From National: Official Name

[jamskinner]

20 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

This change almost happened over four decades ago.  For a variety of reasons, it didn't.  I remember the debate.  Of course there was no internet, but around campfires and letters to Pedro at Boy's Life, there was plenty of discussion.

Regardless of where one might stand, I think it's important to keep in mind that our new scouts are not werewolves.  Nor meth heads.  Nor supernatural evil entities who are plotting the demise of the BSA. 

Let's remember they are girls.  Peoples' daughters.  They deserve respect, and the same opportunities as the boys.

PS 

Some declare:  "Then the GSA should change and offer high adventure etc."

Answer:  Go to Pizza Hut and demand a double cheeseburger.  Note their response.

If that’s the case then why do you want to buy pizzas at Burger King?  

My honest opinion is bsa can do what they want but they can’t escape the consequences.  Many businesses fail because they don’t focus on their core products and that is what I think will happen here.  

[desertrat77]

16 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

If that’s the case then why do you want to buy pizzas at Burger King?  

My honest opinion is bsa can do what they want but they can’t escape the consequences.  Many businesses fail because they don’t focus on their core products and that is what I think will happen here.  

Re pizzas and burgers, let me clarify.  If a business doesn't offer a product, you can't force them to.  Even if it would help the business.   It's their business, their decision.

I was a Brownie co-leader for 1 year, and I can assure you that the majority of GSA leaders were fine with their program just the way that it was.  And any time I introduced BSA-type games and activities into the program, the Brownies loved it.  The GSA adult leaders?  Frosty silence and disapproval.  Girls are supposed to do arts and crafts, and sit quietly while an adult reads a book to them.  I kid you not.  And let's not forget the Great Annual Cookie Sale Racket.  Ugh.

Given the chance, the change will work.  Exhibit A is the story that RememberSchiff posted about the Girl Rangers from the early '70s.  These girls did not want to change the BSA.  They wanted to be a part of it and accept the challenges.  How can that be described as anything but success?

Edited May 3, 2018 by desertrat77

[FireStone]

18 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

...Many businesses fail because they don’t focus on their core products and that is what I think will happen here.  

Isn't the BSA's core product a youth leadership and character-development program with an outdoor focus? Is that changing? 

 

[Hawkwin]

18 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

If that’s the case then why do you want to buy pizzas at Burger King?  

I don't think you are applying the correct analogy. This is more like a group of people begging and pleading to open their own franchise of Pizza Hut and finally being told that they can do so. You are not (insert disclaimer about "currently") being required to share your own franchise with these new owners. You are not being required to (currently) even service the same customers.

[jamskinner]

11 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

I don't think you are applying the correct analogy. This is more like a group of people begging and pleading to open their own franchise of Pizza Hut and finally being told that they can do so. You are not (insert disclaimer about "currently") being required to share your own franchise with these new owners. You are not being required to (currently) even service the same customers.

It’s not my analogy. It’s desertrats.   I just reversed it.

Also no one is stopping girls from forming their own group that emulates what the Boy Scouts do.

 As for not being required to have girls in your troop look at what has happened everywhere else girls have been included into scouts. Are they allowed to be boy only now?   I maybe totally wrong. Time will tell. 

[Treflienne]

30 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

I was a Brownie co-leader for 1 year, and I can assure you that the majority of GSA leaders were fine with their program just the way that it was.

But not all of them.  Especially not all of the old-timers.   Some of the vocal groups have been "GSUSA are you listening?",  "The Outdoor Journey Project", . . .

And if you want to see some internal GSUSA complaints, there are some here:

http://girlscoutwithacause.dawgtoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/gs-ceowhite_paper_2015.pdf

With commentary here: http://girlscoutwithacause.dawgtoons.com/2015/10/white-paper-hub-bub/

And if the outdoors-interested old-timers cannot get GSUSA to listen,  . . . .

 

[jamskinner]

27 minutes ago, desertrat77 said:

Re pizzas and burgers, let me clarify.  If a business doesn't offer a product, you can't force them to.  Even if it would help the business.   It's their business, their decision.

