OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE: Girls as Youth Members, All Programs

[King Ding Dong]

Wow, just wow. Never thought this would actually happen and still absorbing it. I really wonder how hard GSUSA is going to fight this. Maybe they have more important things to worry about.

 

One positive outcome might be forcing troops back to the Patrol Method, provided they don't go with co-ed patrols at some point.

 

I really need to hang around these parts more often again. Interesting times.

[shortridge]

There is a point when this culture of total inclusiveness becomes a conduit for outright bigotry. We are there.

Bigotry? Sorry, this ain't that.

 

To use your YMCA example:

Men can still have their good ol' boy clubs.

Christians can still have their churches.

Young people can still associate with other young people.

 

As society changes, so do organizations like the BSA and the YMCA.

 

It isn't bigoted against men or Christians to open up an organization to women and Jews and Muslims. It's simply a change in values of an organization and its members.

 

The same applies to the BSA. There's no bigotry in any of the recent decisions against straights, cisgender folk, or boys.

What's changed have been the values. Anti-gay and anti-women values have fallen by the wayside. America is open to all. It's taken Scouting a while, but it's followed.

 

I look forward to seeing how our new Scouts are going to lead. The kids are all right.

 

But to claim that you are a victim of bigotry because your views are suddenly in the minority? That's simply bad logic.

[Sentinel947]

You're kidding, right?  You do know that West Point Cadets are just colege students with uniforms and enforced discipline, right?  There has been a lot more study into the human brain since Freud and Jung.  Its pretty much accepted in the field that humans don't have fully developed emotional minds until at least 25 - and that pretty much leaves out traditionally aged college students, including West Point cadets.

 

Can confirm as a 24 year old, I still make really stupid decisions. Can also confirm as an ROTC cadet that a bunch of us made a whole bunch of really stupid decisions between 18-22 while in school. Sometimes I looked around and realized... "Holy **** some of these people will be leading soldiers next year...." 

 

I've been on board about adding girls for a while. I've seen foreign units and it definitely changed my opinion on the issue. I'm glad that the current situation will allow for single gender units, because I do think there is some value there. 

 

To those who are considering leaving because of this.... I want to thank you for what you've done for Scouting in your communities, and across the country through your participation here. I hope you will reconsider leaving the BSA, and this forum. You've made a positive impact on the lives of hundreds of young men. 

 

To those of you that are excited for this change. We have a big challenge ahead of us. The BSA doesn't manage these things terrible well, so we are in for quite a treat.... 

Edited October 12, 2017 by Sentinel947

[Gwaihir]

 

 

This weekend my troop will camp and tour West Point, USMA.  My boys will see a unity among cadets male and female, and a mutual respect regardless of gender.

 

Why can't BSA offer the same?

 

ps, be sure to share this with your troop.  it's rather shameful and shocking.  

 

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/10/exclusive-former-west-point-professors-letter-exposes-corruption-cheating-and-failing-standards-full-letter/

[numbersnerd]

Going by the majority of the responses in the boyscouts and bsachief Twitter feeds, the BOD really didn't exactly have the pulse of the general public on this.

 

Another example of how the professionals are completely out of touch with their core constituency.

I get it, the major factor was to generate more revenue. To keep themselves employed. So it that sense it was an entirely self-serving move.

But that isn't what their purpose is supposed to be. They are supposed to be in service to US, those who sign our sons up, volunteer, donate and support a program for boys.

The ironic thing is that it is entirely possible this accelerates the decline and shortens their tenure. What a nice legacy. "I was there when they turned out the lights and locked the door for the last time."

 

Now with this change is it possible for someone to challenge and revoke the Congressional Charter? It explicitly states,"...the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others..."

You can argue that yes, it will still serve boys. But between the purpose of the charter and the very purposeful name BOY Scouts of America, how likely is it that someone will attempt (most certainly in the near future) and succeed (that's the real question) in getting the charter revoked? The argument being they have strayed from or abandoned the stated purpose in the charter.

 

The resultant effect is that if this were to happen, would it then be possible for other organizations to use the imagery and terminology (Scouts, Scouting, et al) to promote their program if it passes muster with the WOSM? I've seen the sentiment that for Scouting to get back on track, the volunteers need to take the program back. This would be the beginning of that effort I would think.

 

Just musing.

Edited October 12, 2017 by numbersnerd

[Eagle1993]

@@numbersnerd ... interesting that someone with your handle is referencing tweets as a legitimate guide on the pulse of the public. I think you could keep the number part but fellow nerds may need to pull that card. In my district meetings, my own pack and a couple of other councils I have family in... the volunteers and leaders have been nearly 100% in favor of this change. That said, I wouldn't state that as a true summary of opinion across the entire BSA. You really need to look at the surveys they collected and adjust for the actual BSA demographics to actually get any true reference... and I doubt that wil be shared. I will only say that this is a large country with a significant diversity of opinions. I question anyone claiming to know what the majority of BSA members or non members believe or will act on without survey data. I would also state that sometimes changes should be made for the long term health of an organization even if there is significant debate from its current members.

