Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ianwilkins

What do you mean by "men" and "manly"?

Recommended Posts

Stosh, you have been asked several times now, by at least two people, to provide an actual example of HOW the program would have to be changed to accommodate girls and young women, and so far I haven't seen one.  I don't quite get the point of your reference to hiking boots.  I do know that if you do (or one does) a Google search for women's or teen girls' hiking boots, you/one would find no shortage of options available for purchase, online or in the store.  Some of them look pretty much like boys' hiking boots.  None that I saw had high heels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is, each Troop is already unique in how they work with their scouts on an interpersonal level - and of course no troop will be required to accept girls so I don't see the big change that is forecasted but I remain open to being wrong (which is why I strong support a COs ability to NOT change if they don't want to).

 

Thanks for the reminder about the local option.  That is a point that I think keeps getting forgotten in these discussions.  I don't think this would have any chance of working without the local option.

 

(Actually, it's not just that "no troop would be required to accept girls," but no troop - meaning a unit that has boys in it, ages 11 through 17 - would be ALLOWED to accept girls, although many in this forum believe that this will happen anyway regardless of the rules from National.  Personally I decline to try to predict the future on that subject.  Cub Scout packs, on the other hand, would be allowed to accept girls, or not.)

Edited by NJCubScouter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is obvious that 1) I am not clear in my comments or 2) people aren't looking and understanding what I am saying.  Either option leaves the point unresolved.

 

Let's try this:  IF I were a scouter with 40+ years experience of working in the different Boy Scout level program.  I would be well versed in my experience and know what to expect in the situations I encounter in the group.  Group dynamics would be a known, group interests would be a known, what the boys try to pull one over on me would be a known, and the list goes on and on.

 

If that scouter hadn't raised a daughter and had he not worked with other co-ed groups, all lot of what he was used to dealing with would be a whole new world of different experiences.  I have no idea how many men that would be.  I'm not one of them because I have 40+ years of working with co-ed groups as well as Boy Scouts.  3 times over the years I have had to deal with a woman's first menstrual cycle.  It is an awkward and embarrassing moment for both involved.  I have had to deal with the moodiness that goes along with it.  It's not the girls fault and how one reacts makes a major impact on the girl emotionally.  These are natural and predictable situations that need special attention.  A girl fight is far different than a guy fight.  Gals tend to react differently to emotional situations than guys, and the list goes on and on.  Raising daughters is not the same as raising sons even though they are both in the same family.  Young scouters will most likely not have experiences in these matters.  Sure they might have had sisters to deal with, but punching them or tattling to Mom/Dad isn't the solution either.

 

Extensive studies have been done in the realm of group dynamics that affirm that guys and gals are different depending on the group they are in.  Why is girls night out or guys night out still around in our "blended society"?  There's a scientific reason for it.  BSA has been working on it for 50 years in Exploring/Venturing and as yet figured it out to where the program is a glowing success.  Tossing more gasoline on the fire hasn't done much to improve the situation either.

 

Yes, co-ed scouting could be a real asset to society, but from all the evidence that has come in over the past 50 years, I don't believe BSA has a handle on it, nor is it working on trying to find it either.  There are a lot of other organizations that do far better and have been successfully been doing it far longer. 

 

So the personal choice for me is: do I stay and try to revive a dying program, or simply sign up for one that has figured it out a long time ago, like 4-H, or some other co-ed youth program.  I don't think BSA has done it's homework on this before they jumped in with both feet (with or without goggles).

 

At the present time, BSA is watching co-ed groups doing well and assume that simply going co-ed is what the magic elixir is to solve it's problem.  What they don't know is co-ed is not the problem, it's not knowing what all the dynamics of co-ed means is the problem.  Other groups have worked that out.  BSA is now the Webeols organization of the youth activity in our society.  Thinking that girls want to be Eagles is assuming that all the steps to get there are already in place.  Mechanically it is, but the Devil is in the detail and they have not done their homework on the detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically speaking, I think those are manly fictional characters, or if you prefer, actors costumed as "manly men."  Actually to me they look like wax figures, though they probably aren't.

 

I suspect he was referring to what those actors represent. Old west trappers and outdoorsmen who lived off land and didn’t everything for themselves. Is this what I have to look forward to when I reach ol age. A bunch of guys being overly literal and critical of each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect he was referring to what those actors represent. Old west trappers and outdoorsmen who lived off land and didn’t everything for themselves. Is this what I have to look forward to when I reach ol age. A bunch of guys being overly literal and critical of each other?

 

 

"Crotchity" or "cantankerous" are not terms to be wasted on the youth after all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If BSA is oriented to helping boys become men through character building and leadership development, does that mean we are to turn girls into men too?  Or are we going to need to change the whole program from start to finish? 

 

 

 

I like what Tampa Turtle had to say about what manly should mean - and its easily tweak-able to accommodate women:

 

 

To protect the weak, stand for your beliefs, respect women  everyone, seek adventure, be self-sufficient, and take charge when needed. Respect and civility toward the other. Showing leadership when it is needed. Doing the right thing even if it is the tough thing. Knowing enough self-sufficient skills so you can help your self and others in an emergency. Being adaptable. Learning to work in a band of brothers    diverse group of people.

 

 

Do my changes weaken the proposition?  I don't think so.  

 

If this is what it means to develop the best kind of citizen - then why can't it apply equally to boys and girls?

 

Everything else is just speculation based on internal fears and innate sexism.  I haven't seen anything from the BSA suggesting that they will be tweaking advancement requirements - that is just us insisting that there must be changes coming because, well, reasons (like physical strength, stamina, etc.).

