AwakeEnergyScouter

In a US context: Yes, the antonym is conservative. It used to have one clear meaning, but now I just have the same question you asked when I hear it. "What does that mean to you when you say it?" It has so many effective meanings, as does conservative, that they're both becoming useless for communication unless you know the person using them well enough to know what they mean without asking. Both are used as insults both directly and ironically.

I'm pretty sure the account is a human - not you - for multiple reasons. No, I can't prove it, but Occam's Razor suggests it's a human. Not taking what accounts post here seriously because they might be someone posing as a scouter, a troll, or a bot will rapidly destroy any semblance of civil and a scoutlike conversation, and we know that because that's what happens on every chan board. The experiment has been run several times and it always ends in something that's completely against several points of the Scout Law and Oath. For your point to be true, everyone else on the Internet needs to take the basic position of chan culture, which they don't. This board has all the hallmarks of real humans and will be treated as such by mainstream Internet users.

I asked why the medium matters, this is not a response to what I said and it's a strawman to boot. I agree that it's wrong to dispose of those one does not agree with and that we need to work together. That's not what I'm arguing for. Please don't put words in my mouth. So, why does the medium matter? You never answered. Why doesn't the presence of the youth matter? Isn't that the difference you're pointing at, really? That you can say certain things to other scouters in private, but not in the presence of youth? You do realize this forum is the social equivalent of us standing in a town square in our uniforms saying everything we've ever said here every second of every day to anyone who cares to listen, including scouts?

I don't know that there's a tactful way to say "your presence here is bad/unwanted". You can deliver it with more or less polish, but "you should be kicked out of this organization" is a fundamentally unfriendly message. Allowing scouts and scouters to tell scouts they shouldn't be in scouting is not a good idea. It creates all kinds of problems in the long run, for both individual scouts and the organization as a whole. Even if the comments aren't targeting a specific youth member, it undermines our value foundation (you only really need to treat some scouts in a friendly and helpful manner) and so puts our reputation in question on that same point again. And why would the medium in which the opinion is expressed matter? Why would something be ok to say on a Zoom or online but not in person? Scouters who do think that BSA should change membership policy to exclude some scouts are certainly free to express that opinion as long as nobody affected by such a proposed policy change hears it. I mean... What would be the effect of allowing people to question the wisdom of allowing black scouts, Jewish scouts, Muslim scouts, Latino scouts, lower-class scouts, etc, in earshot of the scouts that would be affected and scouters who once were those scouts? It's "just asking questions" passive aggressive. That's not the same as scouters discussing it in private. There I agree with you. But this isn't private. It's in scout earshot. I don't care so much about whether people who want girls and LGBTQIA+ scouts out of BSA change their minds, because whoever hasn't changed their mind at this point probably isn't going to. I care if they get in the way of scouts scouting. Certainly, there are a lot of people who have served scouting for many years who have a problem with some scouts being in the program. They deserve many thanks and respect for what they've done for scouting. But that doesn't mean they can break the scout law now thanks to their long service. You can be grateful to someone and disapprove of specific things that they do at the same time.

I'm not sure I understood you correctly. It sounds to me like you're saying that we should let scouts and scouters break any and all parts of the scout law as long as they're experiencing change that's hard for them personally. If scouts are being unkind, unfriendly, etc towards other scouts, then it's on the scouts being targeted to "earn respect" from the aggressors and we scouters shouldn't intervene, not even if the aggressor is another scouter? Or are you talking about changing why some scouts would choose to bully female and LGBTQIA+ scouts, but not actually the question of what to do about the YPT violations their choices lead to?

Some of the phrasings made me think there's also a hostile culture problem in boy units towards girl units, but I would think newly formed units ought to have less of that if that is indeed the case. And if it is, I think it's totally appropriate to kick disruptive and disrespectful units out. Scout law violations are always a problem to deal with. Girls should absolutely not need shielding from boys; something has gone quite awry if they do.

