What if the Boy Scouts went coed?

[mattman578 117]

this is a side track to the original point of the thread, and

playing devil's advocate here....

but maybe cubs is the problem.  My 7 year old 2nd grade daughter is a first year Brownie this year.... they have on the books a trip or two that have been specified as not family friendly.  I'm not exactly sure of how they put it... but my wife says they don't want parents along.  The cub scout leader in me says that screams ypt red flag... I don't like it..... But maybe.....

just maybe.... cubs shouldn't be so family friendly.....

blw2 I went thought the same thing with my daughters Girl Scout Troop there YP is two leaders and do not want any adults or siblings.  

I do take my webelos camping as a den with one two other parents and no little bothers or sisters and they have a good time

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

I know of a crew that did have a couple. Girl's mom was not happy about crew campouts as a result. Eventually the crew folded as the Venturers went their separate college ways.

 

As for the couple, well they just got married in July.

[desertrat77 1144]

 

As for the couple, well they just got married in July.

Eagle, it was true love!   Bug juice and smores at the reception?   Joking aside, I wish them all the best.  

 

As for the discussion at large, I've noted that several forum members are not in favor of coed scouting, and have articulated their reasons quite well.   So I pose this question:   give the state of the world (more and more coed), and the state of the BSA (declining numbers, National's indifference to traditional scouting, etc), what is your proposed solution to stop the BSA's slow but determined course to irrelevance?   I realize that is a strong word, but I've seen the BSA slip in size and stature within communities over the years.   What is going to turn the tide the other way?   Soccer, STEM, and water gun bans ain't gonna bring them in the door.

[Eagledad 2777]

Eagle, it was true love!   Bug juice and smores at the reception?   Joking aside, I wish them all the best.  

 

As for the discussion at large, I've noted that several forum members are not in favor of coed scouting, and have articulated their reasons quite well.   So I pose this question:   give the state of the world (more and more coed), and the state of the BSA (declining numbers, National's indifference to traditional scouting, etc), what is your proposed solution to stop the BSA's slow but determined course to irrelevance?   I realize that is a strong word, but I've seen the BSA slip in size and stature within communities over the years.   What is going to turn the tide the other way?   Soccer, STEM, and water gun bans ain't gonna bring them in the door.

As I said before, this is the same justification that was being use by many for allowing gays in scouts. Many of us knew that changing the policy to accepting gays was not the solution for increasing membership because we only had to look at the history of the Girl Scouts, Campfire Kids and Canadian Scouts to see how it effected their program. So by using history as an example in this case, we can look at the Campfire Kids and Canadian Scouts for peek into the future. I'm not exactly sure where the Campfire Kids number are at now, but I know they are well below what membership was before the accepted boys. And the Canadian Scouts is but a shell of what the numbers where in 1990 (I think around 40%) before they started admitting, well just about everybody. 

 

So I think we can conclude that simply inviting everybody and their pet in the program does not mean numbers will increase. In fact, history shows the opposite. 

 

So whats at the heart of the declining numbers. Well it is difficult to say at the moment with the huge policy change to accept gays. We will just have to see how that sorts out, but there has been a lot of talk of program issues that could help change the trend like reducing the demand on the adults in the Cub Scout program. Of course it could also be that a Youth Outdoor Adventure program is seeing the end of its days in this culture and the decline to natural level is inevitable. If that is the case, lets at least hold the quality of boys side of the program to the present level for those boys who do choose to participate.

 

Barry

[Cambridgeskip 658]

As I said before, this is the same justification that was being use by many for allowing gays in scouts. Many of us knew that changing the policy to accepting gays was not the solution for increasing membership because we only had to look at the history of the Girl Scouts, Campfire Kids and Canadian Scouts to see how it effected their program. So by using history as an example in this case, we can look at the Campfire Kids and Canadian Scouts for peek into the future. I'm not exactly sure where the Campfire Kids number are at now, but I know they are well below what membership was before the accepted boys. And the Canadian Scouts is but a shell of what the numbers where in 1990 (I think around 40%) before they started admitting, well just about everybody. 

 

So I think we can conclude that simply inviting everybody and their pet in the program does not mean numbers will increase. In fact, history shows the opposite. 

