Jump to content
gblotter

Scouting Magazine - betting the farm on girls

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

I'll take the under on that bet / expectation.  Rather than 10 years, there will be "survey" and "groundswell of support" sometime in 2020 / 21 and we will be coed.  

The challenge will be ramping up any actual functioning girl troops or enough "linked" (wink wink) troops.  BSA will need to decide how to effectively provide a good program and opportunity for the the girls coming out of cubs.  Honestly it takes a minute to stand up a troop and get the institutional knowledge to have a well functioning troop.  

There may be some Girl troops and they will be new, then they will look over at the established boy troops in the same area with 11 outings annually, maybe 2 summer camps, high adventure, 30+ years of tradition, 10 Eagles a year etc etc.  Why can't they have that now, it's not fair, yada yada.  Not saying the requirement (though it might be) will be for troops to be coed, but it will be an option.  Boy Troops, Girl Troops, Coed Troops will be the three flavors.

Might be a hard sell to mandate coed for many years, though likely that is the way Boys Scouts...sorry Scouts BSA will be moving.

 

I think you got the gist of the plan.  The "three flavors" thing will happen very soon.  I have talked with many long-time Scouter friends(a few of them on our Council executive committee) and that is the conclusion they have come to and are preparing for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WAKWIB said:

I think you got the gist of the plan.  The "three flavors" thing will happen very soon.  I have talked with many long-time Scouter friends(a few of them on our Council executive committee) and that is the conclusion they have come to and are preparing for.  

I actually don’t think BSA has to take any immediate action.  At the Cub Scout level, boy and girl dens can have the same leaders and meet at the same time and place.   At the Scout level Boy and Girl Troops just have to have different SMs, otherwise they can meet together, have same Troop number, go on outings together.  Perhaps the biggest issue faced is different SPLs and Patrols, but the Troops that want those coed will probably do it regardless of what Nationals says.  

I put any changes along these lines at 4-5 years out.  There is already a ton of flexibility given for the Troops and Packs that want to act fully coed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, gblotter said:

... What I oppose is the loss of that wonderful Scouting program (formerly known as Boy Scouts) which for 100+ years was tailored to the unique needs of boys. That program will be gone in February 2019. For all troops (boy, girl, linked), the new Scouts BSA program will be gender-neutral. Ignoring and dismissing the reality that boys and girls behave differently, learn, differently, and develop differently (especially at these ages). Every BSA program will be co-ed. Every BSA event - at the district, council, and national level - will be co-ed. Tell me again how BSA is not going co-ed?

Sadly, the battle to preserve a single-gender Scouting program tailored to the unique needs of boys is already lost. Stick around and fight? The dishonest and manipulative process used to justify the inclusion of girls proves that the motivations of BSA National are far more powerful than any resistance from local volunteers like me. I'm worn out from fighting to preserve a beloved Scouting program that BSA National leadership is determined to transform. That is why I will not be sticking around.

What those of us who have experienced coed scouting in any of its forms have generally concluded was that the premise "that boys and girls behave differently, learn, differently, and develop differently" was not sufficiently global and universal as to mandate segregation. Further, the premise that GS/USA, with its present management, could serve as the outdoor program for all American girls has been proven false.  Finally, the false narratives implicating harm to boys when institutions like colleges aggressively recruit women have shown themselves to be the pathetic conspiracy theories that they are by the mere fact that the odds of a young American male holding a college degree are higher than ever before.

Decades of lies.

So, should one be angry at these past two dozen months of smoke and mirrors? Maybe.

But, screaming "Don't drink the bug juice!" when not only does it not kill, but it actually satisfies thirst, does not make those passing out the cups the worst of liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Decades of lies.

So if these differences between boys and girls are just a bunch of lies, why then do we see mountains of programs tailored specifically for the needs of girls? Programs promoting girls in STEM, programs promoting girls in leadership, programs promoting girls in academics, programs promoting girls in athletics, - programs promoting girls in every way imaginable. Why all those programs if boys and girls are the same?

But to assert that boys also need their own individualized programs - well, that's just a bunch of lies.

Edited by gblotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, qwazse said:

What those of us who have experienced coed scouting in any of its forms have generally concluded was that the premise "that boys and girls behave differently, learn, differently, and develop differently" was not sufficiently global and universal as to mandate segregation.

and also, in my experience, while "that boys and girls behave differently, learn, differently, and develop differently" is true, so is it true that boys behave differently learn differently, and develop differently. I mean, in Explorers in the UK the age range is 14-18, we've got some boys at the start that haven't reached puberty some by the end are going steady, and everything in between, some are bright kids that need telling once, some that need telling, showing, telling again, showing again, showing again a different way, etc etc. And the girls are the same. I.e. we, both leaders from boys only sections, and co-ed, have always had to cope with a range of abilities, personalities, intelligence, etc etc. 

