Jump to content
John-in-KC

OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE: Girls as Youth Members, All Programs

Recommended Posts

I suspect their silence is motivated by the FOS campaign currently underway. The local councils don't want to raise the visibility of an unpopular decision while at the same time asking for donations.

 

That boat has left the dock already.  Local councils can attempt to distance themselves, but they cannot embrace the idea (Local SE meetings last spring) while trying to minimize the fundamental change to the organization when it comes time to ask for financial support.  Many of the changes seem to be motivated solely by finances.  Thus it would seem that finances may be the only thing that local and perhaps national BSA professional leadership will listen to that may drive policy changes.  The dilemma is does one continue to provide financial support at an increasing level each year?  If so then one would be complicit in supporting national leadership in fundamental changes one may not support

 

Current National BSA leadership has not taken to heart the basic tenant of campsites with regard to the overall BSA program, leave the site better than you found it.  Will not participating in FOS hurt local councils, likely.  Will it affect near term the impact on currently operating troops, likely no.  Honestly when was the last time you saw your DE?  Will this impact some of the other possible efforts of local councils, perhaps.  These are the cards they chose to play, live with the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sec. 30901. Organization

  1. Federal Charter. - Boy Scouts of America (in this chapter, the ''corporation'') is a body corporate and politic of the District of Columbia.
  2. Domicile. - The domicile of the corporation is the District of Columbia.
  3. Perpetual Existence. - Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.
Sec. 30902. Purposes

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

 

Are you citing that in support of the idea that the BSA is legally prohibited from providing programs for girls?  If not, then I don't get the relevance.  If yes, then we don't really know whether you're right or not until one or ore persons/entities file lawsuits challenging the activity that is allegedly outside the charter, and the issue is decided against the BSA.  (I'm not sure who would have standing to file such a lawsuit.)  It's interesting, though not dispositive, that nobody has filed such a lawsuit in the 46 years that the BSA has offered programs for female youth.  Or, if someone did file one, it apparently did not succeed.  (Actually, if that's the case it might be dispositive depending on the circumstances.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet in spite of all the cultural changes that have occurred that mitigated this co-ed change in the BSA program..... it just boils down to Boy Scouts is in today's society.  Women leaders makes it even nerdier, i.e. extended Den Mothers.... and now the girls are in there.  One can say all they want about how society has changed, but boys in general haven't.  Now we have nerdy Boy Scouts on steroids... let the bullying begin.

 

From the 1960's onward, I have watched the feminization of many programs including the BSA.  Humanity gives away bits and pieces of all that is precious to it, freedom, loyalty, and many other commodities it once valued more than they do now.  After 50-60 years of seeing this process, what BSA has become is no surprise to me.  I just wish they would have slid a bit slower so I wouldn't have to quit earlier than I wanted to. 

 

If one needs to challenge me on this, not a problem.  I can assure you that what the BSA program is today is but a mere shadow of the powerhouse of a program that BSA sported in the 50's and 60's.  Can someone even cite a instance of BSA's importance in society in the past 25 years that isn't a public media release by the BSA?  At one point, like General Motors, people thought BSA was too big to fail.  That conversation is over.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several years ago our Pack leaders silently went about ensuring only male leadership. We didn’t have an ACM, Treasurer or two deep leadership in all but one den. Our Pack dropped its enrollment by nearly 70% and went from a $3k surplus to a $500 deficit. Last year we only crossed over 5 and most of them have already dropped out.

 

When I and a few other leaders took over we quickly identified the gaps in leadership and sent out requests to parents. A couple of moms asked me if I was open to having female leaders and I answered yes. It only took 3 moms added to the leadership ranks (all den leaders) to turn around our Pack. Our meetings are more effective, we are recruiting better than ever and our retention is up. Oh, and the pack ended up in the black.

 

I absolutely agree that some moms (perhaps many) could hurt the program with the main risk of being too protective of the youth. Adding girls could make this worse. However, blindly lumping all women into this group is a mistake. The three moms in our Pack are more into camping than most of the male leaders. This isn’t saying every mom is a great fit and I agree Boy Scouts is a different beast than Cub Scouts, but the female leaders helped save our Pack, uphold the scout law and oath and haven’t changed the nature of our outdoor outings.

 

Times have changed since 1916 and there are some great female leaders that help ensure our scouting program is successful. I’ve seen this at both the unit and district level. We should thank them instead of blaming them for undermining the ability to have male role models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Times have changed since 1916 and there are some great female leaders that help ensure our scouting program is successful. I’ve seen this at both the unit and district level. We should thank them instead of blaming them for undermining the ability to have male role models.