I have to take back my outrage at that specific girls-only camporee. Just in case there was some additional context, I reached out to the organizer, and it turns out that the camporee is there to solve the problem of weak scoutcraft experience among both scouts and leaders. I had most of the facts, I just didn't put them together in a way to predict the problem because of my own scouting and family backpacking experience, including my current scouting involvement in a family pack with family dens where girls and boys learn the exact same scoutcraft skills, hike the same miles, set up the same tents, cook the same camp food, fish the same river, etc. I have so many memories of girls and boys together doing scouty stuff that I failed to imagine that the older girls who join Scouts BSA by and large didn't have scouting or personal outdoors life experience, because it's only been five years since girls have been allowed to join. I assumed that the girls who joined came in with that experience, but they didn't, at least not in that council. To make the lots-of-new-scouts problem worse, they got concentrated into girls-only units, many with new leaders who also didn't have scouting and apparently often outdoors life experience. In that council, many packs are still boys only (restricting the crossover pipeline for girls) and several charter partners refuse to charter girls units outright, so the membership growth in girls has been slower than they expected. Rather than the usual timeline of join a troop in late winter to be comfortable going to summer camp with the troop that summer, the girls apparently tend to join in August - after summer camp - often with no previous camping experience whatsoever. So, they scheduled the camporee to be a 'soft landing' for girls who join in fall to learn core scoutcraft skills as well as leader training for things that we in mixed or boys' units mostly learn from watching it be done by others, like How to Hold A Board of Review and How to Be A Merit Badge Counselor, and Troop Committee Training. Based on the feedback, it seems effective both in teaching as well as getting the new scouts hooked on scouting. So, my take is that the girls-only camporee is solving the problem of ensuring quality in units a lot of new scouts with brand new leaders, which is in large part created by requiring girls and boys to be in separate units. If the girls had been able to join existing units, this problem would have been solved organically, but because they weren't there was a training need, which the camporee is filling. I initially thought the purpose of the camporee was a bit like the hogging of the good bathroom, but that's not the case. My bad.

Thanks for sharing! I've heard this about GSUSA, but that it happens in BSA also was new to me. Indeed, a cautionary tale! Any troop that craves amenities may have a culture problem, irrespective of gender.

Interesting. Honest question: what would clearly demonstrate to you that I do not see myself as participating in the culture wars? Right! Exactly. We share a values foundation. That IS the hill to die on in scouting, don't you think? That we should base all our activities on the Scout Law and Oath? Or do you feel otherwise? If I am right and we do agree that all of our activities in scouting should be grounded in the Scout Oath and Law, then would you also agree that violations of the Scout Law and Oath should not not be tolerated in scouting contexts, or do you think that giving room to discuss any and all subjects and perspectives regardless of whether they are or are not consistent with the Scout Law and Oath is more important? For example, if a scouter says that Jews shouldn't be allowed to join BSA in a national training Zoom, is calling out saying that as against scouting values taking a "my way or the highway" attitude that intimidates the discussion to go one-sided? What if that is their honest opinion? Should nobody say anything because we don't want to impose our personal values on others? If Christian scouts tell Jewish scouts that their presence in their shared troop isn't a good idea and leaders tell the Christian scouts to stop saying that and point out how that's against the Scout Law, are the leaders out of line because they're imposing their own personal values on the Christian scouts? I mean, what if they honestly hold that opinion? Should nobody say anything because we don't want to impose our personal values on others? If scouters post online to say that they think that the presence of black scouts in the BSA inhibit the full moral development of white scouts, is asking them to stop saying that a "my way or the highway" attitude that intimidates the discussion to go one-sided? What if that is their honest opinion? Should nobody say anything because we don't want to impose our personal values on others? Is scouts and scouting-related places like this forum the place to discuss truly anything and everything under the sun without any guidance or limits on what gets said? I do not think so. I'm not so sure you do, either. Do you really? In the main YPT video, an expert says (after talking about the victim's relatively small ability to change the situation) "Then there's the person causing the harm. They have a lot of ability to make different choices where they aren't causing harm. What can we do to build up empathy? What can we do to get rid of contempt? Might be one of the harder groups to change around the behavior, but we have to acknowledge that part of prevention is actually reaching out to the person who is causing harm and say 'Don't harm.' And then the third group are the people who are just watching it play out, the bystanders, and they actually have a huge amount of power as they work to stand up for the person who is being targeted by offering support." Another expert says, "There is some research that says the best way to rein in bullying, the best way to rein in dangerous behavior, is not to focus just on each of us and teaching ourselves personal safety, but teaching everybody to look out for one another. I have a job to look out for you; you have a job to look out for me. In creating an environment where we see something inappropriate, such as bullying, we all speak up, we all stand up against the bully." So my perception of the situation is that everyone who says in earshot (IRL or digital) of scouts that LGBTQIA+ and girls shouldn't be in the BSA is causing harm, and that by asking them (including but not limited to you) to stop harming I am doing my part as a loyal scouter to look out for my scouts and prevent bullying. This is my understanding of the situation. I'm not sure what "side" you think that's on, but that's how I see what's happening. What I haven't heard from you is an explanation of how FireStone and I are wrong about saying that girls and LGBTQIA+ folks shouldn't be in the BSA is against the Scout Law and/or a YPT violation. I mean, maybe I'm missing something here. How is that consistent with the Scout Law and Oath in your view? Could you please explain? Is your personal intent actually to be kind, friendly, and welcoming to girls and LGBTQIA scouts by saying they shouldn't be in the BSA? Just to be clear - you're saying that I shouldn't object to anything at all that I hear here from other scouters (adults) because I am Cubmaster now and have been asked to consider a Scoutmaster role when my scout crosses over? Why is that, how does that work? Are you saying that no opinions of mine are worth hearing right now? If so, when is my opinion worth hearing? Or am I a moderator here and in charge of shutting down conversations I don't like? Honestly asking. I'm not sure that I follow the logic here. From what follows, it seems like you think that I talk to my scouts like I talk here. I do not. You are a grown man - it would be insulting to address you like an elementary-school child, don't you think? I would personally find that very disrespectful if someone did that to me, so I'm not going to do that to you unless you specifically ask me to. Scouts may be reading this, but they're also not required to keep reading if I'm boring the way they do have to stay if I'm boring during a meeting.