This summer I had 42 Explorer scouts on camp from four different units. We split them into patrols. The eldest were the PLs, some were boys, some were girls, the rest of the patrol was a mix of boys and girls. When we went to the beach, they all went for a swim. When we went climbing, they all gave it their all, to the best of their abilities, some of the smaller boys and girls struggled, then again some didn't, a factor of arm strength really, but they all supported each other. They weren't doing a girls climb and a boys climb. No need. When they emptied and cleaned the cattle trough, at one point there were 5 kids in there bathing, three girls at one end, two boys at the other, they managed that all by themselves without leader help. 

Going co-ed isn't the bogeyman it's being made out to be in my opinion, other things like the poor public image of scouting, changing and limiting the programme, losing the patrol method are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, qwazse said:

What those of us who have experienced coed scouting in any of its forms have generally concluded was that the premise "that boys and girls behave differently, learn, differently, and develop differently" was not sufficiently global and universal as to mandate segregation. Further, the premise that GS/USA, with its present management, could serve as the outdoor program for all American girls has been proven false.  Finally, the false narratives implicating harm to boys when institutions like colleges aggressively recruit women have shown themselves to be the pathetic conspiracy theories that they are by the mere fact that the odds of a young American male holding a college degree are higher than ever before.

Decades of lies.

So, should one be angry at these past two dozen months of smoke and mirrors? Maybe.

But, screaming "Don't drink the bug juice!" when not only does it not kill, but it actually satisfies thirst, does not make those passing out the cups the worst of liars.

I admit I'm caught off guard. Superiority? qwazse?

Oh, I remember now. The Eagle. 

We are only human I guess. Shinny things.

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gblotter said:

So if these differences between boys and girls are just a bunch of lies, why then do we see mountains of programs tailored specifically for the needs of girls? Programs promoting girls in STEM, programs promoting girls in leadership, programs promoting girls in academics, programs promoting girls in athletics, - programs promoting girls in every way imaginable. Why all those programs if boys and girls are the same?

But to assert that boys also need their own individualized programs - well, that's just a bunch of lies.

Ummm, because not that long ago girls were taught separately so they could learn to be homemakers, home economics, textiles, sewing, oooh, let's be radical and teach them to type so they could join the typing pool! Sport? Something nice and gentle. Engineering? Oh no, that's a boy subject, not for girls. No need to study hard, your job is to snag yourself a man make babies. All those schemes are just trying to balance things up, so my Explorers won't have to battle against those that say "no, that's just for men that", can become professional kick-boxers, engineers for Rolls-Royce, ski instructors. They're opening up options for girls, not shutting down options for boys, boys have always had "you can do anything" available to them.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ianwilkins said:

They're opening up options for girls, not shutting down options for boys, boys have always had "you can do anything" available to them.

So now that boys are the segment of society that is falling behind, how bad must it get before we get some recognition of their unique needs? How far ahead must girls be before boys become deserving of specialized attention and tailored programs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, gblotter said:

why then do we see mountains of programs tailored specifically for the needs of girls? Programs promoting girls in STEM,

 

14 minutes ago, gblotter said:

So now that boys are the segment of society that is falling behind

But the boys are not falling behind the girls in math.  See this recent article

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/13/upshot/boys-girls-math-reading-tests.html

And math competency is the absolutely required background for doing well in science or engineering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gblotter said:

So now that boys are the segment of society that is falling behind, how bad must it get before we get some recognition of their unique needs? How far ahead must girls be before boys become deserving of specialized attention and tailored programs?

There are specifically male issues out there no doubt. Mental health is a big one, attainment at school is another. Fact remains though that men still dominate in most areas of life. I can't speak for the USA but here there are 208 women in Parliament out of 650. And that is the most it has ever been! 7 out of the FTSE 100 companies have women as CEOs. We may have a female Prime Minister but she is only the second in history. We have never had a woman as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had only one as Foreign Secretary (she lasted about a year), and one Home Secretary (she's now PM)

As Ian says promoting opportunities for girls and women to do what men have historically done is not doing boys down but giving them competition.

That is a separate issue to ensuring that they attain good grades in school and get good mental health provision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ianwilkins said:

and also, in my experience, while "that boys and girls behave differently, learn, differently, and develop differently" is true, so is it true that boys behave differently learn differently, and develop differently. I mean, in Explorers in the UK the age range is 14-18, we've got some boys at the start that haven't reached puberty some by the end are going steady, and everything in between, some are bright kids that need telling once, some that need telling, showing, telling again, showing again, showing again a different way, etc etc. And the girls are the same. I.e. we, both leaders from boys only sections, and co-ed, have always had to cope with a range of abilities, personalities, intelligence, etc etc. 

