Why can't there be coed Scouts, BSA units? Answer from lastest Scouts, BSA Office Hour - because 50% of boys will leave

[skeptic]

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Really? I was under the impression just the opposite.

Indonesia
India
Philippines
Bangladesh

All coed

Yep, I believe you are right.  My experiences, both at Jambo's, Philmont, and our local camps, including summer and COR is that the boys have no real issue once they get past the adult naysayers.

 

[SilverPalm]

For reference, I was involved in the Scouts as a Youth member in the early and mid 2000s.

I will admit, when I heard that girls and young women were to be allowed into the program, I was torn about it.  On one hand, letting everyone participate in Scouting activities is exactly what Scouting is about - but on the other, my all-male troop experience was extraordinarily valuable to me as I grew up in the Scouts.  

I saw it mentioned here on this message board that the BSA was one of very few areas where boys could have an all-boy experience... and as we all know, boys tend to act differently when around girls of a similar age than when surrounded only by male classmates.

It wasn't about fear of competing with women - I think the leadership missed the mark when they said that.  But having a male-only space allowed a more relaxed atmosphere, I think - it's hard to articulate - because I wasn't worried about being judged by the opposite sex.  At that age, I was very much interested in what the girls in my class thought of me, but that constant worry wasn't present at Scout camp.  Being surrounded only by boys my age or a little older or a little younger resulted in a culture that was much more teamwork oriented than I remember school or sports being, where the guys are constantly trying to outdo their buddies to impress the girls.  

Now, none of this has anything to do with the girls themselves - and none of it is their fault.  But it should be noted that boys of a certain age do in fact act differently around girls than they do when surrounded only by other boys - and having a space free of that bravado was a relief as a kid.  

So I guess here's my thoughts - should girls be allowed in the program?  Absolutely.  Doing otherwise is contrary to the spirit of Scouting.  But I do not think that all troops should be forced to be co-ed (and to be fair, I don't think anyone is suggesting that).  Having certain troops be co-ed might well be appropriate and beneficial for those who would excel in that environment - but as a former awkward kid, if I could do it all over again, I would have chosen an all-male troop.   I was able to learn a lot about myself in the Scouts without the pressure of having my female classmates around, and I don't want that experience to be lost.

In short - should some troops be co-ed?  Sure - it works fine in Venturing, Exploring, etc.  Should all troops be co-ed?  No - at least IMO.  The option to choose between either co-ed or linked single-gender troops should still be available.

[David CO]

51 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Evolution of the program will hopefully soon realize the foolishness of no coed.   

Heaven forbid that there should be any foolishness in scouting.  But that is exactly the point.  Boys need to have a program where they can act like boys without being called out for it by the women and girls.  Boys need to act foolish once in a while.  Best that they go out in patrols, deep into the woods, away from all civilizing influences, when they feel the need to act foolish. 

[qwazse]

25 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Really? I was under the impression just the opposite.

Indonesia
India
Philippines
Bangladesh

All coed

They allow boys and girls to work the same program, but they are largely sex-segregated. Think "linked-troops" and you pretty much get the idea. Moreover, in many countries, their boy- girl- scouts organizations play nice.

At Jambo, it was quite interesting watching the opposite sexes from certain countries work together for the first time. They are definitely not all Swedes. Most don't have a king mandate that they fully integrate.

Pakistan. Why does everybody forget Pakistan?

[Eagle1993]

4 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

It wasn't about fear of competing with women - I think the leadership missed the mark when they said that.  But having a male-only space allowed a more relaxed atmosphere, I think - it's hard to articulate - because I wasn't worried about being judged by the opposite sex. 

I think this is a better argument for single gender.  The strong male leaders will do fine when competing against the girls.  

The truth ... they want the girl membership fees without losing any boy membership fees.  So .... they are attempting to create a solution that simply doesn't work.

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Pakistan. Why does everybody forget Pakistan?

Because I was going for top 5, minus U.S. Pakistan is #6 or 7

[TMSM]

As someone who advocates for the rights of boys I have to say that not going co-ed is the right thing to do. I have polled many of my SM peers and they feel the same, that is a place (and possibly the last place) where all boys have their own space. We have a very strong GSA community and so we see very lttle interest from girls. I know most of my peers here would step down if they had to deal with co-ed and those challenges and are here to make a difference if a boys life not work with girls. There are many other places here that cater to girls (girls that code, GSA, Girls sports, etc..) so thats where we focus when it comes to girls. We have lots of coed activities and I mean mostly so boys and girls mix all of the time. What they dont get to do is just hang with boys and most of my scouts joined our troop to do just that.

I liked the fact that Ventture crews were Coed and this was a place for it. However if you look at the numbers girls in thos crews were dropping dramatically.

I see that my Council is more focused on getting girls than boys. If they spent 1/2 the effort they are on getting girls they could increase boys by ten fold (my opinion). 

This is a great book to better understand how boys are under served - https://www.amazon.com/Boy-Crisis-Boys-Struggling-About/dp/1948836130/ref=sr_1_1?crid=ZH3CE81ZWNHY&dchild=1&keywords=the+boy+crisis+warren+farrell&qid=1615914287&sprefix=the+boy+crisis%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-1

[Eagledad]

35 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think this is a better argument for single gender.  The strong male leaders will do fine when competing against the girls.  

The truth ... they want the girl membership fees without losing any boy membership fees.  So .... they are attempting to create a solution that simply doesn't work.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, they wanted to girl membership fees without loosing the boy membership fees.

No, my experience is that until puberty, the female's instinct of "organization" runs all over the male's "lack-of-organization" instinct. 

Once through puberty, growth is more equal and gender competition isn't such an issue. At least from a scouting perspective.

