I had to go looking to make sure I understood the terminology used.  Admittedly, I was not cognizant of the definintion of cisnet and its related terms.  Perhaps they are more precise in the current atmosphere, but I am not sure that they may also play into the greater confusion so many seem to have.  Most of the confusions and conflict appears, to me anyway, to simply be that emotions that once were sublimated are now often expected to be shared, even when the person with them is still confused and not sure about it.  Are we as a society, here in the U.S. at least, too conflicted within to allow others to deal on their own terms?  Are we threatened somehow?  E.G.; I have never understood why some push the issue in religion versus atheism.  It is a play on words to me, as the definition of atheism contradicts itself in my view.  Still, much of the legal wrangling on that front relates to someone "feeling oppressed" by simply having to on occasion see a cross or other religious symbol, and so insists that their right to not be conflicted by a symbol overrides that of those who use or represent that symbol.  I always wonder why they are threatened, as they simply can not look, or ignore it.  Again though, what we once called "common sense" is a vague, almost non existent thing now.        Even more sadly, we seem to add to the confusion with too many young people just because we are roiled ourselves emotionally.    

NAM used 2023 numbers. In March, the 2024 actual membership numbers were posted elsewhere on this forum and they were around 870,000 or 890,000 -- can't remember which. BSA also changed the registration scheme so that anyone signing up after August 2023 would not be prorated but signed up for a 12 month membership so that number likely includes some dropouts that normally would have been cleaned up on December recharters. Renewal notices will be issued for six months after that, so anyone on the roles now is going to stay on the roles as a member for 18 months rolling forward. In a way, it gives further explanation of the move to change the name. Krone said girl membership was 176,000, or nearing 20%, but in reality it is likely already over 20% if live membership is closer to the March numbers. 

I find it interesting - and I don't mean strange or wrong, but literally interesting - that you ask a woman for examples of how traditional gender role expectations hurt men even though another man just gave a whole list with a lot of passion. Because I'm not one, all my examples are going to be second-hand, parroting back what I've heard or seen men say about their own lives. My personal contribution can only be checking that what they're saying is consistent with what I see from the outside. Why ask me, not @Eagle94-A1, when he's the one arguing that I underestimate the problem? I did find a short rundown that seems to summarize a lot of what I've heard, although I notice that it lacks the 'losing everything' type problems that Eagle94-A1 brought up: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/202303/the-state-of-todays-male-psyche I'll note that while the male gender role makes it harder to connect with others, it's also not really the case that all women are totally fluent with recognizing their own emotions and talking to others about them, either. Brené Brown's legendary (at least among agilists) TED talk on the importance of vulnerability for connection includes her personal struggle with being vulnerable, for example. But our gender role doesn't make whatever personal hurdle we have taller and steeper. I do agree that two-parent households work better than one-parent households just based on adult-to-child ratio. I don't have a lot of opinions about any lack of masculinity in part because I don't know what you mean by masculinity exactly. It's one of those words used by a lot of people to mean a lot of things. I suspect you and I have pretty similar ideas of what a 'real man' is like, at least compared to the people who take toxic masculinity way too seriously. I routinely hear men who I find quite masculine called not masculine by others and rarely with a kind spirit, so... Without some kind of working definition of masculinity I don't really want to wade into that. Now, I think I should say something about what is not a problem in addition to what is, namely natural and authentic overlap between one individual's way of being and interests and traditional gender roles. While gender roles are made up (i e socially constructed), they do connect to patterns of behavior. The key issue for me is freedom to choose how to live your life. I suppose, strictly speaking, that the problem isn't the abstract existence of gender roles but that some (actually a lot of) people use them as a hammer to force people to live a certain way. The toxic masculinity and femininity problems are the folks who hide their insecurities behind a gender role wall. ("You can't criticize me because I'm the perfect man/woman!") But there's also a more subtle (but also much more common) level of basically pleasant but somewhat (or even very) unhappy people who don't feel like they can openly be who they are on all the points that don't live up their gender role 100%. And let's face it, that's most of us! Few people totally embody stereotypical maleness or femaleness, and that's ok. The male and female gender roles hammer people differently, but the basic problem is being hammered in the first place.  I've been called a lesbian (I'm straight) and/or masculine for liking STEM. Good effort hammering there, but since I'm cishet and traditionally feminine presenting it's pretty obvious that the people trying to hammer are the ones with the problem, not me, especially because us girls and women in STEM seem to have no problems whatsoever finding partners. There are plenty of men who want a smart woman with high earning potential. Like you and your wife, my husband and I conform to traditional gender roles in some ways but not others, and, well... Doesn't every couple? Like you say, every couple is different and should be allowed to make things work however the two of them (or the n of them, whatever, same principle) please. If that confirms to traditional gender roles, fine. If it doesn't, also fine. The question that matters is "does this work in practice?"

Well said though though I can easily flex on the "provider" view.  I know many very feminine women who have strong professional careers earning good money and I know many very masculine men who daily wash dishes, do laundry, vacuum and bathe their kids.   I agree though that we scare too many of our young men away from being masculine.  

I have found that pros come and go, usually on a yearly basis. And most folks stay around until their kids age out the movement. There has always been a cadre of long time volunteers, whose knowledge. skills, abilities, time, and treasure could be relied upon to keep things running. I have been in multiple councils in my 42 years of Scouting. And that fact is one of the few constants.