 

I challenge all of you to go through the current rank requirements and tell us one - just one - that you think will need to be changed - and be specific - none of this "girls don't have the strength so the BSA will have to change requirements" non-answer either.  Tell us specifically what advancement requirement a girl won't be able to do because of lack of strength or stamina.  I can't find a single one. 

 

Instead of fearing that the BSA will make requirements easier, why not prepare to bombard National with messages if they do try to make a requirement easier by shaming them by pointing out how sexist they are for assuming girls can;t do what boys can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect he was referring to what those actors represent. Old west trappers and outdoorsmen who lived off land and didn’t everything for themselves. Is this what I have to look forward to when I reach ol age. A bunch of guys being overly literal and critical of each other?

 

Oh, you mean societal misfits, criminals on the run from the law, binge drinkers and buggerers (Brokeback Mountain wasn't all imagination).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I challenge all of you to go through the current rank requirements and tell us one - just one - that you think will need to be changed - and be specific - none of this "girls don't have the strength so the BSA will have to change requirements" non-answer either.  Tell us specifically what advancement requirement a girl won't be able to do because of lack of strength or stamina.  I can't find a single one. 

 

Instead of fearing that the BSA will make requirements easier, why not prepare to bombard National with messages if they do try to make a requirement easier by shaming them by pointing out how sexist they are for assuming girls can;t do what boys can do.

 

Current rank requirements are changed for boys who don't have the strength, stamina, or cognitive abilities, so if girls need flexible requirements the mechanism already exists.

https://www.scouting.org/Home/GuideToAdvancement/SpecialNeeds/AdvancementFlexibilityAllowed.aspx

 

Wish that was not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current rank requirements are changed for boys who don't have the strength, stamina, or cognitive abilities, so if girls need flexible requirements the mechanism already exists.

https://www.scouting.org/Home/GuideToAdvancement/SpecialNeeds/AdvancementFlexibilityAllowed.aspx

 

Wish that was not the case.

 

 

 

Isn't this just a little misleading?  There is a huge difference between a Scout with special needs and a Scout that doesn't have strength or stamina.  Special Needs is a pretty specific set of circumstances - lets not try to apply it to the non-special needs  young Scout who hasn't been able to complete more than 1 pull-up yet because they don't have the strength.   

 

I would expect that the flexibility given to special needs boys would extend to girls with special needs.

 

I would not expect these requirement adaptations to extend to the non-special needs girls who can't do more than one pull-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I measure the worth of an individual on other standards besides strength and endurance.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MedicineNet.com

 

When does puberty occur?

The onset of puberty varies among individuals. Puberty usually occurs in girls between the ages of 10 and 14, while in boys it generally occurs later, between the ages of 12 and 16. In some African-American girls, puberty begins earlier, at about age 9, meaning that puberty occurs from ages 9 to 14.

Adolescent girls reach puberty today at earlier ages than were ever recorded previously. Nutritional and other environmental influences may be responsible for this change. For example, the average age of the onset of menstrual periods in girls was 15 in 1900. By the 1990s, this average had dropped to 12 and a half years of age.

 

First of all women mature physically on average 2 years earlier than boys.  That is a dynamic one has to consider.

 

Adam Baxter-Jones, associate dean at the College of Kinesiology at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, explains how it goes: “Maximum growth in stature peaks in girls at 12 when the average growth is about nine to 10 centimetres [3½ to almost four inches] per year. In boys it happens two years later and at a greater speed—about 11 to 12 centimetres [about four to 4¾ inches] in a year.â€

 

Again, the age shifts 2 years earlier for girls.  This too has to be considered.

 

https://www.education.com/reference/article/similarities-differences-boys-girls/

 

This might help as well. 

 

When all is said and done, yes, the program is generic, but the people in it are not.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, certain girls can beat out certain guys in just about any arena one wishes to pick.   So your troop consists of football player guys and science lab gals.  Yep, that's fair.  Or how about Amazon women and couch potato guys.  Yep, that helps the argument.

 

Clinical studies have shown that the ages we are referring to 11-18 show that at the beginning gals have on average a two year advantage over boys.  In other words, girls emotionally, physically and psychologically are at 11 years old on par with a 13 year old boy.  In the NSP and S->FC the gals will have the advantage.  Is it just me or does anyone else foresee a retention problem in an area where retention is already a problem? 

 

In the race for the first girl to ever get Eagle, she'll be 13 years of age.  With only needing AOL in Cubs to join at 10 years of age, we could be seeing motivated gals getting Eagle at 12.  Nothing like joining Boy Scouts at 11 and having a 12 year old female Eagle PL   I'd be happy with that setup. Now that is cherry picking the exception, but as a whole, with the 2 year start advantage, one would see average gals in leadership positions before the average boy.

 

I'll come back to this post and eat crow if in two years this is not so.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this just a little misleading?  There is a huge difference between a Scout with special needs and a Scout that doesn't have strength or stamina.  Special Needs is a pretty specific set of circumstances - lets not try to apply it to the non-special needs  young Scout who hasn't been able to complete more than 1 pull-up yet because they don't have the strength.   

 

I would expect that the flexibility given to special needs boys would extend to girls with special needs.

 

I would not expect these requirement adaptations to extend to the non-special needs girls who can't do more than one pull-up.

 

I would not expect requirement adaptions to extend to any non-special needs but the pc reality is all are special. Kids are not overweight, they have eating disorders. :rolleyes:

 

My prediction is that as girls join and approach Eagle, the no's will demand stricter adherence to the requirements for all. That could be a good thing for the program.

 

Edited by RememberSchiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you mean societal misfits, criminals on the run from the law, binge drinkers and buggerers (Brokeback Mountain wasn't all imagination).

So all mountain men, explorers and trappers were like that?

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
Sign in to follow this  

×