EmberMike

There is a huge difference between the (former) policy of the BSA and what the program actually is. Part of the perception of manliness comes from images of ranks of boys and men lined up on parade fields. It looks almost militaristic. In reality, those kids are often clearing off those parade fields after the flag ceremony to go do some basket weaving or knot tying. The program isn't quite as manly as the policy-driven all-male image would suggest. I agree the policy change alters some perceptions of the BSA. But that doesn't make those perceptions accurate. Should we really make policy decisions based on some peoples' inaccurate ideas of what the BSA really is?

Honestly I think the whole "manly" argument in the context of the discussion of girls in the BSA is a red herring. It's the easy answer to give if you're against girls in Boy Scouts, because it attempts to cut off any argument to the contrary based on a gender divide alone. Reduce the discussion to physical qualities that men are believed to more often possess, and it's harder for someone to argue against that. I think it is intended to distract from the fact that scouting is almost entirely about things that are not exclusivly "manly". We go camping a lot, sure. And there's a bit of a manly element to that certainly. But camping and the outdoors is just a vehicle for delivering the scouting purposes and methods. The top thing people always say when asked what scouting is about is "character development". There's no "manly" requirement for character development. No gender advantage. Girls are equally capable of developing strong character as boys are. I also think the idea of girls in the BSA hurts some folks' sense of what scouting is all about to them. Adding girls into the mix makes some people believe that scouting is now less manly just because of the possibility of girls being present. Look at social media responses to this and you'll see lots of teenage boys saying they're quitting, even though many are of an age where they could finish out their youth scouting careers without ever seeing a girl in their troop or at camp. It's about ego, and some people are struggling with the fact that Boy Scouts really wasn't quite as manly as they thought it was. Just the idea that girls can do this is enough to make some boys want to quit. The BSA portrayed manliness through policy, not program. Now that policy is gone, and with it goes the one thing that let many people think scouting was primarily about building up manly men.

I'm not worried about it. This isn't going to be the same story a lot of us know, where a troop camps somewhere and a girl scout troop happens to camp nearby, and the boys all lose their minds. The novelty of that kind of situation is what fuels the dumbness. The boys see girls every day at school and think nothing of it. They're capeable of focusing in class, working with girls on projects, etc., without issue. But out in the woods in a situation where you don't expect to see girls, it's totally different. That all will change with this new girls initiative in the BSA. If the novelty of seeing girls at scout meetings, trips, events, etc., wears off, then we're just back to business as usual. And I believe the novelty will wear off quickly.

Girls were on camp staff when I was at summer camps as a kid in the 90s. It's certainly nothing new. I went to a camporee this weekend, in a staff of about a dozen probably 4 were girls/women. I heard the statistic recently that as many as half of scout leaders are women. Girls are always in attendance and on staff in noticable numbers at the larger events, jambo, etc. Girls have featured prominently in BSA literature, marketing materials, advertising, etc., to promote a family-friendly program and environment. If the argument is that the BSA was a place to avoid the female gender entirely, that hasn't really been the case in a long time.

Thanks, everyone. Some great tips in here, much appreciated. I've been browsing Amazon for a basic machine, trying to spend $100 or less. Still not sure what I'm going to get, but at least I have a better idea now of what kinds of features to look for.

I agree about the modeling behavior idea. But when my opinion of neckerchiefs isn't exactly favorable towards the wearing of them, I kind of think I'm already modeling the behavior I prefer.

What am I missing...

The scouts in my pack do wear them. Not sure who decided leaders don't wear them or when. It was just how things were when I arrived.

I've hand-sewn badges onto my uniforms since I was a kid, and I still do it by hand today on mine and my son's uniforms. But I think I've finally had enough with the hand-sewing. It's just too time-consuming. I'd really like to get a sewing machine and figure out how to use it, but I have no idea where to begin. Especially since we're talking about badges here. I'm not even sure if a basic sewing machine can handle pushing a needle through a thick badge. Any tips on where to start with learning how to sew badges by machine? Or any suggestions for a machine that's cut out for this kind of task?

Unless/until it is required as part of the uniform, you won't see me wearing one. Same likely goes for most of the other leaders in my Pack, I don't get the feeling any of them would be anxious to wear a neckerchief.

Ignoring the argument about whether this will stop the membership decline or not for just a second, let's say the BSA did nothing different today, membership kept declining, and in 10 years there was no more BSA because they didn't have the membership numbers to support the organization any longer. Is that a better way to go out? Personally I'm much happier to see the organization fighting to stay alive then to simply fade into oblivion.

My pack is looking into Team Snap, which I honestly know nothing about but those who have looked at it say it seems promising. The big perk I've been hearing about is that if we use it, we'll be able to get trip rosters and payments done through the Team Snap system. Instead of email trails of chasing down parents to find out who's going camping, who paid, getting someone to pick up or drop off cash/check, etc., it can all be done through the app. In theory at least.

I would think in the interests of YP, electronic (email/text) communications would actually be preferrable, as they are recorded communications that can be referred to later if need be.

What BP envisioned 100+ years ago was gone 40 years ago.

Just for clarity, and assuming by your use of commas I'm correct in reading this statement to suggest that all progressives on this forum claim all male scouting is sexist, not all progressives think that. There are many reasons discussed by us progressives on this forum for wanting co-ed scouting. It's not all about thinking male-only scouting is sexist, a viewpoint that I personally do not share.

