

Why would they need to make books gender neutral, take out "Boy" from "Boy Scouts" and re-do all the pictures to include girls? Just look at the clamor now about "inclusiveness" going on in schools. If they (BSA) didn't make these changes you could time with an egg timer how long it would take the next complaint about BSA to be logged.

 

Like Mrs. @@Eagledad (if I may gather from the way he described her comment to him), some model of the same sex as her on the BSHB cover would not be enough to attract a disenfranchised Girl Scout to us.

 

More importantly, take away the "Boy", and the girls who we might attract will no longer trust the brand.

 

There is an established (all too rapid, IMHO) cycle for rotating in revised handbooks, etc. I don't see that accelerating because of this.

 

More generally, this is not a merger of two organizations or programs. This is opening a gate for some special interests. That alone should give us reason for skepticism.

 

The if-you-give-a-mouse-a-cookie arguments presuppose that we know how many mice want the cookie to be remixed. I think that's a very small number indeed.

To your points:

• Girls in Pubs: I will grant you (an indeterminant) many won't care if girls are/aren't in the publications, if you will grant me (an indeterminant) many will care.

   

• Dilution of Brand: Agree that taking the word "Boy" out of BSA will degrade the current brand. It is unclear what a re-branded "Scouts of America" (copyright Col. Flagg 2017) would mean to everyone.

   

• Not a Merger: Correct it isn't, but it *is* a wholesale change in the direction of a former boys-only organization. Assuming the local option is what comes, you are still fundamentally changing the program. We had the discussion a few pages back about "administrative" versus "program" changes and I would argue you cannot separate them. Administrative changes (change in requirements) can affect the execution of the program substantially.

Not sure I follow the cookie argument, but sure, I will take a cookie. 

[TAHAWK]

Girls in.  Scouts of America.  Impact on Congressional Charter?

[RememberSchiff]

It's easy to be dismissive of this issue unless you've been a camp director. Try pushing 500 plus people of single sex through old, communal, inadequate facilities and stay on schedule for 7 weeks. Now try to do that with another two shifts (adult women, youth girls).

 

Ever wonder why program and dinner runs late at many camps? That's why.

 

In Northeast, neither program nor meals wait on showers.

[Col. Flagg]

In Northeast, neither program nor meals wait on showers.

 

I've seen it happen and a popular east coast (ish) camp. Facility renovations lead to one facility being out-of-service, so doubling up happened. Showers were missed, meals were missed and the mess hall was open until 10pm due to angry campers.

[NJCubScouter]

I think there is approximately a zero percent chance that the name of the organization will be changed regardless of what other decisions they make. After all, there have been girls in BSA programs for 45 years and it is still the BSA.  "Cub" is a gender-neutral word, so that stays the same.  I guess that for coed and all-girl troops they will come up with a name other than "Boy Scouts."

 

As for changes to handbooks, uniforms, etc., let's remember this is the BSA we are talking about.  They will find a way to do it on the cheap.  And they also know how to spread the pain around, meaning prices for everything will probably go up a little - but they probably would anyway.  They can get away with charging $2 more for registration, $2 more for a handbook (including all the various Cub handbooks), $3 more for a uniform shirt, $5 more for uniform pants, and so forth and so on, and I'm probably being conservative on those numbers. We'll live with it, like we always do.  Who knows, maybe the West knot will go up to $1,050.  

 

I also think there will be something of a transition period after they start letting girls be Cub Scouts and "Boy" Scouts, in which they will phase in handbooks with gender-neutral text, photos of both genders, etc. etc.  They already have a new "printing" of the handbook every year (or almost every year), and they do make tweaks almost every time, and as someone here recently pointed out, sometimes the changes in a new "printing" are so significant that it is almost like a new "edition", they just don't call it that.  I don't think the cost of a change would be anywhere near as significant as some people think.

 

Or to put it another way, there are reasons enough to oppose this change, or to have reservations or concerns about it, or other levels of unease, without adding things that aren't really all that much of an issue.

Edited July 5, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[RememberSchiff]

I've seen it happen and a popular east coast (ish) camp. Facility renovations lead to one facility being out-of-service, so doubling up happened. Showers were missed, meals were missed and the mess hall was open until 10pm due to angry campers.

 

You miss a meal or activity here, short of a camp siren going off, you missed a meal or activity. Keeps things simple and camp schedule on track.

Edited July 5, 2017 by RememberSchiff

[desertrat77]

Speaking as a sample size of one, a dad with a very committed Venture daughter....

 

She doesn't care about gender usage in literature, uniforming, or how nice or primitive a shower facility may be (as long as she gets bathe in due course, of course).

 

Being outdoors, backpacking and boating, with like-minded young men and women--that's why she's in the BSA.

[Stosh]

Girls in.  Scouts of America.  Impact on Congressional Charter?

 

It kinda negates the Charter, and as far as I can tell the political trend for gals is to get the BOY Scout Eagle, not the Scout Eagle, not the same brand, not the same thing in the minds of those getting it.  

[Back Pack]

They've never taken the BOY out of Boy Scouts either. You bet the name will change. It's false advertising. It won't be Boy Scouts anymore.