Barry

Edited March 16, 2021 by Eagledad

[Eagledad]

,,

Edited March 16, 2021 by Eagledad

[Eagle1993]

36 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Well, yes and no.

Yes, they wanted to girl membership fees without loosing the boy membership fees.

No, my experience is that until puberty, the female's instinct of "organization" runs all over the male's "lack-of-organization" instinct. 

Once through puberty, growth is more equal and gender competition isn't such an issue. At least from a scouting perspective.

Barry

I think it varies by individual.  We have a coed girl Troop that works alongside our Boy Troop.  

1 - Quiet, very quiet.  Parents pushing her to get Eagle quickly.  Currently star rank and will likely earn Eagle with no PL, ASPL or SPL experience.

2 - Loud, physical.  Plays sports.  Been to the BWCA every summer of her life since 3.  No desire for leadership roles so far.  Going to Philmont.  Does have some push for Eagle as her older brother just missed out, but primary focus has not been advancement.

3- Somewhat quiet, balanced between advancement and hiking activities.  Covid slowing her down a lot (parent concerned).  

4 - New girl, very vocal.  Still getting to know her.

5 - Quiet girl, heavily involved in other activities.  Will likely not have many leadership roles unless she cuts back other activities.

If I had to generalize where I see boys vs girls prioritize.  Boys, in general, seem to prioritize outdoor adventure, then leadership, then advancement (MBs).  The girls, in general, seem to prioritize advancement, then outdoor adventure, then leadership.

So, I do expect girls to have a higher rate of Eagle Scouts, but I don't see them taking over all the leadership positions in a coed Troop.

I hate saying this as there are examples of boys and girls that break that generalization.  I will say boys get much more advancement focused at age 17.5.

 

[Eagledad]

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

If I had to generalize where I see boys vs girls prioritize.  Boys, in general, seem to prioritize outdoor adventure, then leadership, then advancement (MBs).  The girls, in general, seem to prioritize advancement, then outdoor adventure, then leadership.

 

This is correct. Girls on the other hand prioritize "organization". Organization applies to the other parts of the program, but the problem is the boys lack of organization tends to drive them to retreat and let the girls run the show. And let's not confuse organization with leadership. Being Organized isn't a higher drive or ability to lead, boys of that age just tend to default direction to those with better organization skills because following the direction is easier than being organized. Where girls struggle is their lower instinctive priority for adventure. They will tend to let the boys come up with the fun ideas and then organize for it. I've noticed in girls only programs that it's the adults who give the girls the ideas for adventure. 

Adults could certainly balance the situation if they understood it, but most adults believe the instincts of boys and girls are equal. They may say otherwise, but they don't know where they are different, so they treat them as equals. I found the natural adult reaction for girls being more organized is to brag about them with the intent of using peer pressure to drive the boys to grow. The boys instead just resent the adults and retreat even more. Boy grow is better when boys are developing within a common struggle of the group. Girls too.

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I hate saying this as there are examples of boys and girls that break that generalization.  I will say boys get much more advancement focused at age 17.5.

Yep, 70 percent of our scouts earned their Eagle age 16 and older. My inclination is Girls don't have any higher desire to advancement than boys, if they advance faster, it's because their organization skills making advancing easier. That being said, for some reason adults want the girls to prove themselves, so they drive the girls harder.

The problem here is that adults get antsy is their scouts aren't close to Eagle by age 15 (mothers are the worst) and start driving the scouts to advance instead of doing adventure. There are a lot of scouters who really believe that scout loose their drive to earn the Eagle completely after age 14. As you point out, if they are having fun, their motivation generally comes at a later maturity when the earning the award actually has some personal meaning. 

Barry

[ParkMan]

13 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

During the February 2021 Scouts, BSA Office Hours, Scott Berger (a Scouts, BSA National Leader) was asked why no coed Troops.

This was his response video from 28:30-31:00

That [coed troops] is not in the plan. Nobody supports that [coed troops]. And there's good reason for it. The reason that the program is laid out the way it is currently is because we realized that in many respects girls mature quicker than boys. And having a coed program would disadvantage the boys. And we don't want that. I'm making a joke now. Lot of married people out there. You understand. You know why. Females take over sometimes. That was a joke.

But what I really want to say is that we looked at the experience not only in Venturing, where young women will often assume leadership roles, but we also looked at other countries where they went towards coed troops and a coed way of doing things and it really hurt the young men to the point that the young men quit scouting by about 50%. We don't want that to happen here in the BSA.

So there is no plan. Whenever anybody asks about it, we say very firmly, that's not happening. So, take it to the bank as best you can. But that [coed troops] is not happening.

That was an awful answer.

1. That "girls mature faster than boys" and "we don't want to disadvantage the boys" is the reason, that's an offensive and insulting reason.  That stereotypes each group and neglects the notion that boys and girls can influence each other.  Both genders will benefit from begin around the other.

2. If no one on their committee is talking about co-ed troops, they have the wrong people on that committee.  How do we get someone a bit more current on that committee?  I've got no time, but I'll volunteer.  Just PM me.

Edited March 17, 2021 by ParkMan
expanded the thought

[mashmaster]

I don't understand or believe this.  As a Sea Scout Skipper and a leader for a Crew, the are truly Co-Ed. They get along great.  We have had male leaders and female leaders both great in their own way.  It is sad that they aren't even considering it.  I think they should have Troops that can be co-ed, all male, or all female.  Why not have the option?

[TAHAWK]

They likely thought it would meet less resistance.  Their ability to predict reactions to their noves as been remarkablely weak.

[InquisitiveScouter]

19 hours ago, David CO said:

Best that they go out in patrols, deep into the woods, away from all civilizing influences, when they feel the need to act foolish. 

And the Scouters that go with them ;)....