 

So whats at the heart of the declining numbers. Well it is difficult to say at the moment with the huge policy change to accept gays. We will just have to see how that sorts out, but there has been a lot of talk of program issues that could help change the trend like reducing the demand on the adults in the Cub Scout program. Of course it could also be that a Youth Outdoor Adventure program is seeing the end of its days in this culture and the decline to natural level is inevitable. If that is the case, lets at least hold the quality of boys side of the program to the present level for those boys who do choose to participate.

 

Barry

 

Barry, I think you are being selective. Yes Canada has had its problems, but world wide scouting is mostly coed and mostly growing. If you are going to make comparisons you have to look much wider than one comparitor.

 

I don't think that admitting girls is the solution to BSAs problems, although neither can I see it worsening them, but neither do I think it was the cause of Canada's problems. Talking to leaders at our twin group in Ontario it went much deeper than that.

[gumbymaster 98]

You are applying your observations of post puberty behavior with pre-puberty boys. It is not the same. Nature has wired us to learn about 90% of our behavior from observing others by the time we reach puberty. That is why role modeling is so important at that age. In fact, it is important for both genders to have good role models of the same gender so that they see themselves in their role models. How we learn after puberty is different, so it isn’t as important.

 

Barry

I am aware of that, thus why I was careful to make sure I noted it when describing my observations.  But in the end, why the difference exists, I think, is less important than the fact that it does and that it can have both positive and negative effects on ultimately achieving the goal and aims of scouting.

[Eagledad 2777]

Barry, I think you are being selective. Yes Canada has had its problems, but world wide scouting is mostly coed and mostly growing. If you are going to make comparisons you have to look much wider than one comparitor.

 

I don't think that admitting girls is the solution to BSAs problems, although neither can I see it worsening them, but neither do I think it was the cause of Canada's problems. Talking to leaders at our twin group in Ontario it went much deeper than that.

It is interesting how this discussion has gone full circle with using girls to add membership to the BSA. If that is what it takes the save the BSA, then the program is doomed anyway.

 

Yes, the Canadian Scouts were hit hard by a lot of issues, mostly from national politics. But my point is that adding girls did not enhance their numbers. And if it did, can you imagine how badly the program was for addition of girls to hold the number at 40 percent. Sadly the BSA is going through its own cultural dilution. Before the admission of gays, I had a pretty good knowledge and understanding of where the BSA membership was going. Admission of gays changed the dynamics so much that I don't think anybody including National knows were the membership is going now, except down. 

 

As for comparing against European Scouts, that is a wrong comparison because our cultures are so different. We can't begin to use them as a model for how it would work in North America. And, are they really growing? Who knows.

 

Bringing in girls basically to raise the membership is the wrong motivation because it will change the program a lot and not likely for the better. As I said, if bringing in girls to the troop program reduces the quality of the program for boys at all, it's not worth it. It's not like we don't have scouting programs for girls. The Campfire Kids is also a very nice program with a lot of outdoor program.

 

I think we should focus on giving our sons the best program we possibly can and I haven't seen anything convincing that adding girls would give us the present level of performance we have to today. 

 

Barry

[Cambridgeskip 658]

It is interesting how this discussion has gone full circle with using girls to add membership to the BSA. If that is what it takes the save the BSA, then the program is doomed anyway.

 

Yes, the Canadian Scouts were hit hard by a lot of issues, mostly from national politics. But my point is that adding girls did not enhance their numbers. And if it did, can you imagine how badly the program was for addition of girls to hold the number at 40 percent. Sadly the BSA is going through its own cultural dilution. Before the admission of gays, I had a pretty good knowledge and understanding of where the BSA membership was going. Admission of gays changed the dynamics so much that I don't think anybody including National knows were the membership is going now, except down. 

 

As for comparing against European Scouts, that is a wrong comparison because our cultures are so different. We can't begin to use them as a model for how it would work in North America. And, are they really growing? Who knows.

 

Bringing in girls basically to raise the membership is the wrong motivation because it will change the program a lot and not likely for the better. As I said, if bringing in girls to the troop program reduces the quality of the program for boys at all, it's not worth it. It's not like we don't have scouting programs for girls. The Campfire Kids is also a very nice program with a lot of outdoor program.

 

I think we should focus on giving our sons the best program we possibly can and I haven't seen anything convincing that adding girls would give us the present level of performance we have to today. 