I was a Brownie co-leader for 1 year, and I can assure you that the majority of GSA leaders were fine with their program just the way that it was.  And any time I introduced BSA-type games and activities into the program, the Brownies loved it.  The GSA adult leaders?  Frosty silence and disapproval.  Girls are supposed to do arts and crafts, and sit quietly while an adult reads a book to them.  I kid you not.  And let's not forget the Great Annual Cookie Sale Racket.  Ugh.

Given the chance, the change will work.  Exhibit A is the story that RememberSchiff posted about the Girl Rangers from the early '70s.  These girls did not want to change the BSA.  They wanted to be a part of it and accept the challenges.  How can that be described as anything but success?

I am not blaming girls wanting to join the Boy Scouts.  Adding girls to Boy Scouts though is changing it whether it was anyone's intention or not.  It is obvious that at the cub scout level that is  going to end up being coed even though National said that would not be the case.  I believe we will see the trend continue as they allow girls into Boy Scouts.  People are going to go with the path of least resistance and that is to go coed.    It solves too many problems to not be an option for many groups.  Unfortunately it will also have to side effect of hurting the boys in that they will no longer be able to freely be themselves.  They will be influenced by the girls.  I certainly would not of had the same scouting experience if girls had been involved.  The program will also change as more girls enter and want changes to how things are done.    For some this will be an opportunity.. That's fine but you also need to realize that for others it will be a burden and they may just walk away.    Also I don't see how you can say just give it a chance it will work.   It will either work or not given real world constraints.

There are plenty of better ways to solve this problem other then putting girls into Boy Scouts.

Finally back to the analogy.  I don't like fish.  If I went to a Burger place and they sold fish no problem.  I don't order fish.  However if they cooked the fish on the same grill as the burgers it would add a fishy taste to the burger.   In that case I would quit going to that place of business.  That business may acquire new customers who like fish, but they will also lose some percent of customers who don't like fishy tasting burgers.

 

Also sorry in advance for any mistakes or weak arguments.

[Eagle1993]

Anyone who thinks boy’s act “freely” around other boys is delusional.  Other boys influence boys actions.  Not all boys are the same.  

Go Troop by Troop at a Summer Camp.  I still remember the dirty Troop (they never showered), the “Ninja” Troop who would cause mischief, the military Troop who’s leaders felt BSA was pre Army... I can go on.  Case by case you would see boys act within each of these Troops differently. They are influenced by the other boys and their leaders.    I love my Troop and had a great time with fellow scouts. I would never claim my actions were not influenced by my fellow scouts.  So sure, girls will also influence scouts as well.  I don’t see that as a bad thing as long as they follow the scout oath, law experience leadership and have fun. That can occur in a coed or single gender Troop.

[jamskinner]

45 minutes ago, FireStone said:

Isn't the BSA's core product a youth leadership and character-development program with an outdoor focus? Is that changing? 

 

Training of young men not young women.  People are not automatons.  The more focused you can be on something to better you can do it.  Many schools, business, groups focus on one area.  They more you broaden out the greater risk you have of weakening your core focus.  The Boy Scouts is for training boys and I certainly believe they should of focused on improving that instead of trying to go after another market.   Supposably, the Boy Scouts are not going to change the program.   If that is the case then why are they waiting until next year before adding girls.  They have to make changes of course.

[ParkMan]

I really think it's time to move on.  The debate is really over - we can rehash it here, but the future of Scouting is co-ed.  Yeah - maybe we weren't consulted - but it's done.  The boys (and girls) will adjust just fine.  The program will be just fine too.

My recommendation is to move past rehashing this debate.  Instead of fearing that girls are going to ruining Boy Scouting, work with the girls to create really strong co-ed troops.  

 

[Treflienne]

20 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

People are going to go with the path of least resistance and that is to go coed.    It solves too many problems to not be an option for many groups. 

'fraid so.

My personal preference would be for my daughter to join a thriving all-girls BSA troop which has a range of ages and experience levels in the girls, from tenderfoot to Eagle, and has an experienced scoutmaster and ASMs, and plenty of adult volunteers, a good alumni network, a good supply of equipment, and a decent bank balance.  And uses the patrol system well.