This summer I had 42 Explorer scouts on camp from four different units. We split them into patrols. The eldest were the PLs, some were boys, some were girls, the rest of the patrol was a mix of boys and girls. When we went to the beach, they all went for a swim. When we went climbing, they all gave it their all, to the best of their abilities, some of the smaller boys and girls struggled, then again some didn't, a factor of arm strength really, but they all supported each other. They weren't doing a girls climb and a boys climb. No need. When they emptied and cleaned the cattle trough, at one point there were 5 kids in there bathing, three girls at one end, two boys at the other, they managed that all by themselves without leader help. 

Going co-ed isn't the bogeyman it's being made out to be in my opinion, other things like the poor public image of scouting, changing and limiting the programme, losing the patrol method are.

I run scouts, 10-14 year olds, so the age group behind Ian's lot.

Interestingly my observation has always been the biggest gap in maturity sits at the Cub-Scout move up age. By the time they move to explorers the boys have typically caught up, both physically and mentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or perhaps, the reality is as societies become more egalitarian, women choose different career paths, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/.  But instead, we're trying to force march women into careers they may or may not want because "fairness" and we search for inequality where in fact it's just choice......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are starting to repeat topics in this thread. Refer back several pages to 

We are in the midst of a boy crisis. That crisis is not represented in the halls of Parliament because boys are not in Parliament! The masses are in denial about this crisis - or they simply don't care. If the same statistics applied to girls, only then would they care.

 

 

Edited by gblotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gblotter said:

So if these differences between boys and girls are just a bunch of lies, why then do we see mountains of programs tailored specifically for the needs of girls?

Exactly what programs are now being tailored specifically to the needs of girls? 

I've only been seeing an increased promotion of the availability of traditionally boy-favored programs aimed at bringing in more girls. Like inviting more girls to participate in STEM programs, for example. But they're not changing those programs to focus on girls.

Is something different happening in your neck of the woods? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cambridgeskip said:

I run scouts, 10-14 year olds, so the age group behind Ian's lot.

Interestingly my observation has always been the biggest gap in maturity sits at the Cub-Scout move up age. By the time they move to explorers the boys have typically caught up, both physically and mentally.

Sadly, american society (culture) compares the boys and girls in these ages by maturity. But the differences is not maturity, it's the instinctive world view and growth.

My experience is boys of this age view themselves in a world of families. Girls view themselves as a member of a family. Boys are worldly and think big. Girls are organizers, detail oriented. Girls tend to dominate and lead combined groups of this age because details drive organization to reach goals. Girls appear more independent because they are systematic with their thinking, while boys are very much herd instinctive because safety is in the herd. Adults naturally conclude by their instinctive organizational tendencies that girls are more mature and better leaders. No, they are just good at organizing. Boys on the other hand are big picture thinkers. They are dreamers thus appear flighty in their desire for adventure to fill the dreams. Girls in general are happy with day to day organizing. Adventure, OK, but its not necessary to be content.

Not until puberty do we see some balance. Boys, while still not great organizers, instinctively turn from the inward herd mentality to the outward protector and provider.  It's fun to watch if you know what to look for. How many scouters have stories of awkward annoying scouts who turned into great servant leaders around the age 15. Girls instinctively bring balance to the herd, family, tribe, or whatever you want to call it,  through organizing and taking on detail task to assist reaching the group objectives. 

Scouting for boys has been a program where boys are forced to develop organizing skills for developing a functional team for the goal of adventure. Girls, by instinct, not maturity, will push the boys away from that growth because they will dominate organization, and the adults will encourage it. We can already see it in boys who came from adult led troops. Adults by their nature also compensated for the boys lack of detail skills. I can tell how much the adults are involved with the boys side of the program simply by watching a few of the older scouts during planning.  Scouts from mature patrol method programs could run meetings for any Fortune 500 company. 

The program will change to adults forcing boys to play with the girls. Boy will become frustrated from the constant behavior comparisons and pressure to keep up. Just like the troops that are more adult driven, most of the boys who continue scouting past 13 are being forced by their parents, not because they like the program.

I am curious though, while families of girls say adventure is the major reason for the membership change, my experience is female driven troops have noticeably less outdoor adventure. 

I know the European troops seem to have mastered human instinct differences, and I wonder how. But, after visiting Europe, the family is valued very differently than American view their families. It is certainly a different culture.

Barry

Edited by Eagledad

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

×