Girl Scouts react to Boy Scouts considering girls

[Eagledad]

There are many reasons discussed by us progressives on this forum for wanting co-ed scouting. It's not all about thinking male-only scouting is sexist, a viewpoint that I personally do not share. 

Apologies on the commas. I don't think the vast majority here believe that, but it was mentioned by a few active scouters. Which is why the discussion it bizarre to me. How can adults who really think that Boy Scouts is bad for boys become Scout leaders. Trolls maybe.

 

Scouting works very well when it is used as designed. But I truly wonder how many units today function as designed. I sure don't feel any love from National with their support. Maybe it's right for the BSA to turn into an after school camping program at this time him our culture because it seems to have lost its soul. I hope the name is changed so that we scouts and scouters of this program can identify our experience under different specific program.

 

Barry

[RememberSchiff]

You lost me on the first. My expert says that pre puberesent youth (both GIRLS and boy) learn 90% (give or take) of their behavior by watching dominating role models. AND that effect doesn't have near as much impact when the role models are the opposite gender, which is why I'm not in favor of female scoutmaster for a boys patrol.

 

It's no like this stuff is new, there are literally hundreds of studies that support the high impact of girls and boys learning when they aren't in coed groups. I can only conclude that emotion drive adults to act in the against nature.

 

Even worse is the idea that the only way a boy can politely and productively interact with girls is mixing them together on campouts. That makes no sense to me at all.

 

Barry

 

I agree. A child  who is NOT taught to self-advocate and who does NOT learn to interact with diverse groups will develop more within a group of his/her "own kind".  But f we claim to teach lessons for life, we should be teaching the former.  It sure has worked for my son.

 

Another $0.02

[Eagledad]

I agree. A child  who is NOT taught to self-advocate and who does NOT learn to interact with diverse groups will develop more within a group of his/her "own kind".  But f we claim to teach lessons for life, we should be teaching the former.  It sure has worked for my son.

 

 

Scouting is the only place for a youth to learn how to interact with diverse groups? Youth spend their whole day interacting with diverse groups. Where does it say that scouting's goals are to teach interacting with diverse groups? Scouting's goals are to guide young men in the habit of using law and oath in all their decisions "ALL THE TIME AND TO ALL PEOPLE. I am convinced by my personal observations that a moral decent mannered "role model" has far more impact on a boy developing habits of a moral decent mannered person to all people then mixing that same boy in diverse groups hoping for the same conclusion. 

 

Of course the answer is making sure even coed programs have moral decent mannered role models. But as I learned and witnessed, human nature doesn't have the equal respect for opposite gender role models. It's a simple truth that women are different from men. Learning those difference in the nurturing atmosphere with the proper role model encourages the kinds of natural behavior that is required for a positive interaction.  

 

I detest the implication that single gender organizations are morally wrong as suggest by many so call progressive minded idealist.

I detest the idea that a single gender youth organization is less capable of building men of integrity. 

And I detest the sacrifice of a program that can have so much impact on a boy going into manhood simply because of pop-culture idealism.

 

I also detest allowing a small group of individuals to direct this change in a program with the tradition of building integrity in its youth without feeling any accountability is required. 

 

Barry

[Sablanck]

Yet no one asked the GS director why some girls were wanting to join BSA.

Or why their product may be deficient leading girls to want to join BSA

[NJCubScouter]

This actually is a much "milder" statement than I expected from the GSUSA.  It doesn't include the words "we'll sue", for example.  On the other hand, the statement quoted in the article is from a GSUSA council, not their National.  I suspect that discussions are going on there about how to deal with this, whether on a legal basis or a public relations basis or both.

[Rick_in_CA]

I detest the implication that single gender organizations are morally wrong as suggest by many so call progressive minded idealist.

I detest the idea that a single gender youth organization is less capable of building men of integrity. 

And I detest the sacrifice of a program that can have so much impact on a boy going into manhood simply because of pop-culture idealism.