Sounds like they could use some extra support. Nothing wrong with preparing to help people in groups if there's patterns in who has obstacles and why. What would help military dependent scouts?

These kids today need to appreciate the roots of their fancy image emojis, the merit badge should have requirements like "design your own ASCII smiley using at least five characters"

I was wondering about "the behavior" (I assume going full papa/mama bear) in unisex environments, in case I might have been too quick to think that benevolent sexism was a factor, but even if there's a fuller picture of papa/mama bear behavior that goes a bit too far in single-gender environments as well as mixed-gender environments asking for female-only zones really shouldn't be happening. We are all scouts. That's not a narrative, that's how it is. Or, perhaps I should say, that's how it should be in a properly functioning scouting organization. I don't think that's subtle at all. I've never been in a female-only zone larger than a bathroom in my life, why do we need them in Scouts BSA? Of course girls shouldn't be told they don't belong, but female-only areas are also a non-starter. Just like in OP's case, your camp leadership shouldn't be giving in to a single troop's unjustifiable demand. I find this ludicrous, since we all slept in the same tents, shared carrying the patrol gear, etc. Benevolent sexism may not be as immediately threatening as misogyny but it's still a problem. Equality in a scouting context means equal treatment and equal opportunities for male and female scouts. YES. OMG. What the heck is going on here? 😱 I think maybe there's been some confusion about how to solve the girls not being welcomed by all problem... Two wrongs don't make a right.

Would you be willing to say more about this?