 

Barry

 

It is interesting how this discussion has gone full circle with using girls to add membership to the BSA. If that is what it takes the save the BSA, then the program is doomed anyway.

 

Yes, the Canadian Scouts were hit hard by a lot of issues, mostly from national politics. But my point is that adding girls did not enhance their numbers. And if it did, can you imagine how badly the program was for addition of girls to hold the number at 40 percent. Sadly the BSA is going through its own cultural dilution. Before the admission of gays, I had a pretty good knowledge and understanding of where the BSA membership was going. Admission of gays changed the dynamics so much that I don't think anybody including National knows were the membership is going now, except down. 

 

As for comparing against European Scouts, that is a wrong comparison because our cultures are so different. We can't begin to use them as a model for how it would work in North America. And, are they really growing? Who knows.

 

Bringing in girls basically to raise the membership is the wrong motivation because it will change the program a lot and not likely for the better. As I said, if bringing in girls to the troop program reduces the quality of the program for boys at all, it's not worth it. It's not like we don't have scouting programs for girls. The Campfire Kids is also a very nice program with a lot of outdoor program.

 

I think we should focus on giving our sons the best program we possibly can and I haven't seen anything convincing that adding girls would give us the present level of performance we have to today. 

 

Barry

Barry 

 

It might surprise you that in some ways I agree with you.

 

An attempt to increase numbers is indeed a poor motivation for admitting girls. My point is that there is no evidence that opening membership to girls has caused numbers to fall elsewhere.

 

Similarly I agree that comparisons to Europe are not good ones. I would suggest that Australia is probably a better comparison culture wise. Large land mass, high population density at the coast, low density inland, cultural history of self reliance and socially conservative with a big outdoors culture.

 

Australian scouts went fully coed in 1971. They have a numbers problem now but that is a 21st century problem and wasn't a problem in the 70s, 80s or 90s.

 

It may surprise you even more that I think that there are perfectly reasonable arguments for having separate male and female programmes. There are also good arguments for combining them. Ultimately I don't think it matters either way. However I have seen that coed scouting does work and can work in all manner of different cultures round the world and my point is there is really nothing to be concerned about should BSA move in the direction.

 

I'm hesitant to go off topic but as you brought it up BSA clearly has a problem with its numbers which has existed well before the change in policy towards gays. I haven't enough experience of the BSA programme, to understand where that stems from (although I have my suspicions) although the causes are unlikley to be simple or down to one individual factor.

[BDPT00 41]

The last few comments have been pretty good, but I would still hesitate if the purpose of doing whatever we do is to be like some other country.  Scouting is a part of the culture, and how it works elsewhere is a product of that culture.  I don't want to be Australian, and I don t want to be Canadian.  I'm an American, and I'm a member of the Boy Scouts of America. 

[qwazse 4342]

I agree with @@BDPT00 in that I have no interest in imitating another country for imitations sake.

 

For example I admire what my Czech friends have accomplished as scouts. But they did not have anything like the trail to Eagle.

 

So, does America need young women who rank First Class, Star, Life, and Eagle? Would our military be stronger ... with more competent enlisted women? Would our college student bodies be more successful? Our work force more capable? Would the next generation have better parents?

[Cambridgeskip 658]

The last few comments have been pretty good, but I would still hesitate if the purpose of doing whatever we do is to be like some other country.  Scouting is a part of the culture, and how it works elsewhere is a product of that culture.  I don't want to be Australian, and I don t want to be Canadian.  I'm an American, and I'm a member of the Boy Scouts of America. 

 

I don't think anybody has suggested its about imitating anybody else.

 

It's simply a case of saying that when considering should BSA go down the coed route it's a good idea to look at the evidence from other scout organisations that went down that path and how it worked or didn't work for them.

[ianwilkins 366]

It is interesting how this discussion has gone full circle with using girls to add membership to the BSA. If that is what it takes the save the BSA, then the program is doomed anyway.

...

As for comparing against European Scouts, that is a wrong comparison because our cultures are so different. We can't begin to use them as a model for how it would work in North America. And, are they really growing? Who knows.

...

I think we should focus on giving our sons the best program we possibly can and I haven't seen anything convincing that adding girls would give us the present level of performance we have to today. 

 

Barry

 

Your points in a random order...

 

And, are they really growing? Who knows.

