Jump to content
John-in-KC

OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE: Girls as Youth Members, All Programs

Recommended Posts

...  Then (put on your shocked face) ... ALL units will be co-ed.  ... Also the Duty to God will be optional ... will be program changes on time requirements, camping, swimming, etc. ... will likely become less unit focused and more "family" centered.  ... Also the uniform will become much much more infrequent.

You missed one. The ageist policy on rank advancement that was codified in the mid 60's will be repealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt there will be program changes on time requirements, camping, swimming, etc. to accommodate families.  The requirements will likely become less unit focused and more "family" centered.  Also the uniform will become much much more infrequent.

 

I have doubt.  A year ago they made the requirements for some of the lower ranks somewhat MORE difficult (in my opinion), and if our friend Eagle94-A1 is correct, they started planning for "coed" before that.  I also think National knows that if they make the requirements easier or less unit-centered at the same time that girls are being admitted, that would be the "last straw" for a lot of people.

 

As for the uniform, I sure hope you are wrong, because I just bought a new one.  Seriously though, I doubt they will de-emphasize the uniform, it is an important part of the "brand" they are trying to "protect."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That term came up as I discussed this, and my concerns, with our local SE.  He said that if people chose to leave, or not donate, perhaps they were conditional scouters.  I did not press that issue or comment.  My position is that Scouting has changed (is changing) and it will be significant.

I would have reminded him of the words “trustworthy†and “loyal†and point out that bsa has been neither in their handling of this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the uniform, I sure hope you are wrong, because I just bought a new one.  Seriously though, I doubt they will de-emphasize the uniform, it is an important part of the "brand" they are trying to "protect."

 

Do hope you are correct, but then I thought providing programs for boys was also an important part of the brand

 

 

You missed one. The ageist policy on rank advancement that was codified in the mid 60's will be repealed.

 

This will be entertaining, especially as they roll out the (soon to be shortlived) Girl only troops and the calendar works against some of them.  In order to be "fair" and "inclusive" the 18th birthday will no doubt be on the table in order to work with and validate the prior underserved girls as the rush to the apparent real purpose of Scouts (Boy omitted by design) the Holy Grail of the Eagle Scout award (cue the trumpets)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be entertaining, especially as they roll out the (soon to be shortlived) Girl only troops and the calendar works against some of them.  In order to be "fair" and "inclusive" the 18th birthday will no doubt be on the table in order to work with and validate the prior underserved girls as the rush to the apparent real purpose of Scouts (Boy omitted by design) the Holy Grail of the Eagle Scout award (cue the trumpets)

 

I have been wondering about this, especially because the one young lady who has gotten the most publicity for wanting to make Eagle is now 16.  Regardless of when in the year her birthday is, if they make the all-girl troops effective in 2019 (in let's say either June or September), and she has to start at Scout and work through the ranks with the same requirements (including time requirements) that currently exist, there is no way she will be able to make Eagle.

 

I predict they will not change the requirements and they will find a diplomatic way to say "tough luck" to females who were "born too early" to make Eagle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on this way of thinking Mike Surbaugh has a free hand to change the Boy Scouts in any way he wants as long as he can claim it is helping girls or single moms or families or any other people. 

 

My question is how have the changes helped the Girl Scouts, if it is hurting the Girl Scouts then BSA National has broken the scout oath.

 

I don't see the connection you are trying to make. How is helping people, specifically girls, gain access to the benefits of BSA breaking the scout oath? The oath is to help other people, not help other organizations. If girls want to join BSA over GSA, then we helped other people.

 

I think what he really means is the BSA BRAND is the best name that can be used to produce maximum profit, so we get to keep our name.

 

Pride?  I do not remember Pride being part of the scout law.  I am not sure being prideful is a good thing.

 

I think you are being nitpicky. Ask any Eagle Scout if they feel proud of their accomplishment and you might struggle to find one that doesn't. Take pride in our history and our accomplishments is not a bad thing.

 

 

 

I see, your decision does not make our programs co-ed. . .    but Mike Surbaugh could make a new decision at any time and instantly make BSA co-ed.

If you read what he said carefully the door is wide open to switch to co-ed at any time they wish to make a new decision.

They have made no promises to not go co-ed.   

