From National: Official Name

[an_old_DC]

41 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

And therein lies the problem.  Few volunteers really have a depth of experience actually starting new units.  I have done it and it is a long play.  

 

I have done it too, and most people dont realize how exhausting it really is. You have to focus on the long game of putting all the pieces in place, recruiting and training adults, and recruiting boys (yeah, I said it) for future growth while still getting meetings and campouts done in the short term. 

[RememberSchiff]

19 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Any pressure will be on Councils, not existing CO's as CO's still determine their leadership and membership not the media, not the Council. 

I agree starting a new unit is hard here, but that is a National-made problem not the existing CO's.  As I understand the UK Scout Association has no CO's, maybe they have a solution.

My $0.02,

I know Councils do sponsor/charter Venture Crews, e.g. summer camp Crew 1. Maybe the same approach will be used with girl troops?

Edited May 3, 2018 by RememberSchiff

[an_old_DC]

37 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As for Rogue Packs and Troops, some folks against girls joining will say it is because of these Rogue Packs and Troops that we are now in this situation.

It isn't the sole reason but it certainly is a contributing cause.

Every story from National's PR juggernaut and every story in the media has a quote from somebody saying something to the effect that, their daughter has always tagged along and done everything with the boys and they are absolutely ecstatic now because she can finally do it "officially." When the professionals acknowledge and cite it for the record, you realize how prevalent it really must be.

[Eagle1993]

Girls in high population areas will probably have options, but they may need to travel a bit.  I think rural or lower population areas will definitely be an issue as you probably don’t have 20-30 Troops in a <30 min drive.      I think loan scouts may be an option for a few years.  

I also think any pack adding girls should also be thinking of the Scouts BSA Troop plan.  If there are no plans for Troops in the area the pack leaders should be willing to start one or hold off on adding girls.

[ham_solo]

The real question I have is this...

 

When will BOYS LIFE magazine change it's name?

[Saltface]

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Girls in high population areas will probably have options, but they may need to travel a bit.  I think rural or lower population areas will definitely be an issue as you probably don’t have 20-30 Troops in a <30 min drive.      I think loan scouts may be an option for a few years.  

I also think any pack adding girls should also be thinking of the Scouts BSA Troop plan.  If there are no plans for Troops in the area the pack leaders should be willing to start one or hold off on adding girls.

I was told by my council that there would be no Lone Scout option.

That's just for the early adopters. After the official roll-out, there will be.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Saltface

[Saltface]

4 minutes ago, ham_solo said:

The real question I have is this...

 

When will BOYS LIFE magazine change it's name?

Just plain Life is already taken. As is Man's Life.

[Pale Horse]

1 minute ago, Saltface said:

Just plain Life is already taken. As is Man's Life.

 

My money is on "Scout Life" not to be confused with the rank of Life Scout.

[Cambridgeskip]

2 hours ago, jamskinner said:

I agree to a point.  Life requires interaction between men and women.   But as you pointed out kids already have ample places to learn in a coed environment.  Boy Scouts has been one area where boys could be together as boys.  Now that is no longer available in your country through scouts.  Are there any other groups in the UK that are all girls or boys?

This is a bit off topic but I saw an article the other day where women are renting a women only office area.  Men are not allowed to rent space there.  Apparently even some adults want  gender segregation.

Thanks for the video.

There are some all boy troops that are theoretically coed but simply don't have any girls. This is partly a hangover from "local option" days. Groups that went coed became known among parents as the groups that would take girls and still have a higher proportion of girls because of that, even a decade on since everyone going coed. Hence other groups don't have as many girls an some have none. There are a few where, according to annecdote, girls are simply not made welcome so never hang around. Not acceptable.

As per another thread groups have the option for running separate boy and girl troops/packs/units but if they take that option MUST run it for both sexes and MUST provide the same opportunities. In practice these are rare, certainly there are none in my district, I've not even heard of one in my county. The vast majority are groups sponsored by conservative mosques or synagogues. Also it is permitted for what are called "closed" groups which are those that are officially part of another body and is only for those who are members of that body, typically it's a private school. They may be single sex if that body is itself single sex. So a boys school can have a boy only troop, a girls school a girl only troop. Again I have yet to ever encounter such a group although I'm told a handful still exist!