I agree that there is a strong narrative around saying that everyone has to 'pick a side', but I don't know that the narrative is correct. Why are there only two 'sides'? Why are these the sides? Why must I buy an entire 'side' hook, line, and sinker? Reeks of false dichotomy to me. I don't think the world works that way, and I think - to your later point - that in order to preserve scouting as a place to find healthy acceptance, we need to reject that basic frame. Everyone should feel welcome and accepted as they are, quirks and all, in Scouts. That can't happen if scouts/scouters are on two different 'sides'. And while I've read various suggestions for where the narrative came from, I think this is a case of "pull the arrow right out". Solve the problem without first comprehensively analyzing why it came to be. We don't have to participate in sorting people into two absolute categories. Or, if we do, the categories 'scout' and 'non-scout' make sense 😄 I don't haven't really come across anything that clicks with what you're saying about 'traditional' and 'political correct driven troops', so I'm not entirely sure that I know what you're talking about there, and I don't think my voice is needed in any discussion about a potential rise in transition regret rates, but I do agree that social media use by youth is a problem. So do lots of other parents, though, that's a pretty normative opinion among parents of Gen Alpha kids as far as I can tell. I think we think that because of what we ourselves and Gen Z have lived through, though, so I'm sure there's a lot of problems sill going on with the youth that did get smart devices and social media access too early. I just heard an interview with Jonathan Haidt about his new book The Anxious Generation, which sounds like it's a summary of all the research demonstrating the problem as well as what to do about it. His age limit recommendations and anti-phone pacts among parents in a friend group is what's emerged naturally around my own (cub) scout, actually. But those problems are a big part of what makes me think that the time is ripe for scouting to make a resurgence. I mean, what are we offering? Offline friendships and experiences in an accepting and loving environment. That's a bullseye for several kinds of solutions for the loneliness that social media can lead to. Scouting being a place where youth can be accepted as they are is also key here. I think we have strong agreement on that this is very important to protect and make happen. I don't particularly want to get involved with people's sex lives and gender identities, I mostly care about that whoever and whatever they are, they can feel free to be genuinely themselves in Scouts, because that is the seed from which everything else can grow. Without the ground of experiencing one's buddhanature (even if not put in those terms), one cannot travel the path of scouting to the fruition of a better world. While we may be concerned about different specific obstacles to that, it seems like we completely agree on the goal.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that the latest traditional gender role is a threat. I was pointing to how wide the agreement that aggression and violence towards women (because women are a subset of people) is bad is. We agree on that even if we disagree on the accuracy of other feminist ideas and policies. And this agreement is what's relevant for this discussion. Feminist analysis of gender roles is out of scope for this discussion, but there is plenty elsewhere to read on the subject if you're interested. As far as the PWD podium goes, that leader made sure to say it out of earshot if all of the scouts. No scout of either gender found out that the leader was happy about this, probably for the reason you point out. And the point of sharing that story was to provide a specific example of that there are native-born male American former BSA scouts now feminist scouters that want the option for girls and boys to scout together all on their own. There is genuine demand for that from within the BSA. Trying to cast the calls for that as some outside force trying to push the BSA isn't accurate. That's what I'm trying to say. The point was that there is genuine grassroots support for scouting together.

Your sign idea is solid, and the other troop's behavior was not. That's not at all acceptable. First dibs on the big shower is not scout-like at all! And I'm with Eagledad, how can a troop override the camp leadership? Camp leadership needs to fix this for you. I'm also struck by that they had their own signs, which means they planned it. And it wasn't just that they hogged the good shower and sink, they did so by reference to gender. I can't know for a fact, but it smells like benevolent sexism, like they thought that they deserve the nice facilities because it's men's duty to sacrifice for women. Well, that's not how scouting works, and if that's what's in fact going on it's even more important that camp leadership fix this and don't let themselves get overruled by a troop. IMO you shouldn't even have to go to another camp to avoid this. If someone has to leave, it should be them, not you.

Thanks for taking the time to explain! I understand that you're moving on. No problem. I did want to clear something up, though, for everyone still here, that seems to have been missed. This was a family pack that, unbeknownst to me when we joined, was in the family den pilot with written explicit permission to have both girls and boys together in dens. The relevant agreement bullet is Beginning with the 2022-23 program year pilot packs may form Lion (Kindergarten), Tiger (1st Grade), Wolf (2nd Grade), Bear (3rd Grade), and Webelos (4th Grade Only) dens with boys and girls in them. Arrow of Light (5th Grade) to prepare them for Scouts BSA are to remain in single-gender dens (this is a requirement and not optional). Multi-rank dens such as a den of Wolves (2nd graders) and Bears (3rd graders) working on their respective badges of rank may also be formed with girls and boys. It would be disingenuous of me to pretend that I disapproved when I didn't, pilot or not, so I didn't. I was completely honest and open with my understanding of what the pack was doing. But as a parent I wasn't really reporting that understanding to anyone. By the time I joined the committee, the family den program had officially launched so there was no question left.

