How will you talk about girls troops and packs?

[John-in-KC]

Do what is best for your particular situation. Maintain YP awareness, but do what your committee thinks will work. 

Now, remember:. The Chartered Partner, through the COR,, has an automatic 50%+1 vote. If he/she says "do it this way", then you shall. 

[John-in-KC]

3 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Apparently our CSE is going to tell girls that separate units is in their best interests:

Surbaugh said that having separate units for boys and girls should alleviate concerns that girls joining the BSA for the first time might be at a disadvantage in seeking leadership opportunities.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-boy-scouts-name-change-20180502-story.html

 

That sounds like he's marketing for new units...

[ParkMan]

41 minutes ago, John-in-KC said:

That sounds like he's marketing for new units...

I wonder if he see's the path to growth for girls really being separate girls only units.

 

[Eagle94-A1]

2 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Yeah, but just because that's what some Packs are doing doesn't mean that's what our Pack has to do.   

 But look at the number of units that have ignored BSA policy of boys only for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts over the past 40 years and how what they did is the  policy effective June 11th for Cub Scouts and February 1st for Boy Scouts. call me cynical, but I foresee units ignoring BSA policy and going full coed. Heck my own unit has Scouters stating that the girls' troop will be on paper only. They will be "Linked Troops" sharing everything; equipment, meeting nites, camp outs, summer camp, and adult volunteers.

[an_old_DC]

12 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 But look at the number of units that have ignored BSA policy of boys only for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts over the past 40 years and how what they did is the  policy effective June 11th for Cub Scouts and February 1st for Boy Scouts. call me cynical, but I foresee units ignoring BSA policy and going full coed. Heck my own unit has Scouters stating that the girls' troop will be on paper only. They will be "Linked Troops" sharing everything; equipment, meeting nites, camp outs, summer camp, and adult volunteers.

Call me cynical, but I am experienced, and as long as packs sell enough popcorn and bring in enough FOS money, the professionals will ignore packs having co-ed dens.

And as long as council and districts can grow their number of units, they wont care if its on-paper only and the troops are functionally co-ed

[Eagle1993]

5 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

We already have reports from early adopters that some "Girls' den" and the "Boys' den" ideas is not working and that the two dens are doing "joint" activities.

As an early adopter pack I do not see the segregation lasting.  I do see it lasting for overnights (YPT aspects) but it will die quickly for regular den meetings.  

- In our packs experience, there is limited to no support from parents to keep the dens separate.  (Our pack families are typically professional upper middle class, moderates politically that have their kids go to a coed public school.)

- The added stress of finding that many more volunteers is an issue

Given this combination and the fact it will be impossible to police I see it slowly going away.  It starts with a few co den meetings with breakout sections then a few dens will merge then the rest of the pack’s dens.   Early on compliance may be high, but in 2-3 years it will decline.

This is just a guess based on what I’ve seen.  

If you really want single gender you’ll need completely separate units or a CO/COR that mandates it.

 

[Gwaihir]

4 hours ago, an_old_DC said:

Call me cynical, but I am experienced, and as long as packs sell enough popcorn and bring in enough FOS money, the professionals will ignore packs having co-ed dens.

And as long as council and districts can grow their number of units, they wont care if its on-paper only and the troops are functionally co-ed

A Scout is Trustworthy. 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Gwaihir

[qwazse]

48 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

A Scout is Trustworthy. 

One perspective is that BSA started down the road to faithlessness when it started purging adults, girls, and godless from advancement.

This attempts to restore that trust of delivering the promise of scouting ... rewarding achievement rather than identity.

[Gwaihir]

7 minutes ago, qwazse said:

One perspective is that BSA started down the road to faithlessness when it started purging adults, girls, and godless from advancement.

This attempts to restore that trust of delivering the promise of scouting ... rewarding achievement rather than identity.

I'm not criticizing the BSA with that comment... I'm criticizing scouters who purposely and blatantly disregard how the organization is laid out to be run by making co-ed dens.  

[oldbuzzard]

39 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

I'm not criticizing the BSA with that comment... I'm criticizing scouters who purposely and blatantly disregard how the organization is laid out to be run by making co-ed dens.  

Then maybe you should try to shame folks for not being obedient not trustworthy.

Our pack was originally planning on having separate boy/girl dens who did almost all joint activities, just like our multiple boy dens. But as time has gone by, we've moved to plans for full co-ed dens. I don't know what that'll look like on paper.

We aren't an early adopter pack but we are a concentrator/congregator or whatever the term is for next year, a welcoming pack that council refers girls to who can't find viable dens in other troops. Our CM and IH have discussed this with council and they know, but aren't thrilled, we are having co-ed dens. So it isn't a trust issue. It is similar to when we opted out of the gay ban in 2002, before our IH and others persuaded our entire council to do so. As an open and affirming church, pushing the boundaries to be kind and reverent trumps literal obedience.