Your welcome on the video. There's plenty more on our channel here. Feel free to have a rummage

[The Latin Scot]

Ugh, this is all getting absurd. They wouldn't dare force co-ed Troops here though. Nor would they insist that CO's which charter all-boy units also charter girl units as well. That would instantly alienate the entire LDS Church, which forms a HUGE part of the BSA population. My hope is that the Church can exercise enough clout to protect smaller conservative bodies who still want to run only the traditional all-male BSA model, but don't have a voice large enough to be heard. If other units want to bring in girls, FINE, but that is where the Church's line is going to be drawn, and I can't imagine National would dare challenge a demographic as large as the Church's by forcing girls on its volunteers who don't want to follow the new model. 

[ParkMan]

14 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

Ugh, this is all getting absurd. They wouldn't dare force co-ed Troops here though. Nor would they insist that CO's which charter all-boy units also charter girl units as well. That would instantly alienate the entire LDS Church, which forms a HUGE part of the BSA population. My hope is that the Church can exercise enough clout to protect smaller conservative bodies who still want to run only the traditional all-male BSA model, but don't have a voice large enough to be heard. If other units want to bring in girls, FINE, but that is where the Church's line is going to be drawn, and I can't imagine National would dare challenge a demographic as large as the Church's by forcing girls on its volunteers who don't want to follow the new model. 

Right - they're more savvy than that.  

They may clean up some deployment issues and may even allow true coed for those that want it.  But, I can't imagine they'd go any further than they are now.

[ParkMan]

4 hours ago, jamskinner said:

You can act however you want.  So can I.

  We actually agree on the inevitability of scouts going coed.  I just don't think it is a good idea and will continue to say so.

I'm not going to continue the point.  I'm not trying to stifle your freedom of expression.

I do understand the fundamental disagreement you have with co-ed Scouting.

In our troop we had a period of some "storming" within the adult leadership a while back.  At one point one of the ASMs called me up and said something to the effect of: "There are precious few of us trying to keep the troop going.  As leaders, we're all in this boat together.  At some point, we've got to stop fighting with each other and focus on bringing the program to the boys."

[LVAllen]

3 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Ugh, this is all getting absurd. They wouldn't dare force co-ed Troops here though. Nor would they insist that CO's which charter all-boy units also charter girl units as well. That would instantly alienate the entire LDS Church, which forms a HUGE part of the BSA population. My hope is that the Church can exercise enough clout to protect smaller conservative bodies who still want to run only the traditional all-male BSA model, but don't have a voice large enough to be heard. If other units want to bring in girls, FINE, but that is where the Church's line is going to be drawn, and I can't imagine National would dare challenge a demographic as large as the Church's by forcing girls on its volunteers who don't want to follow the new model. 

Not the entire church.  I would be over the moon with the possibility of not having to take my daughters to a non-LDS troop to get a great experience, the way I've had to with my son.

[jamskinner]

16 minutes ago, LVAllen said:

Not the entire church.  I would be over the moon with the possibility of not having to take my daughters to a non-LDS troop to get a great experience, the way I've had to with my son.

I’m confused. You had to take your son to a non lds troop to get a great experience but if the church allowed girls you could take her to the lds scout program to get that same experience. Am I misinterpreting something. 

Edited May 4, 2018 by jamskinner

[clemlaw]

On 5/2/2018 at 6:09 PM, desertrat77 said:

Too bad I don't fit in my old late '70s shirt.  Only one letter off!  

 

 

 

My uniforms from 1973 (when I bought new ones for the Jamboree) until 1978 (when I got one that fit for the ECOH) also said "Scout BSA."  It's the one thing about the "improved" scouting program that I actually think they got right.  

I always recall a remark I overheard my Scoutmaster make.  My dad was talking to him, and he mentioned something about "that little boy," referring to one of the new scouts.  My scoutmaster corrected him, saying, "they're not boys--they're scouts."

IMHO, the whole point of what we're doing is turning out adults.  They might start out as boys, but if we're doing it right, they'll quickly turn into something else, something which I prefer to call simply a "scout."  I don't correct others, as my scoutmaster did, but I think he was right.  That kid my dad was referring to wasn't a "little boy."  He was a scout, and that's the word I use to describe youth members.

Similarly, I don't expect to have any girls in our ranks.  We'll still have scouts, some of whom are young women, and some of whom are young men.

The "improved" scouting program of the 1970's tried to screw up a lot of things.  But this is one that I think they had right, and I'm happy to see the name return.

I have more thoughts on this at my blog:

http://onetuberadio.com/2018/05/03/girls-in-the-bsa/