I'm trying to point to that basic feminist values are not opposed to scouting values, including therefore BSA values, by asking the reader to really take in what RememberSchiff posted an excerpt from. Of course you recoil from gender-based violence because it is mid-evil, and it's not just you and me who think so. Having that gut reaction of NO! is the sign that this is outside the Overton window for whatever society you're part of. Of course WOSM is joining the UN in trying to get gender-based violence to stop, and to move the world closer to having gender equality, because it's totally the right thing to do. I really do not think there is any debate at all about whether this is wrong in US society. We all agree that's not ok. The reason that's worth reminding people of less great things going on in the world in a somewhat sharp way is that the basic ground of broad, strong agreement on that seems to get overlooked on the topic of girls and LGBTQIA+ people in the BSA. We scouts and scouters are all united on that there is no exception in the scout law and oath for behavior towards women (and LGBTQIA+ people, even if you have some kind of aversion I cannot believe anyone here condones violence against them). There is no exception in 'kindness' that allows being mean towards fellow scouts who are girls or LGBTQIA+. Etc. I'm also hoping that people will notice in their reaction that aggression towards women is disallowed even by the latest traditional male gender role, so further unity regardless of what one thinks of gender roles... and many of the topics you mention in your second paragraph. We can disagree about tons of feminist-related things going on while having very solid agreement on core feminist values, which are the ones that are key to this discussion. The main problem FireStone is pointing to here is that the BSA is failing on its own value foundation here. 'BSA is failing' is being discussed, but I want to point to the importance and implications of 'own value foundation'. Own value foundation. There seems to be a persistent tendency to think about needing to be kind and friendly to female and LGBTQIA+ scouts as some kind of imposition from outside, but that's just not the case. I think this obliges individual scouters to think about what I would call Right Speech in scouting contexts simply by virtue of their own value foundation. Everyone else's religion may not have that concept or anything similar, I don't know, but the idea is certainly around, T.H.I.N.K. Before You Speak for example. You don't have to like girls or LGBTQIA+ people in the BSA, but when you express that opinion in the physical or digital presence of scouts that are female or LGBTQIA+, don't ask what's legal or what's in the Constitution, ask what's kind, courteous, friendly, and loyal. Being rude and a disloyal friend is 100% legal, and insulting your friends is also 100% free speech, but that doesn't mean that it won't have consequences for your relationships with others. In the case of complaining about some BSA scouts being in the BSA, hurting fellow scouts and by extension the BSA. Scouters that want to vent should do so somewhere where it won't be heard by those they're ranting about and they shouldn't do things that make others feel unsafe or unwelcome.

I honestly do not see what's so horrible about having two dens share a meeting for pragmatic reasons. It was allowed for different ages already, and multiple ages could even be in the same den. All for pragmatic reasons I imagine. Like you say, InquisitiveScouter, you still have to apply some judgement and common sense. I don't see how that's against either the Scout Law or Oath, and definitely not that's a much worse rule-bending or breaking than many other such situations discussed here on the forum previously. Sure, some pragmatic rule-bending or breaking can be dangerous, but it doesn't necessarily follow that all rule-bending or breaking in all circumstances ever is dangerous or against the Scout Law and Oath. Could either of you please explain your train of thought here? Also - why trustworthy and not obedient? The rule that dens must be gender-separated makes so little sense for a family pack that it made me wonder if there was a rule modification for packs participating in the pilot. (Think about it - there were girls-only packs and boy-only packs and they were testing family packs - if girls and boys can never be in meetings together, how is that not just a girls-only pack and a boys-only pack sharing a unit number? What would be the point of that? And like I said, if they can do some meetings and camping together but not other meetings - why? That makes no sense and I can find zero additional risk of... anything happening at all at the den meetings specifically. Maybe that's my failure of imagination, but if so it's an honest one.) One quick search later I now know that there was. So it wasn't actually breaking policy in the first place, I misspoke. I had just read the rules before joining, because I planned to abide by them, and it said girl and boy dens are separate on the BSA webpage. I accepted that, but was glad to find they weren't in practice. (They were on paper, though, if it makes anyone feel even better.) And now, as you know, it is allowed for everyone who would like to put girls and boys in the same den even on paper, so obviously national didn't deem it a very dangerous, un-scoutlike thing to do. Probably because literally millions of scouts have already done it that way. Normal people doing normal things. Now, since at least ToKindle96 isn't actually commenting on the topic at hand but rather only on rule-following and interpretation of BSA policy no matter the context, perhaps a separate thread would be appropriate. That could certainly be valuable, since it's a topic that comes up from time to time, like here recently with whether being a registered cub scout prevents one from camping with a troop one is considering joining even though the rules would allow it if one wasn't a cub scout. I know I've read others where a conversation about the gray has value, too. But this discussion is about the need for the BSA to enforce YPT and certainly not contribute actively to scouts not being safe, or feeling like they're not.

