Outside Magazine: Boy Scouts Should Allow Girls

[desertrat77 1144]

They've never taken the BOY out of Boy Scouts either. You bet the name will change. It's false advertising. It won't be Boy Scouts anymore.

Back Pack, they started to take "Boy" out of the title in the '70s.  A little bit anyway. Check out the '72 - '83? green uniform tape over the right pocket--there is a red fleur de lis with "Scout B.S.A."

 

Short-lived rumor at the time:  it was groundwork for coed scouting.  But then nothing happened.

Edited July 6, 2017 by desertrat77

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Girls in.  Scouts of America.  Impact on Congressional Charter?

I'm having difficulty imagining who would have federal standing to file a lawsuit challenging the charter. And if someone did have both standing and motivation to do so, it seems odd that they haven't filed a lawsuit in the 45 years since female youth were permitted to join the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Which will NOT change its name. I usually shy away from making predictions, but this seems like a safe bet to me.

[desertrat77 1144]

A thought on changing an organization's name....

 

Even if a mission changes, I've never seen the benefit of tinkering with the organization's name.

 

I had a ring-side seat to this during my 30 years in the military.   Multiple name changes of units to reflect a senior leader's preference, or a slight mission addition, or a new combo of old units.  Or a desire to "church things up."

 

Intentions are good but a name change usually results in something bland that doesn't really capture the spirit of what the unit does.  Or the traditions. Then, for a variety of reasons, this blandness permeates the unit.  The same with changing signage, literature and other stuff to reflect a new mission.  The organization seems to lose something.

 

If the BSA goes coed, the worse thing it could do is make wholesale changes towards gender-neutral.  The girls that are already in the BSA, and the ones that will join, are drawn to the BSA because they like what this organization does.   They typically aren't hung up on the types of nuances we are discussing in this thread.   They want to hike and camp and be a part of a team.

 

Change it and no one will be pleased.

Edited July 6, 2017 by desertrat77

[Back Pack 431]

Back Pack, they started to take "Boy" out of the title in the '70s.  A little bit anyway. Check out the '72 - '83? green uniform tape over the right pocket--there is a red fleur de lis with "Scout B.S.A."

 

Short-lived rumor at the time:  it was groundwork for coed scouting.  But then nothing happened.

But they didn't take the Boy out of the equation. Make it coed you NO LONGER have BOY Scouts, you have Scouts.

 

Time will tell if coed happens, and if the name changes

[desertrat77 1144]

But they didn't take the Boy out of the equation. Make it coed you NO LONGER have BOY Scouts, you have Scouts.

 

Time will tell if coed happens, and if the name changes

 

Fully agree, but it was strange!   "Scout BSA"...Scout Boy Scouts of America?

 

At the time, some folks were fully convinced coed was going to happen.  Granted, it was awhile ago and the rumors died down circa '75.

[RememberSchiff 3690]

A thought on changing an organization's name....

 

Even if a mission changes, I've never seen the benefit of tinkering with the organization's name.

 

I had a ring-side seat to this during my 30 years in the military.   Multiple name changes of units to reflect a senior leader's preference, or a slight mission addition, or a new combo of old units.  Or a desire to "church things up."

 

Intentions are good but a name change usually results in something bland that doesn't really capture the spirit of what the unit does.  Or the traditions. Then, for a variety of reasons, this blandness permeates the unit.  The same with changing signage, literature and other stuff to reflect a new mission.  The organization seems to lose something.

 

If the BSA goes coed, the worse thing it could do is make wholesale changes towards gender-neutral.  The girls that are already in the BSA, and the ones that will join, are drawn to the BSA because they like what this organization does.   They typically aren't hung up on the types of nuances we are discussing in this thread.   They want to hike and camp and be a part of a team.

 

Change it and no one will be pleased.

 

Boys Town (Father Flanagan, "He ain't heavy, he's my brother", outside of Omaha and other locations) admitted girls in 1979 and changed its name to Girls and Boys Town for a few years. The name reverted back to Boys Town even though their programs are for boys, girls, families. Sounds familiar.

Edited July 6, 2017 by RememberSchiff

[Stosh 3452]

Back Pack, they started to take "Boy" out of the title in the '70s.  A little bit anyway. Check out the '72 - '83? green uniform tape over the right pocket--there is a red fleur de lis with "Scout B.S.A."

 

Short-lived rumor at the time:  it was groundwork for coed scouting.  But then nothing happened.

 

I do think this is about the same time that Exploring went the way of co-ed.  I spent a lot of time organizing co-ed Explorer Posts in a council.  They were generally a General Interest Post (all the former Explorer post fell under this category) and Explorer Posts of interest along the lines of Hobbies and Careers.  In the late 1990's they went with Learning for Life (Careers) and Venturing (Hobbies and General Interest, aka High Adventure) 

 

So in fact the BSA had it's roots in co-ed starting in the early to mid-1970's.

[qwazse 4353]

Fully agree, but it was strange!   "Scout BSA"...Scout Boy Scouts of America?

 

At the time, some folks were fully convinced coed was going to happen.  Granted, it was awhile ago and the rumors died down circa '75.