 

They've made no promises about anything. They've made no promises not to raises annual dues to $4300 a year - but perhaps we should concern ourselves with promises not made once they arise and instead spend our efforts and energy on the facts at hand?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do hope you are correct, but then I thought providing programs for boys was also an important part of the brand

 

Boys, yes.  ONLY boys?  Well, there have been girls in one of BSA's "traditional programs" since 1972 - 45 years ago.  (Actually that's when I always thought Exploring became coed, but in one of his videos I think the CSE said 1971.  I'm sticking with 1972, and it doesn't change the point anyways.)

 

Added note:  I am not saying this justifies the change.  But if we're talking about marketing (which is part of what the BSA is talking about), it is at least a relevant point to mention.

Edited by NJCubScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously though, I doubt they will de-emphasize the uniform, it is an important part of the "brand" they are trying to "protect."

 

Moreover, it is an important revenue source!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I met a bunch of Venturing Scouts a few weeks ago at a community fest - all female and all in full uniform - not jeans and a uniform top - full uniform.  Some of them worked at Owassippe for the summer, some at Napowan - all of them love Venturing and were proud to wear the uniform.  In fact, thinking about it, its just a little disturbing that the female venturing scouts were much more proud of the uniform than the Boy Scouts at the same fest were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, it is an important revenue source!

 

Don't get me started.  One of these days I am going to start a new thread in the Uniforms section to talk about the joys and sorrows of my very recent uniform-buying experience.  The price of the shirt and pants actually were about what I thought they would be.  Where I think they really get you is on the patches and the belt.  (Which is partly my fault because I could have decided to rip the patches off my old shirt and put them on the new one, but I decided to leave the old shirt intact.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all about money.  BSA is just a business.

 

The scout law and scout oath is being used to shame scouters into toeing the line for national as they use the BSA brand to maximize profits.   You can count on national to make more decisions to increase income down the road.

 

The only time you will see the pros do anything that will make the program better for the boys is when such a change will increase their bottom line.

 

They have picked money over being trustworthy and loyal to the current members.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed one. The ageist policy on rank advancement that was codified in the mid 60's will be repealed.

Cool, I'd like to get my Eagle in my 50s.  I will be an excellent SPL......

Edited by perdidochas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a difference between caring about money and caring about solvency.  I want the BSA to do what needs to be done to stay solvent.  I am not convinced that was the only reason for this decision. Is any part of the BSA for-profit, or is there a concern with the salary of executives (haven't heard this complaint about the BSA before)?

 

Unrelated: I think it highly likely that Packs will be truly co-ed before long, however I think that Troops may stay separate longer (though I agree its probably inevitable that it will be permitted).  I think it is significant that they didn't do girls and boys patrols even though that would be easier than segregated dens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, I'd like to get my Eagle in my 50s. I will be an excellent SPL......

If you are anything like you write, I'd never grudge the chance to go after the award. The PoR, however, would have to be ASM. Or, maybe DE. The boys might like you, but probably not enough to vote you in. Edited by qwazse
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can accept that some individuals must find reasons for negativity and to grind their axes, I find it sad that many are doing so at the expense of the Scouting programs, both Girl and Boy.  From my perspective, far too many find very weak excuses to trash positivity in our society, and this is true here as well.

 

The stale comment "he is such a BoyScout" and similar expressions reflect a sad side of our current culture.  There was a time when the positive uplifting of people and organizations was a point of pride in our communities and was displayed as often as possible to the public.  When the turn towards negativity began I do not know for sure, but I suspect it began with the successive assassinations of three major societal leaders in the 60's, the Viet Nam fiasco, and the disillusionment of an entire generation.

 

Yet, the positive elements of groups such as BSA, many quiet service groups that just take care of people, and the still silent majority are still our there.  We simply need to get away from the constant blame game, worship of empty personalities, and reassert the good that is begging to be recognized and accepted.  Those of us that have sat on BOR's for Eagles, or had the privilege of working with brilliant young people in some capacity have seen the possibilities.  We need to find any way possible to release those fertile minds, because like it or not, they hold the survival of our world in their hands.

 

So, I pray that we will not let our jaded attitudes push this opportunity aside, but rather we will use it to expand and find new avenues to a better society with all genders, races, and spiritual beliefs working together. 

 

"On my honor, I will do my best!"   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×