 

I also detest allowing a small group of individuals to direct this change in a program with the tradition of building integrity in its youth without feeling any accountability is required.

And I detest the constant implication by some people that those who advocate for coed scouting "don't care about the boys", or "hate the program" or are "pandering to some external pressure group" or are "out to destroy boy scouts" or "aren't real scouters", etc. All of which basically breaks down too "you are morally bankrupt for suggesting it".

 

Can we discuss this without implying the other side is somehow not legitimate?

[Stosh]

Hmmmm..... I wonder if we might be asking the wrong question.  Was BOY Scouts meant to teach boys what to do to interact with the adult world male/female, or was it meant to build the leadership and character so that when situation arose, they would make carefully thought out moral decisions in life.

 

With the feminization of the society since the late '60's, it is somewhat difficult to define the male role in the society of today.  I'm thinking it closely relates to the old screen door on a submarine analogy.  I'm sure the new gals coming in will be more than happy to clue the boys in on what that means.

 

Parents, especially single moms, wanted strong male role models for their sons without fathers.  Well, we offered them female SM's, then homosexual men, and now a co-ed environment.  I'm thinking people aren't looking for the "strong male role models for their sons", in the BSA program anymore.

[Col. Flagg]

And I detest the constant implication by some people that those who advocate for coed scouting "don't care about the boys", or "hate the program" or are "pandering to some external pressure group" or are "out to destroy boy scouts" or "aren't real scouters", etc. All of which basically breaks down too "you are morally bankrupt for suggesting it".

 

Can we discuss this without implying the other side is somehow not legitimate?

No one who defends "Boy Scouts for boys" needs to imply anything from the posts of those who wish to erase the boy from Boy Scouting. We can imply it from your posts.

 

You can't be a little bit pregnant. It's either Boy Scouts or coed Scouting.

[Stosh]

I like your YPT analogy, Col.

[Col. Flagg]

I stand corrected. We can't imply anything from their posts...but we can infer it.

 

I'm Texan, my English ain't so great...but my BBQ is.

[qwazse]

No one who defends "Boy Scouts for boys" needs to imply anything from the posts of those who wish to erase the boy from Boy Scouting. We can imply it from your posts.

You can't be a little bit pregnant. It's either Boy Scouts or coed Scouting.

Unless it's fewer and fewer boys. Then it's no scouts.

 

Now, I'm fairly convinced that the folks arguing for inclusion are special interests. They have not offered any proof that they represent more than a hundred constituents chomping at the bit to work the program. They also haven't argued that girls are also in need of male role models, so their intent strikes me as out of touch with the parents who I know might be interested in what we could offer their girls.

 

I've said before that 10,000 girls wanting to enroll would be someone to heed. Not because of the numbers (although an influx that large would impress), but for the possibility that they might bring 5000 boys who would otherwise not join.

 

We can speculate that unisex is better than coed. But all of that speculation is without clear benchmarks. (Like, say, Johnny will take a year longer to master first class skills in a coed patrol.) All of that could be managed by a mixed unit by providing them reliable data on norms and exceptions and allowing them to make informed decisions on how they segregate the sexes in their unit. So such rants, to me, are only of consequence so long as parents nationwide prefer their boys to be in unisex packs and troops. When that changes, and I don't think it has, coed starts to sound better than no-Ed.

[Col. Flagg]

Pretty sure my math is good enough that a 3% annual decline of 2.3m members is slower than a 7% annual decline of 2.3m members.

[F-P]

Col,

What do the 3 and 7% refer to please?

[Rick_in_CA]

I'm Texan, my English ain't so great...but my BBQ is.

Mmmm... BBQ! Wait, why am I suddenly hungry?

[Col. Flagg]

Col,

What do the 3 and 7% refer to please?

Since 2000 we've lost 3% of our membership each year. After the policy change in 2013 it increased to 7%...more than doubled our losses. The change was designed to stop our losses.