OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE: Girls as Youth Members, All Programs

[NJCubScouter]

It's not a lie. It's wishful thinking maybe, creative marketing speak absolutely, but it's not quite a lie to omit the real reason for the new policy. 

 

It would be nice if the BSA did not engage in EITHER "creative marketing speak" OR "lying."  There is a fairly fine line between them.

[cocomax]

It's not a lie. It's wishful thinking maybe, creative marketing speak absolutely, but it's not quite a lie to omit the real reason for the new policy. 

 

   What do you think the real reason might be?

[walk in the woods]

It's not a lie. It's wishful thinking maybe, creative marketing speak absolutely, but it's not quite a lie to omit the real reason for the new policy. 

Ommission or Commission, a lie is a lie.

[qwazse]

   What do you think the real reason might be?

The real reason? Threefold:

• Fun! Young girls are having fun with the program in a way that they have never done before. Some of us scouters like seeing kids have fun, plain and simple.
• Maverick units are making it work. Meanwhile boys in the vicinity seem to be doing as well as ever. Disavowing these units is becoming a losing proposition. Even units who would remain all boys resent a heavy hand from National.
• Nowadays, parents write the checks. They see the Mavericks and say, "With or without you, what will it be?"

Yes, membership matters, money matters. But, the real impetus here, IMHO, is girls with a unique initiative having so much fun with this program above others that they can no longer be ignored.

[EmberMike]

Is it a lie when BSA is asked  "Is this change a result of the BSA’s declining membership numbers?"

 

And the BSA answers: 

 

"No. The BSA has experienced renewed interest in Scouting, and we believe that is largely in response to program innovation and a more thorough understanding of what families want and need when it comes to extracurricular activities. In fact, recent surveys of parents not involved with Scouting showed high interest in getting their daughters signed up for programs like Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, with 90 percent expressing interest in a program like Cub Scouts and 87 percent expressing interest in a program like Boy Scouts."

 

I haven't seen it put that way, but in that context as an aswer to a direct question, then yes I'd agree, it's a lie. 

 

 

   What do you think the real reason might be?

 

Membership. To me it's been just that simple. Membership declines every year, National needs to find a way to stop it. For decades now the rallying cry of BSA recruiting has been to reach more youth, serve as many kids as possible. That's hard to do when we immediately disqualify an entire gender from the core BSA program. 

 

Every so often there seems to be some push to encourage recruitment in some segment of the population that the BSA deems underserved. The idea is that we can boost numbers by going after kids who aren't typically targetted for recruitment. Eventually the question of "do we finally invite girls to join?" had to be asked. 

 

And so here we are. 

[NJCubScouter]

The real reason? Threefold:

• Fun! Young girls are having fun with the program in a way that they have never done before. Some of us scouters like seeing kids have fun, plain and simple.
• Maverick units are making it work. Meanwhile boys in the vicinity seem to be doing as well as ever. Disavowing these units is becoming a losing proposition. Even units who would remain all boys resent a heavy hand from National.
• Nowadays, parents write the checks. They see the Mavericks and say, "With or without you, what will it be?"

Yes, membership matters, money matters. But, the real impetus here, IMHO, is girls with a unique initiative having so much fun with this program above others that they can no longer be ignored.

 

Well, I hate to be cynical... actually no I really don't, it's just the way I am...

 

The things you list may be EVIDENCE that is being used by National to assure themselves that this thing will really work (and hopefully they are correct), but it is not the reason why they are doing it.  They are doing it because they think that is how they increase membership and revenues.  Just my opinion of course.

[EmberMike]

It would be nice if the BSA did not engage in EITHER "creative marketing speak" OR "lying."  There is a fairly fine line between them.

 

I don't fault them for the marketing speak. They're a business, and businesses use marketing to get their message out there and sell products/services. The BSA needs to market themselves just like any other business. And sometimes that means that some folks who think they're pretty smart end up pushing for a message that maybe doesn't really speak to the core of the organization, or the core of the problem that the marketing is trying to solve. Sometimes it's done to intentionally deceive, like when a cable company renames themselves to hide their past. Other times it's just poor strategy, as is the case for the BSA I think. 

 

The BSA does do some things well with their marketing. Pushing "adventure" I think has always been a smart play. But on the issue of girls in the BSA, I'm not sure they are doing the right thing here. If I were working on this, I don't think I would have made family convenience the highlight of the campaign. 

[cocomax]

The real reason? Threefold:

• Fun! Young girls are having fun with the program in a way that they have never done before. Some of us scouters like seeing kids have fun, plain and simple.
• Maverick units are making it work. Meanwhile boys in the vicinity seem to be doing as well as ever. Disavowing these units is becoming a losing proposition. Even units who would remain all boys resent a heavy hand from National.
• Nowadays, parents write the checks. They see the Mavericks and say, "With or without you, what will it be?"

Yes, membership matters, money matters. But, the real impetus here, IMHO, is girls with a unique initiative having so much fun with this program above others that they can no longer be ignored.

 

Wow,  those are really great reasons. The best reasons I have heard to date.