 

As it happens, I know about the UK, have kept up to date a spreadsheet of census figures for the last few years. All sections have been growing every year since 2007. It's not massive growth, between 2% and 4%, but that's better than the 5% annual drops we were seeing for the 10 years previous.

 

I think the crux of the issue is that actually you're right, if you're going co-ed to boost numbers, you're starting off on the wrong foot. I don't remember that scouts in the UK went fully co-ed to boost numbers, they changed the sections and the uniform and the programme at the same time, more or less, so it's all mixed up together.

 

My personal opinion is that scouting in the UK had got a bit staid, was doing the same things in the same way, and wasn't appealing to as many boys, who didn't want to wear shorts and grey socks with garter tabs and a cap. Scouting had moved from becoming something loads of kids did in the 50s, something normal to a bit odd maybe. Those that enjoyed it enjoyed it, but many dropped out due to peer pressure, and that got worse as it got less cool. I think whether girls do it or not is almost irrelevant.

 

If you want scouting to grow in the US, and you want it to grow because you believe that the skills and values scouting teaches are still important, then you need it to appeal to more kids, and their parents. I think that's the lesson you can take from the UK. Reading that back it seems obvious, but that's the nub of it.

 

I run an Explorer Scout Unit in the UK, (aged 14-17) we went on summer camp, and most of the 23 were hammocking, gender becomes irrelevant really, the chance to wake up overlooking a creek, go sailing, poke fires with sticks, cook for themselves, kayak, hike, swim, lie on the jetty and watch for shooting stars, have fun together, that's what appeals. Yes, we've had couples on camp before, chats are had, boundary lines are drawn, and we get on with the fun stuff. That they can mix without the pressure of, say, a school disco, or somewhere else where it's all about coupling up and dating.

 

Idle random thoughts from me.

 

Ian

[qwazse 4342]

@@ianwilkins or @@Cambridgeskip, what is the gain in male membership? If lots of girls joined but even half as many boys left (which I don't believe is the case), that might influence our opinions.

[ianwilkins 366]

@@ianwilkins or @@Cambridgeskip, what is the gain in male membership? If lots of girls joined but even half as many boys left (which I don't believe is the case), that might influence our opinions.

 

Ok, I have figures split by gender since 2007....

 

           2007 Census             2014 Census              Increase 2007-14       % Increase 2007-14

             Male  Female   Total     Male  Female   Total    Male  Female   Total Male Female Total

Beavers    89,455   9,420  98,875  104,173  18,472 122,645  11,697   7,610  19,307 13.08% 80.79% 19.53%

Cubs      120,901  12,952 133,890  128,721  24,654 153,375   7,011   9,961  16,935  5.80% 76.91% 12.65%

Scouts     87,767  14,775 102,542   97,848  26,866 124,714   9,214  10,723  19,937 10.50% 72.58% 19.44%

Explorers  21,634   7,023  28,657   30,461  12,582  43,043   7,235   4,598  11,833 33.44% 65.47% 41.29%

Network     1,164     594   1,758    1,586     789   2,375     300     116     416 25.77% 19.53% 23.66%

 

The percentage change looks large for girls, as they were only allowed into all sections some time between 2002 and 2007 if memory serves. Explorers/Network started as mixed sections, replacing Venture Scouts (which was also mixed).

 

It's pretty clear though, that the number of boys involved has increased, though at a much slower rate than the increase in the number of girls involved. Of course, the unknowable/unanswerable question is whether the number of boys joining would have increased at a faster rate, or, indeed, decreased, had there been no girls involved.

 

Ian

P.s. formatting...best this bear of very little brain can do.

Edited September 9, 2015 by ianwilkins

[walk in the woods 888]

A few years back a young man in Iowa defaulted a wrestling match in the state tournament because his opponent was female.  He stated 'As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa.' 

 

He was alternately pilloried for being chicken and applauded for being a gentleman in various media outlets.  There have even been papers written complaining that boys making these kinds of decisions are intentionally limiting girl's ability to compete and basically arguing that we need to deconstruct masculinity (http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1471&context=nlj,).  Ultimatley, that's what this debate (and women in combat roles) is all about, deconstructing gender roles. 

 

One of the other currenly active threads is bemoaning the lack of outdoorsmen in the BSA.  I suppose it's not too hard to connect the dots.