The logo, at the time was Scouting USA. ... That 70's show.

If it's the BSHB, trail to Eagle, patrol method, it's Boy scouting. No matter if it's 5%, 50%, 95% girls. But I don't even think we'll be at 1% based on what I've seen in my region.

As long as we recruit girls who would proudly be Boy Scouts, we will be just that. If on top of that, thos girls recruit the types of boys who've drifted away from our program, we could even be more true to our charter than we have been for decades.

 

If we try to girl-up a program, then yes, we should drop pretense of being in it for the boys.

[Cambridgeskip 658]

I think there is approximately a zero percent chance that the name of the organization will be changed regardless of what other decisions they make. After all, there have been girls in BSA programs for 45 years and it is still the BSA.  "Cub" is a gender-neutral word, so that stays the same.  I guess that for coed and all-girl troops they will come up with a name other than "Boy Scouts."

 

As for changes to handbooks, uniforms, etc., let's remember this is the BSA we are talking about.  They will find a way to do it on the cheap.  And they also know how to spread the pain around, meaning prices for everything will probably go up a little - but they probably would anyway.  They can get away with charging $2 more for registration, $2 more for a handbook (including all the various Cub handbooks), $3 more for a uniform shirt, $5 more for uniform pants, and so forth and so on, and I'm probably being conservative on those numbers. We'll live with it, like we always do.  Who knows, maybe the West knot will go up to $1,050.  

 

I also think there will be something of a transition period after they start letting girls be Cub Scouts and "Boy" Scouts, in which they will phase in handbooks with gender-neutral text, photos of both genders, etc. etc.  They already have a new "printing" of the handbook every year (or almost every year), and they do make tweaks almost every time, and as someone here recently pointed out, sometimes the changes in a new "printing" are so significant that it is almost like a new "edition", they just don't call it that.  I don't think the cost of a change would be anywhere near as significant as some people think.

 

Or to put it another way, there are reasons enough to oppose this change, or to have reservations or concerns about it, or other levels of unease, without adding things that aren't really all that much of an issue.

 

Interestingly here, despite "boy" being dropped from scouts in 1961, my own group going coed in 2005 and the whole association going coed in 2007 my own group is still technically called 12th Cambridge Group Boy Scouts as per its registration with the charity commission. I suspect most other groups are the same.

 

I have some sympathy with arguments about boys needing their own space, I can see the potential costs in terms of refitting toilets and showers but frankly this stuff about changes of name, reprints etc really is nothing to fuss about. When it comes to the new edition of anything search for all references to boy in the master file and change to scout or youth. Job done in under an hour. 

[Back Pack 431]

I have some sympathy with arguments about boys needing their own space, I can see the potential costs in terms of refitting toilets and showers but frankly this stuff about changes of name, reprints etc really is nothing to fuss about. When it comes to the new edition of anything search for all references to boy in the master file and change to scout or youth. Job done in under an hour.

 

As Americans we reserve the right to fuss about anything. You can bet someone somewhere will insist we use the correct gender-neutral pronoun to avoid "triggering" someone we've exploited. Edited July 6, 2017 by Back Pack

[Eagledad 2785]

As Americans we reserve the right to fuss about anything. You can bet someone somewhere will insist we use the correct gender-neutral pronoun to avoid "triggering" someone we've exploited.

Hmmm, Scout-American?

 

We had one adult, (actually became an ASM) who was very offended by the term, Scout Leader. He admitted that he was a 60's hippy that learn to hate any type of authority, so any name with leader attached was offensive in his mind. So, how about Scouter-American.

 

Barry

[Col. Flagg 909]

Not to derail and already derailed thread, but I am surprised the term "Scoutmaster" was kept. I would have thought that with the Patrol Method being so prevalent that another term might be more appropriate.

[Stosh 3452]

I know it's in the wrong thread, but maybe every unit should have a Safe Place Patrol for all those boys offended by the world around them.

 

And yes, I don't like the historical term ScoutMaster very much either.  Other than tradition, I don't know what one would put in it's place however. I like the Venturing Advisor title. 

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

Hmmm, Scout-American?

 

We had one adult, (actually became an ASM) who was very offended by the term, Scout Leader. He admitted that he was a 60's hippy that learn to hate any type of authority, so any name with leader attached was offensive in his mind. So, how about Scouter-American.

 

Barry

 

I actually prefer the terms "Scouter," "Adult," and my personal favorite, "Old Fogey" to "Scout Leader." Scouts are supposed to be the leaders, not adults.

[Col. Flagg 909]

I know it's in the wrong thread, but maybe every unit should have a Safe Place Patrol for all those boys offended by the world around them.

 

And yes, I don't like the historical term ScoutMaster very much either.  Other than tradition, I don't know what one would put in it's place however. I like the Venturing Advisor title. 

 

LOL. Yeah I am not one to be offended by the term Scoutmaster. I think of it similar to "Range Master" or "Hike Master". They make sure the rules are followed but the execution of the task is still up to the persons doing them.

 

Advisor is what we do. Scoutmaster is just a title.