Of course. Had they not done that, they couldn't have served girls at all. They wouldn't have had the leadership. Finding double the den leaders, or getting the existing den leaders to do the same den meeting twice isn't trivial, especially to serve just one or two scouts. And how fun is it to be in a den alone? And tell me, what is the danger we're saving classmates by day from, by making sure that they never do the same activity in a den meeting together? They were allowed to go camping together and do pack meeting activities together, and often are in the same class all day - what would be achieved by strict gender separation for den meetings only? The rule doesn't make sense, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was widely disregarded like the one night camping rule was. As I pointed out explicitly, that wasn't my personal doing in the first place - decisions the pack committee made before we joined can't possibly be "my agenda", can it? That's why I pointed that out in the first place, to show that the pack already rolled like I liked when we joined. I didn't have to change anything when I joined. What's your agenda in objecting to a pack doing what they can to serve as many scouts as possible safely? Choosing the word "agenda" suggests that it's a secret, possibly nefarious plan I have, as opposed to a normal scouter doing normal things in implementing the BSA scouting program and wanting to keep their scouts safe. Scouters wanting to implement the program isn't an agenda, that's normal people doing normal things. The rule they didn't have to bend was that girls and boys couldn't scout together, because they were in the family pack pilot - in other words, the program was already for what would become my scouts to scout together. Even in the BSA, not just from my personal life experience, defending girls and boys scouting together is defending the status quo. "Agenda" is usually used about someone's attempts to change things, girls and boys scouting together isn't a change even in the BSA at this point. The reason I've gone out of my way to point out that I'm an old Swedish scout is so that people here can understand that my strong support of girls and boys scouting together comes from within the scouting movement and from my own life experience. I lived scouting together myself, and so did my dad, and the generation before him. I want the same experience for my scout. That's not radical activism. I want to keep things the same as when I was a kid. You can want something else, but implying that me wanting to preserve the status quo and being ready to go to bat for it is some kind of activist secret plan is not reading the situation correctly.

And let's also not pretend that girls and boys scouting together is some radical, newfangled thing that's actually outside the US Overton window that some radical radicals are trying to force the BSA and every single individual inside the BSA to adopt as part of a daring cultural war caper to ruin the BSA and/or America. Like... Where is this narrative even coming from? In case someone needs to hear this, the pack we joined was in the family pack pilot (so parents approve of scouting together and committee voted to enter the pilot), and every single committee member with a son in the pack has at some point or other expressed either gratitude for the girls being there or feminist pride in the girls' achievements. When we joined, they were already ignoring the separate dens by gender rule and the effective dens were just by age. The girls in our pack are actively wanted and the parents have self-selected into that because it's right on the "Family Pack" label. I had to do zero - absolutely none - pitching for gender equality or DEI to the committee, they were already acting out what I think should be done when we showed up, which of course is why we stayed and invested time and money into the pack. (I was asked to join the committee, and asked to take over as CM when the old CM wanted to transition to CC.) Everyone on the committee was a scout themselves in their youth, so this is not some outsider takeover to make it a family pack. The parent so happy about a female sweep of the Pinewood Derby podium in Women's History Month is an Eagle. There are absolutely male BSA members who want girls and LGBTQIA+ folks in too - in his case, the same reasons as mine. The committee is basically a friend group. Speaking of unit membership policies - I haven't heard a single peep from anyone ever in the direction of banning single-gender units, and yet the question of whether single gender packs and troops are allowed keeps being asked even though the answer to that is also settled. I don't get why anyone would want that but apparently people do, and as long as them doing it doesn't interfere with my scouts' ability to scout together it doesn't hurt my scouts in any way if they do that. The only need to oppose single-gender units would come if they struggle with loyalty to their fellow scouts of the opposite gender. This shouldn't be a problem. I would like to think that if it occurs, it can be solved by working with the Scout Law some more rather than banning a unit type that there is demand for. So, like FireStone was emphasizing, what's notable isn't so much that logistics and membership policy details could change but that there does seem to be a group of scouts and scouters who are trying to get certain scouts to quit, and that this seems to be nominally tolerated by the BSA and the BSA scouting community. I mean... Do I really spell out why that's contrary to the Scout Law? Surely not.