Such a troop does not exist.   So do I want:

      a) a brand-new all-girls troop:   inexperienced young girls,  inexperienced scouters, no money, no equipment, no oldtimers to mentor the newcomers

or

      b) a "linked" troop which is, effectively, an all-girls patrol within an existing well-established, thriving BSA troop.

Probably (b) if (b)  ends up being an option.

[jamskinner]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Anyone who thinks boy’s act “freely” around other boys is delusional.  Other boys influence boys actions.  Not all boys are the same.  

Go Troop by Troop at a Summer Camp.  I still remember the dirty Troop (they never showered), the “Ninja” Troop who would cause mischief, the military Troop who’s leaders felt BSA was pre Army... I can go on.  Case by case you would see boys act within each of these Troops differently. They are influenced by the other boys and their leaders.    I love my Troop and had a great time with fellow scouts. I would never claim my actions were not influenced by my fellow scouts.  So sure, girls will also influence scouts as well.  I don’t see that as a bad thing as long as they follow the scout oath, law experience leadership and have fun. That can occur in a coed or single gender Troop.

With all due respect inferring I am delusional is probably not the best way to convince me to your way of thought.

To start with I never said boys are not influenced by other boys. I said they will be able to more freely be themselves.  Do you think I am wrong? 

I believe girls will have a greater influence on how boys act then other boys regardless of differences.  As a scout are you going to pee in front of other boys?  Most likely.  Are you going to pee in front of girls.  Heck no. Are you going to play bloody knuckles with girls.  Not likely.  Are you going to horse play with girls?  Are you going to engage in the same physical activities directly with a girl?  Maybe if you want to get sued. 

Is it really that hard to see that boys and girls have basic biological differences that influence how they think and act?  If that wasn't the case there would never be any reason to separate girls from boys in any groups or activities.  But for some strange reason we do.  

You don't see these changes as a bad thing.  Fine.  You are entitled to that.  Guess what?  I am entitled to my thinking as well.

[jamskinner]

17 minutes ago, Treflienne said:

it 'fraid so.

My personal preference would be for my daughter to join a thriving all-girls BSA troop which has a range of ages and experience levels in the girls, from tenderfoot to Eagle, and has an experienced scoutmaster and ASMs, and plenty of adult volunteers, a good alumni network, a good supply of equipment, and a decent bank balance.  And uses the patrol system well.

Such a troop does not exist.   So do I want:

      a) a brand-new all-girls troop:   inexperienced young girls,  inexperienced scouters, no money, no equipment, no oldtimers to mentor the newcomers

or

      b) a "linked" troop which is, effectively, an all-girls patrol within an existing well-established, thriving BSA troop.

Probably (b) if (b)  ends up being an option.

Here is a quote from the Boy Scouts  FAQ.

"Q. Why is the BSA recommending single-­‐gender units instead of a co-­‐ed  model? "

Notice the use of the recommending not required.

My opinion is yes to create a), and brand new organization.   Nothing is stopping that same organization from even using the same people.  This will not happen overnight, but can obviously be done. This will enable it to be fine tuned toward girls as well.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by jamskinner
mistake

[Treflienne]

16 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

My recommendation is to move past rehashing this debate.  Instead of fearing that girls are going to ruining Boy Scouting, work with the girls to create really strong co-ed troops.   

What ideas do y'all have for co-ed/linked troops, to keep things as good as possible for the boys while still letting the girls in? 

What about a strong emphasis on doing as much as possible by patrol, with each patrol having its own identity and camaraderie.  Let the patrols camp some distance apart.  Encourage the patrols to go on occasional patrol outings and overnights.  The linked girls troop would essentially be a girls' patrol.  And the boys would have their boy-only space within their patrols.

[jamskinner]

18 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I really think it's time to move on.  The debate is really over - we can rehash it here, but the future of Scouting is co-ed.  Yeah - maybe we weren't consulted - but it's done.  The boys (and girls) will adjust just fine.  The program will be just fine too.

My recommendation is to move past rehashing this debate.  Instead of fearing that girls are going to ruining Boy Scouting, work with the girls to create really strong co-ed troops.  

 

Take a look at your post.  Does it seem a bit condescending? Show a little respect for others opinions even if you disagree.

  As for as moving on, yeah you are probably right.