From National: Official Name

[jamskinner]

11 hours ago, Cambridgeskip said:

You raise some interesting points that I'd like to address from many years running coed scouts in the UK

Will girls being around influence how boys behave?

Sort of. And by that I mean in a good way! It doesn't stop boys being boys. The noise and the fart jokes and the banter are still there. It does though take the edge of certain things. You made specific reference to taking a pee. I actually think that is a fantastic example. Whether there are girls around or not I think it would be polite if, while on a hike or a camp, when a scout needs a pee they slip behind a tree or some bushes and do it out of site (and of course downhill from camp and well away from any water supply etc) of other people! Having girls around encourages that kind of polite behaviour.

Does it stop the horse play? Certainly not. This is one of the videos on our troop youtube channel. I've always loved it. They didn't realise I was filming till the last few seconds. Shows what the kids are really like with the boys and girls mixed up together. They're just a gang, as patrols and troops were always meant to be. We typically have separate boy and girl tents on camp but half the time they end up mixing up when it actually comes to it.

Are boys and girls different? Yes of course they are. They have physical differences they hit pubity at different times, there are some character differences. Is there are an argument for having single sex activities? Yes there is and I fully respect many of those arguments. I think it's particularly strong, for examples, in sport. While I don't think there's a moral reason as such for coed scouting I do actually see it as better that way. Why? Scouts is not an end in itself. We are not taking them camping for the sake of learning to camp, fun though it may be. The outdoors, patrols, hiking, community service, they are just the method by which we are preparing young people for life. And life is coed. The last bastions of male only professions have tumbled with only some specific religious leadership roles remaining. Wherever today's scouts end up working, whatever profession or vocation they go into, it will almost certainly be coed. When they go to work they won't be separated, when they go to university they won't be separated. So why separate them now? Learn how to manage or be managed by someone of the opposite sex when they 12 and it becomes less of a problem when they are 22.

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.

[ParkMan]

5 minutes ago, jamskinner said:

The problem I have is you are not respecting others opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but when you say

"Instead of fearing that girls are going to ruining Boy Scouting, work with the girls to create really strong co-ed troops." you are assigning a motive of fear to people and telling people to align themselves to how you feel.  As far a moving on go ahead.  I am certainly unable to stop you from doing that.

The basis of my position is that coed scouting is inevitable.  I'm suggesting that you put your fears aside and support the program you've supported for many years.  Instead of giving up, help these kids succeed.

How would you have me act differently?

[jamskinner]

5 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

This is just a summary of how conservatives think the world is blowing up because the Boy Scouts are allowing girls to join.

They were wrong about the world ending when women and blacks were given the right to vote.  They were wrong about the world ending when gays could officially be married.

They are wrong about this too.

That is some strange revisionist history there. I suggest you look up what states first allowed women to vote and maybe look into something called the U.S. civil war.

[jamskinner]

Just now, ParkMan said:

The basis of my position is that coed scouting is inevitable.  I'm suggesting that you put your fears aside and support the program you've supported for many years.  Instead of giving up, help these kids succeed.

How would you have me act differently?

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.

[numbersnerd]

13 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

 I'm suggesting that you put your fears aside and support the program you've supported for many years. 

By advocating for a boy-only environment, that's exactly what they're doing.

[WisconsinMomma]

14 minutes 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 don't think Scouts will go fully co-ed, if as volunteers we can get girl Troops and Packs off to a strong start.  Now, I can't speak for rogue troops and packs that don't follow BSA policy, you'll always get some of that, but if Scouters work to help girls make great girl Packs and Troops, then each gender can have their own strong program.   There will likely be some interaction at merit badge fairs and such, but staunch single gender folks just won't go to those events.  

[Eagle94-A1]

3 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

I guess we are on the other end of the desire for coed spectrum.  No plans for anyone currently in our unit to start a linked troop.  If persons (we have to designated them as an Unsubs (unknown subjects)) want to start a Girl Troop, we wish them well.  Family camping would be a no go for me personally.

Actually from the survey we are taking, and the results are not final BTW, we have a diehard group for coed, and group with major reservations about going coed, and the majority not liking the idea of girls joining, but will deal with it. My own sons are in the  latter category to a degree. If there are problems with cancelled trips due to not having enough female Scouters, they will transfer out. And I will not be going on any camp outs with girls unless a female ASM is present per my understanding of the proposed BSA policy.

 

3 hours ago, FireStone said:

You'll have to explain that. I've never heard that any outdoors components of the program were being removed. 

Your original question was " Isn't the BSA's core product a youth leadership and character-development program with an outdoor focus? Is that changing?" While girls are getting the bulk of attention now,  Exploring and STEM Scouts preceded it, and in some areas ar egetting a lot more attention that traditional programs, again until girls were added. They do not have an outdoor component.

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

My challenge would be to give it a year after you go coed.  During that time, embrace the coed dynamic and work to make it great.  Your experience is the best protection against a watered down program.  

If after a year it's too weird, retire gracefully if you want.

As I stated, I am willing to give it a try. However I am not willing to go camping with girls unless a female SM,  or a female ASM over 21 years of age, is also in attendance. i do not beleive that calling a camp out a "family camp out" with girls' dads in attendance would be YPT2 compliant. Not going to put myself into a position where an accusation can ruin my life as it did to a friend of mine when one "Scout" accused her of making a pass at him because she caught him being a peeping Tom at the female shower area. Despite a criminal investigation clearing her, her reputation was destroyed in the community, and she was permanently placed in the Ineligible Volunteer Files.

