Outside Magazine: Boy Scouts Should Allow Girls

[Stosh]

Nnnnn,,,, the Explorer program is beginning to wither on the vine.  Things don't bode well for it.  Okay, let's go co-ed with it.  Okay, they did and it was great for a while.  Career Posts and General Interest Posts popped up all over the place.  (I know, I started 40+ of them in one council working part time.)  After time, it began to wither again so BSA split the career Posts off into Learning for Life and the General Interest Posts they re-branded into Venturing High Adventure Crews.  We all know the results of how that has withered.

 

Now, one must wonder, why does the BSA want to take the declining program of Venturing, with it most mature level scouts, and do the same thing to the other programs it has?  Could it be that "family" is code word for more and more adult directive and leadership seeping into it?  It will help with the Cubs because mom and dad won't have to find child care for daughters, just bring them along with the sons.  Quick fix on two counts.  And eventually when BSA finds out that mom and dad weren't interested in that in the first place, they can move the problem over to Boy Scouts.  The adult led model "shows" impressive results and the boys don't have to do anything other than "have fun".  Of course the daughters that were in Cubbing will need to be transitioned over into the new Family/Boy Scout program too.

 

We've been boiling the frog for over 40 years.  It's just that no one has really been paying attention. 

 

One other thought: When Exploring went co-ed, female adults were added to the roster.  Cubs has always had female leadershp, no problem.  They carried over into the co-ed Venturing and then for some unbeknownst reason they were introduced into the all boy program of Boy Scouts. Does that mean the need for them when Boy Scouts go co-ed, they will ready be available?  Who knows what lurks in the minds of those at National? 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Stosh

[Gwaihir]

 

 

When I discussed this with 3 individuals who have an interest in girls coming into the BSA, All three said they would do the separate but equal units on paper, but ignore it in practice. If BSA wants to be "Family Friendly" they will need full integration. Otherwise we will be boil;ng a frog.

 

A Scout is Trustworthy is probably the most disregarded of the Law.  Why bother having a law that one is supposed to live by, when in the very program you're running.... you're blatantly untrustworthy.  The "values" of scouting are dead and buried when you have leaders like that.  Might as well just let the whole organization burn to the ground in the name of social justice at that point.   

Edited August 4, 2017 by Gwaihir

[Tampa Turtle]

We have one (terrific) mom who also is active duty marine and lawyer who specializes in sexual discrimination cases in the USMC. We previously had 'discouraged' moms from coming on camp-outs and she sweetly asked to see where in the BSA policy that was supported because that would surprise her. Well now we have moms on the Boy Scout camp-outs*. I am pretty sure that there will be other mom's who will push their girls to be in the boys program pretty quick and I am sure that council and national will fold lightning fast. 

 

 

*(This does piss off some existing ASM wives as they were tolerant enough of the boys club but not their husbands enjoying themselves around other ladies.)

[NJCubScouter]

The "Finnish Model" as I call a coed Cub Scout program, separate Boy Scouts and Girl Guide programs, and coed Venturing program, will not work in this country. Here are a few reasons.

...

 

I agree with your reasons # 1 and 2 and I agree that there is at least a 50 percent chance of # 4 happening as well.  If your post was in response, I was just saying what I think National is going to do.  I was not giving an opinion on whether it would "work" or not.

 

There seem to be four possibilities here, and I don't want my numbers to get tangled with your numbers, so I am using letters:

 

A.  Local option for coed or girls-only Cub packs, local option for coed or girls-only troops.

B   Local option for coed or girls-only Cub packs, local option girls-only troops, but not coed.

C.  Local option for coed or girls-only Cub packs, no program for girls between Cubs and Venturing.

D.  No change at all.

 

I think D is off the table at National.  C may also be off the table, and even if it is still being considered, I strongly doubt that will be the choice.  I think A is off the table, or at least I am giving the CSE the benefit of the doubt when he says it is.  Which leaves B.  I understand that you and some others here believe that B will effectively turn into A, either with or without National's approval.  But it is also possible that B would not turn into A, or it would turn into A in some places and not in others.  So if you don't support coed troops, I think B is still better than A.

[qwazse]

@@NJCubScouter, you might be right. Because with

A, there would no extra rechartering fee for a CO to add girls to any of its existing boys' program;

B, there would be a new rechartering fee if every CO who wants girls in their boy scout program;

C, there would be two new rechartering fees ever CO who wants girls in both their cub- and boy- scout programs; and

D, the rechartering fees remain at existing levels (depending on how many CO's are content to field cub- and boy- scouts as currently constituted).

 

My preference is obviously A, because it keeps national off of scouters' backs, allowing the boots-on-the-ground latitude in implementation, and norming to occur at round-tables and camporees. If not A, then stick with D until the nation's ready. But, what are the chances BSA is not in this for a fast buck?

[walk in the woods]

A Scout is Trustworthy is probably the most disregarded of the Law.  Why bother having a law that one is supposed to live by, when in the very program you're running.... you're blatantly untrustworthy.  The "values" of scouting are dead and buried when you have leaders like that.  Might as well just let the whole organization burn to the ground in the name of social justice at that point.   

 

IDK, one of the things I learned a long time ago is effective leaders don't give orders they know won't be followed.  

 

If the BSA makes the separate-but-equal decision.  What's a CO to do when they get 3 girls interested?  Seems like their choices are:

 

- Send them 15 miles away to a different troop, separate from the one their brothers and other friends are in, defeating the purpose of the change

- Ignore the policy and go co-ed.

 

I think the BSA likes it when their policies are challenged from the ground up, it gives them an out from making tough decisions.  Whether one agrees with the coming membership change or not, it seems like the only reasonable option is full local option; boys-only, girls-only, co-ed, take your pick.  It's basically the same as the venturing model today, dovetails with the decisions in 2013 and 2015, and probably minimizes the progressive outrage compared to the stand-pat or separate-but-equal options.