If mom and dad are both leaders (which they can already be), we're really only adding a troop-age daughter to the mix, potentially. I haven't seen anywhere suggesting that pack-age kids would be welcome on troop outings.

Where is all of the concern about troop-level family camping coming from? Maybe I'm missing something, but nothing I've read or heard leads me to think that family camping would be welcome on troop outings. All I've seen so far is talk about family scouting primarily aimed at the pack level. I really never even considered that co-ed troop camping would be anything other than what it is now except with girls along doing the same things the boys do, plus a female leader.

In the video he said: "Consider a proposed structure that would have a mechanism for bringing in family cub scouts of boy dens and girl dens, also packs that are single gender, boys and girls, offering that as an option for COs and parents."

And I'd venture a guess that few of them have the size, reach, and availability of the BSA. What good is that CSWAG organization to most of the county when it's only available in the Los Angeles area? As far as I can tell anyway, correct me if I'm wrong about that. Who else has the resources the BSA has? The access to camps? The infrastructure to provide support and resources to local units? The training resources? Not to mention the prestige of the Scouting name and the respect that achievement in the BSA garners. I'd guess that there are probably less than 10 organizations in the US that really can even come close to comparing to the BSA program, and probably half that number that have the reach and resources the BSA has while being widely available in just about every community in the country. I'm sure there are other things that kids could jump in to other than the BSA. But not anything that matches what the BSA has to offer. If all someone wants is youth leadership training, that can probably be found elsewhere. But if someone wants youth leadership training in an environment that fosters outdoor skills, life skills, personal growth, adventure, camping and summer camp, and a huge list of things that can be learned through the merit badge program, then I would argue that only the GSUSA is in the same ballpark. And even then they're not close enough, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing girls wanting to get into the BSA program.

You're entitled to your opinion on the various changes over the years. I don't agree with your opinion, but how you feel is how you feel. I do, however, have to take issue with the idea that the BSA is becoming a "generic social club like all other organizations for kids today." Unless the BSA starts significantly changing advancement requirements or removes advancement altogether, it's not a social club and it's definitely not like all of the other orgs kids can be a part of. It's far from generic. This isn't a book club or a sport. It's not a social hangout, kids are expected to participate in learning activities, show proficiency in various skills, participate in community service, etc. And the amount of work it takes to advance, especially if a scout advances to Eagle, is a ton of work. If the BSA was becoming more generic, it would have folded years ago. What makes it unique is exactly what makes it still appealing to anyone. It's how we got into this whole co-ed debate in the first place, that girls wanted to do the BSA program because nothing like it exists anywhere else. I think it's disengenuous to call it a "generic" program. You're taking your opinions about policy changes and applying those feelings to everything about the BSA.

Well said. No matter what anyone's stance is on this or any other issue, you can't do much good if you're not around.

That's kind of what I was thinking regarding Back Pack's comment about resigning. I guess everyone has their breaking point, but I think it's kind of odd that it didn't come much sooner for BP if it's based on frustration with how National operates. This kind of stuff may seem more egregious than ever, but really it's nothing new.

Resurrecting an oldie here... This whole topic is fascinating. I've really never even considered that someone could be wearing some sort of earned insignia without having actually earned it. Which I know is totally naive, but I guess I just figured, "It's Scouting, the first point in the law is 'Trustworthy', surely this can't be a real issue." I've seen insignia violations (middle-age adult wearing the eagle badge sort of stuff), but I really never considered that someone I've encountered could be wearing false insignia, knots/beads they didn't earn, etc. Nothing else to add, just that I'm unreasonably shocked by this.

So many jokes here... - Anyone seen my Merit Badge Hash? I mean... sash? - Plant Science MB just got a lot more interesting. - Morning flag raising was moved from 7am to 11am due to low attendance. - Introducing new hemp uniforms... with tie-dyed neckers. - COPE course had to be shut down because it was confusing when everyone kept saying, "Dude, we're so high right now." - The mess hall has been renamed the "Willie Nelson Dining Hall"

I've been kicking around the theory that all of the recent membership policy changes are more about PR and marketing than they are about actual policy. All driving towards some new vision of the BSA as a more modern, forward-thinking, tech-friendly (STEM), all-family-oriented organization that is fun, adventurous, inclusive, and welcoming to all (or most anyway). With that theory in mind, let's look at this seemingly dwindling supply of family time. Whether it's real or not (I think it's not but that's just me), maybe the BSA has never-the-less heard from some parents that it's just too hard to make it all work, getting to various activities, sports, clubs, etc., and the BSA wants to appear to be helpful in this regard. Again, look at it from a PR/marketing angle. It doesn't matter if the problem the BSA is offering to solve is real or not. It's the perception in the minds of potential new customers (families) that could be driving all of this. We actually saw some of this mentioned in Surbaugh's presentation, about how current non-scouting families might be more persuaded to join if the whole family could participate. Maybe the idea of co-ed as a means to help the membership numbers problem isn't actually about boosting numbers with girls added in. Rather, it's about boosting numbers of boys and girls by positioning the BSA as this modern organization that has moved beyond the restrictive membership policies of old and as a new version of scouting that is more compatible with modern views on inclusion. Forget whether any of that is true or not, just look at it as a marketing strategy intended to boost membership and profits by creating a renewed public viewpoint of the BSA. How a customer views a company is a huge part of marketing. And if the BSA is making all of these changes in order to change the perceptions that "customers" have of the BSA, I think it stands to reason that this all could be more about marketing and public relations and less whether or not families really do need a more easily accessible program.