Reading the replies above, I can't help but notice that a) no one has disputed that opposition to scouting's promotion of feminist goals of gender equality is outside the Overton window in the US b) at least one person takes the view that membership policy is still evolving and c) there is yet another call to disengage from standing up for gender equality. To me, this reads as confirmation - and the risk of confirmation bias is why I'm sharing the above as a bystand - of that the purpose of continuing to complain about girls and LGBTQIA+ people in the BSA is to get national to reverse allowing us membership by shifting the Overton window. Is that correctly perceived? Are there people here who hope to drive us back out?

Barry, I assume you're talking about me in the discussion about affinity groups? If so, you have misunderstood what I was saying, and you're going beyond the frames of civil discourse that in that you're not sticking to the issue (saying that girls shouldn't be in the BSA, especially with bitterness or vitriol, hurts the scouts it's aimed at and thus the BSA) and that you're telling how I feel and what my motivations are - and you're wrong about those. Please stick to civil discourse in the future. I have explicitly explained my motivations several times. Let me know if you need links to those posts. Perhaps you didn't read them? As for your grandchildren - they should be welcome. If they do not feel welcome, then we need to understand why. If it's because someone isn't following the Scout Law, then that's something to correct. Can you give us an example of what hostile environments you or they have been in in the BSA, so that we can understand the issue better?

Perhaps this is a product of us being effectively in different social spaces (especially thinking of us being from different countries here), but I don't know that society is debating whether it's okay to be violent towards women because they're women. I've never, ever, in my life heard anyone, male or female, young or old, any attribute or other you could choose, say that it's ok to hit women because they're women. In the path I've taken through life on this planet, that's completely outside the Overton window of every society I've been part of. No debate at all. It's universally condemned as far as I know in the US. The WOSM statement went beyond just gender-based violence, of course, but I also don't know that society is debating whether women are equal in human value to men, either. I've never heard a person IRL say that. Have you? If you have, I'd love to hear more about that. I've seen people on the Internet try to shift the Overton window on this issue, but I've still never met anyone who's willing to say out loud that they think that men have more intrinsic worth than women, or something closely related like that they think that men should get paid more than women for doing the same job with the same qualifications. It seems wildly uncontroversial to say that women and men are equal in value to me. Like, "I support democracy" or "killing is wrong" politically uncontroversial. Up there with white walls and beige couches. Gender equality is a basic building block of at least European political culture (EU value 4). Saying that men and women are not equal in value and dignity is also outside the Overton window of every society I've ever lived in, best I can tell. It's just not something that's debated. There is, as far as I can tell, wide agreement on this issue. Have you met anyone who thinks that men have more inherent worth than women? A lot of the gender equality the UN and WOSM is concerned about is from countries where it's much worse than here. What does seem to be going on in countries with globally high levels of gender equality is that there are individuals who do secretly think that it's ok to hit women because they're women and that men are have more intrinsic worth than women and act like it, but avoid stating these opinions out loud because they recognize that these opinions are outside the Overton window. In scouting, we have the Scout Promise/Oath and Scout Law as a common value foundation to operate off of. We are not a debate society. If it's outside the Overton window, I don't think we have some obligation to entertain it as a debate subject in our movement. Like you say, we've got better things to do, like getting on with the scouting. It's just not our role to debate ideas, especially ones that alienate some scouts and were outside the Overton window to begin with.

100% everything you just said, @FireStone! Bravo! And for any scouts and prospective parents reading this, there are units out there that are in fact on board with the scouting movement's commitment to feminism as per @RememberSchiff's post above. I and my scout have been nothing but welcomed by our pack and council IRL, and one of the male leaders was so thrilled to see girls sweep the speed podium at our Pinewood Derby this year that he talked about it throughout teardown. There are male allies in the BSA.