[Back Pack]

The real reason? Threefold:

 

• Fun! Young girls are having fun with the program in a way that they have never done before. Some of us scouters like seeing kids have fun, plain and simple.
• Maverick units are making it work. Meanwhile boys in the vicinity seem to be doing as well as ever. Disavowing these units is becoming a losing proposition. Even units who would remain all boys resent a heavy hand from National.
• Nowadays, parents write the checks. They see the Mavericks and say, "With or without you, what will it be?"

Yes, membership matters, money matters. But, the real impetus here, IMHO, is girls with a unique initiative having so much fun with this program above others that they can no longer be ignored.

I can understand this. But couldn’t all that be done without dismantling Boy Scouts? I’m in Venturing now and we have great fun but the guys under 18 in the group wouldn’t be caught dead in a coed scout troop. I’ve had fun the last two years in scouting and I’d support younger girls and guys being allowed in Venturing. I just don’t support changing Boy Scouts and making it more family like. I get plenty of family time from church and other activities. My friends feel the same. I’ll say that even the girls in our crew don’t want their brothers in the crew.

[cocomax]

What really bothers me about this is our troop and the troops around me and our local council are upholding the ideals of scouting the best we can. We believe deeply in the spirit of scouting. But we all being forced to put up with what seems to be a whole lot of lies coming down from national that has really been bothering me. The guys that make the 1.6 million dollar yearly salaries and are the voice and face of the Boy Scouts of America are not being very scout like at all when they are this dishonest.

 

Its gotten to the point that when I see the scout law the first thing that comes to mind is how badly BSA National has been breaking the scout law lately.  

[HelpfulTracks]

I can understand this. But couldn’t all that be done without dismantling Boy Scouts? I’m in Venturing now and we have great fun but the guys under 18 in the group wouldn’t be caught dead in a coed scout troop. I’ve had fun the last two years in scouting and I’d support younger girls and guys being allowed in Venturing. I just don’t support changing Boy Scouts and making it more family like. I get plenty of family time from church and other activities. My friends feel the same. I’ll say that even the girls in our crew don’t want their brothers in the crew.

 

This is precisely where young men should speak up, both locally and nationally.

 

Back Pack - the concept being discussed is not coed troops. It is two different organizations, one for girls, one for boys. But that message is being muddled by others, some inadvertently and some intentionally.

 

Others will tell you, regardless of what BSA plans or says, that coed is inevitable. I disagree. But at the local level Scouts need to speak out if they feel like you do, because some leaders will go coed, against policy, and young men will leave in some cases. That is exactly the wrong outcome.

 

But if units know that the young men have opinions about not being coed then one would hope they listen.

 

Which is precisely why I do not think the three option system (like what cubs is doing, boys, girls, coed) will work with troops. I fear too many CO's will go coed to save money and space, if allowed, and many young men will find themselves without a Scouting home. I think if CO's stick to the single gender model youth like yourself will be fine.

[Back Pack]

Since I’ve been paying attention to bsa politics I have seen very few times where what they say is what they do. So I don’t think I will believe what they say now about girls in scouts until is really see it.

[qwazse]

I can understand this. But couldn’t all that be done without dismantling Boy Scouts? I’m in Venturing now and we have great fun but the guys under 18 in the group wouldn’t be caught dead in a coed scout troop. I’ve had fun the last two years in scouting and I’d support younger girls and guys being allowed in Venturing. I just don’t support changing Boy Scouts and making it more family like. I get plenty of family time from church and other activities. My friends feel the same. I’ll say that even the girls in our crew don’t want their brothers in the crew.

Dismantling? That's been happening for decades.

Could GS/USA have built troops based on charter partners, removed size limits on units, and highlighted multi-age units that engage in outdoor activities? Yes. They didn't. So here we are, taking risks with your program. We might be having a lot of fun at your expense. Or, in some parts of the country, more boys will wind up joining.

I will be surprised if BSA4G will amount to massive membership gains. I don't think this is going to encourage a big influx of cash. And it seems that this screwball separate unit strategy is an attemp to validate, not dismantle, units like yours where girls aren't pounding at the door.

 

P.S. - What's with venturers and siblings? I swear I should have two crews ... one for even birth orders the other for odd birth orders.

Edited November 1, 2017 by qwazse

[Back Pack]

There’s a clear difference of what many older adults here feel and what I am hearing on the ground from guys in the program. Guys 18 and older don’t mind girls in venturing. I’d say 90% or more of the guys I know under 18 in Boy Scouts don’t want girls or family anywhere near their Troop. I know guys who are simply going to work on Eagle on their own and take minimal leadership roles and just Eagle out.

 

What you guys who run units want and what the guys in your unit want may be a lot further apart than you think.

[qwazse]

There’s a clear difference of what many older adults here feel and what I am hearing on the ground from guys in the program. Guys 18 and older don’t mind girls in venturing. I’d say 90% or more of the guys I know under 18 in Boy Scouts don’t want girls or family anywhere near their Troop. I know guys who are simply going to work on Eagle on their own and take minimal leadership roles and just Eagle out.

What you guys who run units want and what the guys in your unit want may be a lot further apart than you think.

I think the scouts in my troop feel a lot like yours. That's why I have no intention of promoting BSA4G until I see real demand. I volunteer for smiles, not someone's sense of social activism.

In the meantime, I'm just talking to Life scouts about insta-palms.

 

In terms of you yourself acting on BSA politics. Consider running for office in your area VOA.