 

Good Lord. No one is blaming them for undermining male role models. 

 

What I have seen is a few people, me among them, addressing the notion that Boy Scouts is gender neutral. It isn't. From its founding until this past month, it was totally focused on boys. Until women were allowed in, adult association was primarily between boys and men. Since then I would wager that the vast majority of unit-based interaction is between boys and men.

 

No one is blaming women. At worst we are blaming BSA leadership for dismantling a successful program only to save their own salaries and membership stats.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful, Stosh. You might be accused of "Man-splaining" or "Man-spreading".  ;)

 

OMG!  Am I supposed to be worried at this point?  It's nothing more than casual observation over a 50-60 year time span.  Anyone that  has that experience who feels differently is more than welcome to challenge my observations.  :)

 

 

Several years ago our Pack leaders silently went about ensuring only male leadership. We didn’t have an ACM, Treasurer or two deep leadership in all but one den. Our Pack dropped its enrollment by nearly 70% and went from a $3k surplus to a $500 deficit. Last year we only crossed over 5 and most of them have already dropped out.

 

When I and a few other leaders took over we quickly identified the gaps in leadership and sent out requests to parents. A couple of moms asked me if I was open to having female leaders and I answered yes. It only took 3 moms added to the leadership ranks (all den leaders) to turn around our Pack. Our meetings are more effective, we are recruiting better than ever and our retention is up. Oh, and the pack ended up in the black.

 

I absolutely agree that some moms (perhaps many) could hurt the program with the main risk of being too protective of the youth. Adding girls could make this worse. However, blindly lumping all women into this group is a mistake. The three moms in our Pack are more into camping than most of the male leaders. This isn’t saying every mom is a great fit and I agree Boy Scouts is a different beast than Cub Scouts, but the female leaders helped save our Pack, uphold the scout law and oath and haven’t changed the nature of our outdoor outings.

 

Times have changed since 1916 and there are some great female leaders that help ensure our scouting program is successful. I’ve seen this at both the unit and district level. We should thank them instead of blaming them for undermining the ability to have male role models.

 

We have always had female DEN MOTHERS in the Cub program.  There's a reason for that.

 

But then when certain people start complaining about BOY Scout troops being Webelos III i.e. an extension of Cubs.  There's a reason for that.

 

Now that the cycle has come full circle, things seem to be unraveling at the seams.  There's a reason for that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG!  Am I supposed to be worried at this point?  It's nothing more than casual observation over a 50-60 year time span.  Anyone that  has that experience who feels differently is more than welcome to challenge my observations.  :)

 

 

 

We have always had female DEN MOTHERS in the Cub program.  There's a reason for that.

 

But then when certain people start complaining about BOY Scout troops being Webelos III i.e. an extension of Cubs.  There's a reason for that.

 

Now that the cycle has come full circle, things seem to be unraveling at the seams.  There's a reason for that.

 

Yes, it is mostly mothers, especially those who were den leaders and are use to being in charge, but also a few dads as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you citing that in support of the idea that the BSA is legally prohibited from providing programs for girls?  If not, then I don't get the relevance.  If yes, then we don't really know whether you're right or not until one or ore persons/entities file lawsuits challenging the activity that is allegedly outside the charter, and the issue is decided against the BSA.  (I'm not sure who would have standing to file such a lawsuit.)  It's interesting, though not dispositive, that nobody has filed such a lawsuit in the 46 years that the BSA has offered programs for female youth.  Or, if someone did file one, it apparently did not succeed.  (Actually, if that's the case it might be dispositive depending on the circumstances.)

I am quoting the charter for the purpose of pointing out that it expressly charters a program for boys.  "boys" "them" =boys

 

The consequences of ignoring the express terms of the charter deserve some thought by some competent person.  Arguably, BSA loses its chartered status when it ignores so fundamental a term of its charter.  It could be argued that the current policy to a gender-neutral program shift is ultra virus - beyond the power of the corporation's leadership to validly do as a federally-chartered organizatuion.  Indeed, that argument has already been made, by B.S.A., om 2016:

 

""The Boy Scouts of America told CBS2 via email that allowing girls to join the organization would go against the group’s original charter, created in 1916.

 

'The Boy Scouts of America was chartered by Congress in 1916 to serve boys and young men across the nation through the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts programs,' the organization said in a statement.