[Gwaihir]

6 hours ago, oldbuzzard said:

Then maybe you should try to shame folks for not being obedient not trustworthy.

Our pack was originally planning on having separate boy/girl dens who did almost all joint activities, just like our multiple boy dens. But as time has gone by, we've moved to plans for full co-ed dens. I don't know what that'll look like on paper.

We aren't an early adopter pack but we are a concentrator/congregator or whatever the term is for next year, a welcoming pack that council refers girls to who can't find viable dens in other troops. Our CM and IH have discussed this with council and they know, but aren't thrilled, we are having co-ed dens. So it isn't a trust issue. It is similar to when we opted out of the gay ban in 2002, before our IH and others persuaded our entire council to do so. As an open and affirming church, pushing the boundaries to be kind and reverent trumps literal obedience.

Doing it under the table is a matter of trustworthiness and obedience, telling council and them going along with it instead of working with you to get leaders, training, etc to make single gender dens work is obedience.  I disagree that any one of the scout laws holds more weight than the others.  Many won't see it this way, I see that, but at the end of the day you're doing a disservice to the program and to the children. 

[qwazse]

3 hours ago, Gwaihir said:

Doing it under the table is a matter of trustworthiness and obedience, telling council and them going along with it instead of working with you to get leaders, training, etc to make single gender dens work is obedience.  I disagree that any one of the scout laws holds more weight than the others.  Many won't see it this way, I see that, but at the end of the day you're doing a disservice to the program and to the children. 

This boils down to one of those "until you've walked a mile in their shoes" situations.

In general, I trust boots-on-the-ground scouters to know what it means to do a service to their children.

I am concerned, however, that those cubs will be perplexed when they cross over into a troop that makes the lady cobra patrol camp 300' away from the gentleman rat patrol!

[WisconsinMomma]

Here's what I"m thinking -- we need to make strong girl Packs and Troops and help them get off the ground, so they can maintain their separation and independence from the Boy Packs and Troops.  Does that make sense?  

[Gwaihir]

1 hour ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Here's what I"m thinking -- we need to make strong girl Packs and Troops and help them get off the ground, so they can maintain their separation and independence from the Boy Packs and Troops.  Does that make sense?  

it makes perfect sense.  it's the right course of action.  if it's something people allegedly believe in, then pitching adults to be leaders and mobilizing girl units at the pack and the troop level should be much less difficult that is being let on... I think many are just being lazy, or at least not willing to go the extra mile. 

 

side note: 

One of the first duties of a Scout is obedience to authority. He must obey his orders in the first place and put his own amusement or desires in the second.

-Robert Baden-Powell
 

 

 

[numbersnerd]

The pastor of our CO called me (current CM) after receiving a call from someone at District or Council (he's not sure which) pressing him for a decision on BSA4G within the next week.

There was irritation all around. Me because of the unilateral approach to the CO without including unit leadership. Which, OK, I guess they can do, but it's bad relationship management. Who do they think the IH and CO staff are more familiar with? Local volunteers or a detached voice over the phone?

Him because he's fed up with the social engineering aspect of effected changes. Evidently he gave the pro an earful.

His questions followed the majority of those I've encountered: if girls want these activities, why doesn't the girl-focused organization offer and promote them? Why is the BSA changing what has succeeded for the last century? Where are boys going to find their own space in a society that increasingly marginalizes them? He definitely sees the need and value of a boy-only program and environment.

His fear is that being pro-boy is seen as anti-girl (which he is not as he has only daughters.) He has other valid reasons for maintaining a boy-only unit sponsored by them also. I'm afraid that if this becomes too political of an issue (as in, the blowback and perceptions if we don't want to offer a co-ed program), we'll lose our CO. I explained that maybe this was his and other CO's opportunity to make their opinions matter by maintaining boy-only units. And that they could dispel any perceived bias by going further. I shared my opinion that in my experience the best mirror for Cub Scouts was American Heritage Girls. Now he is considering sponsoring an AHG unit. I've made work for myself trying to get them connected, but I'll willingly do it.

So now we are going to have a meeting next week with the pastor, COR, CC, myself and the incoming CM. Even though we all knew we were in alignment, this will give all of us an opportunity to get unified in our approach and responses to the changes and questions headed our way. In retrospect, getting that call, as irritating as it was, might likely be the best thing that could have happened for our Pack, CO, and potentially a girl-focused program.

I'm just curious if this is going to be a common-enough reaction by CO's across the country that it dampens the girl enrollment in BSA and directs them instead to other programs.