[JoeBob]

If you view the name change as a side effect of Leftist vs. Conservative, then you probably think that testosterone is a poison and masculinity is toxic like these folks at Brown do:

• Masculinity101- a weekly discussion group for students to unpack and unlearn toxic masculine norms
• https://www.brown.edu/campus-life/health/services/promotion/general-health-social-wellbeing-sexual-assault-dating-violence-get-involved-prevention/unlearning
• Gender Fluid Scouts of America , coming soon to a willing CO near you.
•  

Are girls coming to BSA to learn skills, attitudes and life lessons found in the outdoors?  I welcome that.

Or are girls being lured into Scouts BSA to increase enrollment numbers for the pensions in Irving?  The silly name change designed to be more welcoming for girls, suggests to me that BSA is changing for girls, not the other way around. 

Yet another small betrayal from national.

The water temperature got to hot for this frog. I hopped out.

 

[Jameson76]

44 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I don't think Scouts will go fully co-ed, if as volunteers we can get girl Troops and Packs off to a strong start.  

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.  In a district of maybe 30 Cub packs and 30 Boy Scout troops you may actually start from scratch maybe 1 or 2 units per year.  There will be rebuilding and reforming some existing units, but few from scratch.  Now the onus will be to possibly startup 6 - 8 new units.  Some districts will have resources and gumption to do that, most probably will not.

Then there will be the hue can cry from girls wanting to join, but the troops will not allow access, BSA is not allowing access, the deck is stacked against them...  Cue the media outcry, then there will be a coed option, then the units that do not want to be coed will come under pressure and I bet in less than 3 years, all will be coed

Actually the hue and cry will begin in October of 2018, (less than 5 months away) as potential Web II young ladies visit troops (Webelos Scouting Adventure requirements 2 and 4) and they hear of what neat things troop XXX is doing, but alas that is not an option for them.

[Eagle94-A1]

2 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.  In a district of maybe 30 Cub packs and 30 Boy Scout troops you may actually start from scratch maybe 1 or 2 units per year.  There will be rebuilding and reforming some existing units, but few from scratch.  Now the onus will be to possibly startup 6 - 8 new units.  Some districts will have resources and gumption to do that, most probably will not.

Then there will be the hue can cry from girls wanting to join, but the troops will not allow access, BSA is not allowing access, the deck is stacked against them...  Cue the media outcry, then there will be a coed option, then the units that do not want to be coed will come under pressure and I bet in less than 3 years, all will be coed

Actually the hue and cry will begin in October of 2018, (less than 5 months away) as potential Web II young ladies visit troops (Webelos Scouting Adventure requirements 2 and 4) and they hear of what neat things troop XXX is doing, but alas that is not an option for them.

 

THAT IS 110% ACCURATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Starting a unit to last is extremely hard. And getting a troop Scout led is not only harder, but also more time consuming, 3-5 years IMHO. When I was a pro, I started 6 units. Within a year 3 folded due to lack of volunteers.

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.

[Jameson76]

23 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

...are girls being lured into Scouts BSA to increase enrollment numbers for the pensions in Irving?  The silly name change designed to be more welcoming for girls, suggests to me that BSA is changing for girls, not the other way around. 

[RememberSchiff]

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,

[Jameson76]

2 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,

That is accurate, but there are many CO's that likely have little of no involvement with the Scouts.  They may provide a space (as does ours) but beyond that no real material support.  If anything we try to keep reminding the church what we do.   Eagle projects, include them in our Social Media, name on T-shirts, etc.  If the coed issue driven by the media gets legs, some will say "What...we have Boy Scout troop??"

[RememberSchiff]

1 minute ago, Jameson76 said:

That is accurate, but there are many CO's that likely have little of no involvement with the Scouts.  They may provide a space (as does ours) but beyond that no real material support.  If anything we try to keep reminding the church what we do.   Eagle projects, include them in our Social Media, name on T-shirts, etc.  If the coed issue driven by the media gets legs, some will say "What...we have Boy Scout troop??"

Doubt it.  If the media bugs a CO, the CO will just say talk to Council. If Council pushes, the  many recalcitrant CO's around here will say "We had a Boy Scout troop, bye" and if they are also a savvy CO "oh.. and thanks for the equipment for our new youth group."

There are numerous other options for former CO's.

IMO,  any pressure from the outside and National will be on Councils.

[ParkMan]

44 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As I stated, I am willing to give it a try. However I am not willing to go camping with girls unless a female SM,  or a female ASM over 21 years of age, is also in attendance. i do not beleive that calling a camp out a "family camp out" with girls' dads in attendance would be YPT2 compliant. Not going to put myself into a position where an accusation can ruin my life as it did to a friend of mine when one "Scout" accused her of making a pass at him because she caught him being a peeping Tom at the female shower area. Despite a criminal investigation clearing her, her reputation was destroyed in the community, and she was permanently placed in the Ineligible Volunteer Files.

Thanks!  The scouts will definitly benefit from that.  I'm 100% with you that you do it by the book.