[numbersnerd]

@@numbersnerd ... interesting that someone with your handle is referencing tweets as a legitimate guide on the pulse of the public. I think you could keep the number part but fellow nerds may need to pull that card. In my district meetings, my own pack and a couple of other councils I have family in... the volunteers and leaders have been nearly 100% in favor of this change. That said, I wouldn't state that as a true summary of opinion across the entire BSA. You really need to look at the surveys they collected and adjust for the actual BSA demographics to actually get any true reference... and I doubt that wil be shared. I will only say that this is a large country with a significant diversity of opinions. I question anyone claiming to know what the majority of BSA members or non members believe or will act on without survey data. I would also state that sometimes changes should be made for the long term health of an organization even if there is significant debate from its current members.

 

As far as tweets being a "legitimate" source of info, care to share anything tangible that yields anything either way, in favor or opposed? Sure, it may only be an ad hoc sample of responses to the change, but it the absence of anything else, ya gotta go with what ya got. And sorry to tell you, Twitter traffic is more telling than you realize. A whole sub-industry thrives on it. While it is easy to say that the unhappy will be more willing to vocalize their opinion, the response timing, likes, re-tweets, and traffic volume compared to past events (issued tweets)  carries significant weight in evaluating reception. But not sorry if my handle doesn't jive with your sensibility and allows me an opinion based on casual observation and past experience. 

 

What really IS interesting is that this whole scenario seems like a repeat. 

Just like the claims of overwhelming support for past membership standard changes. And how it was going to be so great. And how it would be more inclusive and translate into huge membership surges. And it would solve all sorts of problems.

Tell us, how has that turned out?

 

And my experience is the polar opposite of yours. I have not found anyone, Scouter, parent, or Scout in favor of this change.

 

As for opinions within the current membership, you will never have access to that data. Simply because a true survey was never done. Yes, a survey WAS done, but not a real one. A true survey would have been inclusive of all Scouters at a minimum. Again, not a single person I have discussed this issue with was invited to participate. Indeed, most were not even aware this was a current topic.

 

But debate? That's another topic altogether, but make no mistake, there was no debate. The discussions here do not count.

[ianwilkins]

My pennyworth from my UK perspective...

 

Seems like only a few weeks ago, okay, July is the earliest conversation I've seen, where you were being "consulted" about membership changes. And here we are three months later and it's a done deal? Yes, I can see why some of you have woken up a bit sore this morning. If it's any consolation, UK Scout Association have done the much same in the past. And yes, it upset people then too.

 

Now, it's tricky for me, as I haven't been in a single gender group in scouting since I left scouts and joined ventures in 1986 aged 15ish. There's been a hell of a lot of water under the bridge since then. I'm now a leader of an explorer unit that's about 50/50 boys/girls. So from a leader perspective I have no experience of running a single gender section.

 

For me, I see some of the younger sections, and it's obvious that some of the boys don't want to be there (they've mostly all left by explorer age, 14). Parents force them along because "it'll be good for them" or "dad was a cub" or whatever. On the other hand, the girls (and parents) tend to be making a concious choice of "this is something I (or my girl) will enjoy". So the girls you will get should be engaged and enthusiastic. "One volunteer is worth ten pressed men".

 

For me, mixed scouting is just scouting, the boys and girls develop together, are friends, mutual respect, scout values are scout values at the end of the day. I wouldn't have it any other way, but then, I know no other way.

 

It seems unlikely to be a membership panacea, if the UK is anything to go by, you won't suddenly see 100,000 new members (and their fees) walking through the door.

 

It'll be an interesting (as in "may you live in interesting times" - arabic curse) road ahead. Bumpy at times I suspect. If I'm around I'll try and help where I can.

 

Ian

[Tampa Turtle]

I get where you're coming from, but it has to be said...

 

Because that's how it turned out with past membership revisions?    

Touche'

[Tampa Turtle]

Yes, Boy Scouting is dead.

 

I'm not saying that the business of BSA will go under. I'm sure that BSA will continue to operate in some shape, manner, or form. But the Boy Scouts as I knew it is dead.

 

I went through the same heartbreak a few years back with the YMCA when it stopped being Young, Men, or Christian. 

 

This announcement has hit me hard. I feel like a real chump for having ever supported them.

Me too. 

 

 'Things fall apart; the center cannot hold'

[Tampa Turtle]

Okay debate points made.

 

Where is the transition plan and its goals or will National pay an outside consultant firm to produce one in the next 3 months (God help us)?

 

First I apologize for any bitchy un-scout like comments yesterday. I care a lot about this stuff and I found Nationals timing off. 

