A Council-sponsored exclusionary event raises red flags.  Perhaps those issues were addressed in the Council before announcing this program.  Any program in Scouting which explicitly excludes a portion of the membership should be scrutinized (not necessarily barred).  There are a few questions which must all be answered "yes" to establish this is consistent with Scouting values 1) "Is the exclusion of a portion of the BSA programs consistent with the Guide to Safe Scouting?"  (So, only Cubs, AOLs and Scouts, Cubs and Scouts doing Cub stuff, only Scouts doing Scout-age stuff, only Crews doing Crew approved stuff (such as hunting).  This seems to meet that criteria. 2) "Does this increase recruiting and/or retention?"  Arguably yes, because it provides tighter re-enforcement of retention.  It might also provide an avenue for AOL (girls) to attend and observe folks just like them. 3) "Is the Council providing a like program for those being excluded?"  Equal programming for all is critical.  I'm in favor of a campout for any group so long as other groups can likewise do so (Catholic Campout means campout for any and all other religions as well).  Here, I doubt Council is providing a male-only Council-wide Camporee.   In light of Item 3, this female-only campout by the Council is a fail for DEI. Alternative - what if one Troop (G) wanted to host a few other Troops (not nearly every other Troop in the Council or in the District) in a patrol competition? (I recognize this rises to a District-level program because of multiple CORs).  Then, yes, totally permissible because its a Troop-run activity.  

That would be entirely logical. The position largely invalidates the perspective. 

When I go to most camporees and summer camp, the vast majority of scouts are white males.  If our scouting organization wants to include other demographics, it may need to have recruiting efforts or events targeted to those demographics.  It doesn't mean changing the program or, hopefully, removing standard events.   Each year at summer camp, the leaders of the one girls Troop that attends has raised concerns about behavior.  Over time, I've seen less girls attending.   If BSA wants to remain primarily a program for white males, then don't make any changes.  If they want to expand to other groups, then between the choice of changing the program or implementing some special events, Id support implementation of these special events.  Over time, I would expect these special events would fade, but it takes a long time for acceptance of new members by existing organization members and for the general public to see scouting as a program for more than just suburban and rural white males. When my daughter joined our mountain bike team, she was one of 3 girls on a 55 person team.  She was called slow by the boys.  She was called a boy by them and her non biking friends.  She dealt with a lot of crap my son didn't go through.  The mountain bike organizer created some special events for girls and that helps her feel appreciated.  Now, we have 7 girls out of 60 or so total.  Over time, if there are more girls, she won't feel she as isolated as she once did. I would also agree we need to do better with suburban and rural white males as well, but I don't think think we need a dedicated event for them as every event I attend is 90%+ that demographic.

I certainly don't trust people who make it clear that they don't think I should be where I am to give me advice or support. I am curious about whether that it's girls only scout craft catch-up says something about just how stiff that cultural resistance is in that council. In principle, just make it a scoutcraft basics camporee open to all new units. But why didn't they? The comments that remain make me wonder if the reason is that so many male scouts are opposed to girls that it wouldn't work to help the girls, or that the council had solid reasons to think it would end up there.

I agree that the quality of the program is going to fall on the den leaders to make sure they are choosing to do the engaging fun stuff instead of just what is easy for them, but that has always been the case - that's not a change.  I'm not sure what you mean by "wiggle room" in what's required where, but in the case of Bear Habitat (which is rank required) there is only one activity suggested for requirement 7, which is the one I posted above. Unless Scoutbook doesn't have requirement 7 as required, which I can't check right now, it would seem that Bears are still required to make animal sign observations. That verbiage is even the same as before. Or am I missing something here? I was hoping that seeing that it wasn't in fact the case that you can walk the mile on a track without paying any attention would be heartening, but perhaps it wasn't. May all beings be happy regardless.