[NJCubScouter]

...and probably minimizes the progressive outrage compared to the stand-pat or separate-but-equal options.

 

Again with the "progressive outrage"... or "outside agitators"... or "outside pressure"... or whatever.

 

Does anyone really think that, at this moment in our nation's history, the gender composition of the BSA is even on the radar screen of most "progressives"?  There are many, many more pressing issues to be concerned about. As for the "girls" issue, there are a few people here and there, outside the BSA, who are talking about it, and there is a girl here and four girls over there who have gotten some publicity for their efforts to join the Boy Scouts.  This change is really being driven by National, for their own reasons and not someone else's agenda, and some local Scouters (probably not a majority) who are already creating their own unauthorized coed units (mostly Cub Scouts.)

[Eagle94-A1]

Oh there is outside pressure for the change. But as noted also a lot of internal pressure for the change.

 

When BSA goes fully coed, I prefer what I call "The English Model of 1995." Units have the choice of coed,all male, or all female. IMHO that is to solve this problem and get back to work to caring for our boys who are currently in the program, and anyone else who joins as a result.

[Col. Flagg]

Again with the "progressive outrage"... or "outside agitators"... or "outside pressure"... or whatever.

 

Does anyone really think that, at this moment in our nation's history, the gender composition of the BSA is even on the radar screen of most "progressives"?  There are many, many more pressing issues to be concerned about. As for the "girls" issue, there are a few people here and there, outside the BSA, who are talking about it, and there is a girl here and four girls over there who have gotten some publicity for their efforts to join the Boy Scouts.  This change is really being driven by National, for their own reasons and not someone else's agenda, and some local Scouters (probably not a majority) who are already creating their own unauthorized coed units (mostly Cub Scouts.)

 

Yes. Yes I do think ANY organization that is perceived as being a bastion of white, "privileged", religious people is INDEED a target of progressives. The facts of how these organizations, media and Democratic party has acted over the last eight years is proof of this.

 

A better question is where have you been the last eight years to think that this ISN'T an issue?

[walk in the woods]

Again with the "progressive outrage"... or "outside agitators"... or "outside pressure"... or whatever.

 

Does anyone really think that, at this moment in our nation's history, the gender composition of the BSA is even on the radar screen of most "progressives"?  There are many, many more pressing issues to be concerned about. As for the "girls" issue, there are a few people here and there, outside the BSA, who are talking about it, and there is a girl here and four girls over there who have gotten some publicity for their efforts to join the Boy Scouts.  This change is really being driven by National, for their own reasons and not someone else's agenda, and some local Scouters (probably not a majority) who are already creating their own unauthorized coed units (mostly Cub Scouts.)

Well, the entire conversation started with an article in a fairly known magazine.  A quick google search for Sydney Ireland finds a change.org petition and articles in the last 6 months from Huffington Post, NPR, Affinity Magazine and Scouts for Equality.  Another search for BSA considering girls finds a few more articles from NBC, home of that anti-BSA writer whose name I forget.  And there was a divisive speech recently at the Jambo, or so I hear .  So yeah, if not pressure there's certainly some press.  But, even if there was no pressure from outside and no press, if the BSA adopts a separate-but-equal standard, it will be a PR disaster.  BSAs leadership will be lampooned from every political angle.  If there isn't outrage right now, there will be if that's the given solution.

[Stosh]

Even with the local option, there will be repercussions.  Camporees used to be a great thing in our council.  This last fall camporee our District didn't have one and the district next door had 4 troops attend.  I don't know what happened with the other district.  If traditional troops don't like the co-ed option, they simply boycott council and district activities, and that would include summer camps.  We have troops already doing that and it will only escalate to those sitting the fence. 

 

"You want summer camp or high adventure this summer?"  Let the boys decide.  Summer camp his history! 

[NJCubScouter]

Well, the entire conversation started with an article in a fairly known magazine. 

 

Actually, the entire conversation (about girls in the BSA) has been going on for at least 45 years - long before Sydney Ireland was born.

 

As far as "separate but equal" being a PR disaster, maybe so, but if you listen to the CSE's presentation, we are heading for either "separate but equal" or "separate and unequal" at the Boy Scout age level.  I would think "separate and unequal" would be even more of a PR disaster, and it is a disaster that is easily avoidable.  By "unequal" I am mainly talking about the two issues that the CSE mentioned as still being up in the air for a new program, namely whether girls will earn Eagle and whether girls will join the OA.  Although from a public perception standpoint, the real issue is Eagle, because I doubt that very many people outside the BSA even know what the OA is.  So "equal" would mainly mean allowing girls to earn Eagle.

[NJCubScouter]

But, what are the chances BSA is not in this for a fast buck?

 

You're even more cynical than I am, which is a difficult task.  But I agree (except maybe for the "fast" part.)  This is what I have been saying all along.  They want more membership and the money that comes with it.

[Sablanck]

I was discussing the earning of Eagle by girls with others and they were open to girls being allowed to earn Eagle if they did it in Venturing, Sea Scouts, Exploring and not in Boy Scouts.

So it seems they just dont want the girls in the Boy Scouts.

What we do for girls from 11-13 I dont know.

OA seems a non issue.  Once you are 21 and meet the requirements for adult OA candidate doesn't matter if you are female or male.

I am not OA so I dont know all of the rules and so many adults who are venturing leaders both male and female in the OA I guess I assumed venturing aged females could get in now.

[Back Pack]

I just got the survey. They are most certainly looking to open Cubs to girls, Boy Scouts to girls, and OA to girls. They also clearly asked about girls making Eagle. If they goes this route I'm done with scouting.