 

An issue with me, and it is a big issue, is how National rolled this out. Obviously they were going to do this...how many females suddenly started appearing in pictures of the scouting magazines, the meetings at Council were really about 'exploring an option' but seemed like a one-sided sell job. Why did they not take the time to include a FAQ of the issues confronted at the local level. We are the front lines and at my Troop things started LAST NIGHT. (One mom wanting to know if her 15 year old daughter in Venturing can join the Troop in January, our Scout Master and one of a neighboring Troop {and guys who have commanded and experienced integrating females into military and LEO units} stating they will not continue next year, several parents emailing they may quit including a Life Scout's, and both our Committee Chair and Life to Eagle Coach saying they will leave. And we are pretty mixed unit politically and socially. It was a rough night and we still have not heard from the boys. I do know my two Eagle boys have recently aged out said they now will not continue their plans as young ASM's and they love Scouting.)

 

So now I must trust National to continue to provide a youth-led, patrol driven, outdoor oriented program? Will they bend away from that as well? Will Duty to God become a local option as well? They withdrew a HUGE amount of trust by the way they did this. It has been hard enough as it is to deliver a traditional program with National's Merit Badge Academies, etc.

 

I am a feminist. I have a female boss and a female director. I am a commie liberal Obama loving Democrat. But I think there is a valid, respectable argument to having Boy only scouting and a national discussion on the best way to handle it. We never had a chance to have that. National made the change and get the kudos and Locals will have to clean up the resulting mess.

 

I feel I must question Irving's reliability and competence. I actually feel sorry for the professional scouters at Council as they will be caught in the middle.

[Tampa Turtle]

( I stole this from a Monk acquaintance of mine)

 

The dissenter is always most loyal

“Dissent†is one of the more difficult dimensions of public discourse to define. It’s not the same as the political sparring that is expected of political parties—even required at some level—if a republic is to be a republic. And yet, dissent is easy to recognize. Dissent comes out of the depth of the heart and exists only in service to what both sides say they are committed to preserving.

It comes out of a soul in anguish over life that must be bartered in the process of saving it.

Most of all, dissent always has a place and a time and a face we do not expect to see in this place at this time. It has the character of exactly what the institution wants most to produce: total loyalty and complete identification. The problem is that both sides define their one same loyalty differently. The establishment is always loyal to the very institutionalism of the institution in question. The dissenter is always most loyal instead to what the institution itself claims to be about.

As a result, loneliness is at the very heart of dissent. Loneliness is its character and isolation is its cost: it is one young man facing a row of tanks in Tiananmen Square. It is the pacifist Dorothy Day on a hunger strike in a Washington jail for having the temerity to protest on behalf of women’s suffrage at the gates of the White House. It is Rosa Parks refusing to get out of her seat on a public bus. It is the few who hold out against total dissolution of the highest ideals of any institution.

—from “The Woman Who Wouldn’t: When Vision Gives Voice to Dissent,†by Joan Chittister, in Not Less than Everything,

[krypton_son]

It seems like nothing but a money grab to me.  Boy Scouts has been hemorrhaging members in the last decade.  After they announced that gay and "transgendered" kids could be in, their numbers dropped significantly.  Now they're getting scared so they figure that they'll cater even more to the pressure of the left and allow girls.  What they don't realize is that Scouting is so far from what it was originally and has lost so much of it's focus and meaning.  Doing this just furthers that.  Next thing they'll remove God from Scouting, then guns, etc.  Until it's unrecognizable by anyone.  It makes me ashamed to be a part of it anymore.  When did exclusivity become such a bad thing to so many?

[RememberSchiff]

National trustworthiness and leadership in the decision-making and planning here are in doubt.

[Sentinel947]

It seems like nothing but a money grab to me.  Boy Scouts has been hemorrhaging members in the last decade.  After they announced that gay and "transgendered" kids could be in, their numbers dropped significantly.  Now they're getting scared so they figure that they'll cater even more to the pressure of the left and allow girls.  What they don't realize is that Scouting is so far from what it was originally and has lost so much of it's focus and meaning.  Doing this just furthers that.  Next thing they'll remove God from Scouting, then guns, etc.  Until it's unrecognizable by anyone.  It makes me ashamed to be a part of it anymore.  When did exclusivity become such a bad thing to so many?

Oh it's definitely a money grab. And a chance to grab public facing PR. It's also a chance to position to the BSA for millennial parents who are starting to have cub age kids. (The oldest millennials are about 30 now.) 

 

I'm a Roman Catholic. Registered Republican. Social conservative. The rare millennial that opposes abortion and gay marriage.  I don't see how these membership changes "ruin Scouting." I've been with my unit since 2005 and to be honest these changes haven't had a single impact on how we run our unit. The sky has not fallen. 

 

I'm ok with this change, but I'm upset with how National has surprised so many people with it. Proper leadership would be to poll most of the members, and if the BSA leadership feels so strongly about the change, it's ok to make it even if the membership disagrees, but they should have been more transparent and open about doing it, and why they were doing it. Sometimes leadership involves making unpopular moves. But true leadership doesn't mean sneaking in unpopular moves behind people's backs. In that regard, I totally understand the frustration. 

 

I don't see how these changes "Ruin" the character of scouting. To say otherwise is to say every other member of the World Scouting movement is doing Scouting wrong, or improperly.