 

The organization says to change the standard Boy Scout program would 'go outside the bounds' of their charter."

 

So BSA needs to turn in it's federal charter.

Edited by TAHAWK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In summary, one person's opinion is justifiable and not disrespectful. A subsequent opposing opinion is construed as stifling.

 

 

With this example, do we really need to ask the question again about anxiety surrounding females having a greater composition in BSA membership?

 

I find this hilariously stereotyped exchange a prime example of one of many landmines that many Scouters and Scouts are loathe to encounter in the future.

Yes, this is the expected result when a major organizational change is forced on its membership without a reasonable explanation or an honest two way discussion.

 

My apologies to Wisconsinmomma for being a bit pointed. I would enjoy learning opinions from a new leader if we could get around the assumed biases and have a pragmatic discussion.

 

Barry

Edited by Eagledad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sec. 30901. Organization

  1. Federal Charter. - Boy Scouts of America (in this chapter, the ''corporation'') is a body corporate and politic of the District of Columbia.
  2. Domicile. - The domicile of the corporation is the District of Columbia.
  3. Perpetual Existence. - Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.
Sec. 30902. Purposes

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

 

All well and good for 1910 but in the year 2017, Federal Charters are more honorary than actual, the BSA is currently a body corporate and domiciled in the State of Texas, not the District of Columbia and the BSA hasn't used methods in common use on June 15, 1916 in many many decades.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quoting the charter for the purpose of pointing out that it expressly charters a program for boys.  "boys" "them" =boys

 

The consequences of ignoring the express terms of the charter deserve some thought by some competent person.  Arguably, BSA loses its chartered status when it ignores so fundamental a term of its charter.  It could be argued that the current policy to a gender-neutral program shift is ultra virus - beyond the power of the corporation's leadership to validly do as a federally-chartered organizatuion.  Indeed, that argument has already been made, by B.S.A., om 2016:

 

""The Boy Scouts of America told CBS2 via email that allowing girls to join the organization would go against the group’s original charter, created in 1916.

 

'The Boy Scouts of America was chartered by Congress in 1916 to serve boys and young men across the nation through the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts programs,' the organization said in a statement.

 

The organization says to change the standard Boy Scout program would 'go outside the bounds' of their charter."

 

So BSA needs to turn in it's federal charter.

 

I brought this up on Day 1 and it was summarily dismissed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yep, not anymore.  It might be an interesting read to peruse some of the old Boy Scout Handbooks.  It might give one a better understanding of what's been lost over the years.

 

Sure - things like trenching tents, first aid for runaway carriages, Indian sign language, sock garters, that odd, loping Scout walk/run thing (Scout Pace), the Shaeffer prone-pressure method of artificial respiration.

 

Let's just say that not every change has been bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All well and good for 1910 but in the year 2017, Federal Charters are more honorary than actual, the BSA is currently a body corporate and domiciled in the State of Texas, not the District of Columbia and the BSA hasn't used methods in common use on June 15, 1916 in many many decades.

 

In this case, the Article and Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America specifically incorporate the federal Charter and declare that it is controlling over any- thing to the contrary published by anyone:

 

"General Clause

1. These Bylaws shall be consistent with the Charter. The Rules and Regulations shall be consistent with the Charter and the Bylaws. In the event of any conflicts or inconsistencies, the Charter shall govern primarily and the Bylaws secondarily.

 

Specifics

Clause 2. All statements contained in official publications of the Boy Scouts of America, its local councils and affiliates, including (but not limited to) handbooks, pamphlets, instructions, magazine articles, bulletins, manuals, and letters, which may, from time to time, be issued for clarification or explanation of official language shall be consistent with the language and intent of the Charter, the Bylaws, and the Rules and Regulations. Any contradictory or inconsistent language is unauthorized and without effect."

 

So not so "mere" in this case.  If we read the Charter to have the plain meaning of its words, the "historic decision" of the Board of Directors is "unauthorized and without effect."  

 

As for the effect of the program changes since 1916, that is another topic and one that that has already flamed its way through pages of posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure - things like trenching tents, first aid for runaway carriages, Indian sign language, sock garters, that odd, loping Scout walk/run thing (Scout Pace), the Shaeffer prone-pressure method of artificial respiration.

 

Let's just say that not every change has been bad.

 

There's a lot more to the early BSH than just requirements and their explanations.  I know that's about all we look at in the BSH, but back in the day, it was more than GTA with explanations..  Updates and revisions are apples and oranges..

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

×