Jump to content

Boys-only weeks at camp


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Saltface said:

One of our council camps is offering two LDS sessions. These would be de facto boy only. The council will provide dining facility staff and some senior staff members, the troops will have to find their own MBCs and plan their own programs. I haven't heard of any takers.

We'll be doing our own summer camp.

 

So what would those troops be paying for?  Meals at the dining hall?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Only for the perpetual victimization crowd.  The message it sends otherwise is: - Different people value different things.  Some scouts value an all-male experience.  It's diversity that makes us

I think the real problem is middle school aged children.....  Both male and female lose their minds during this period of life.  My program is high school and up but for my younger scouts that are 14i

Sadly, these types of considerations now become part of the "routine" of making camp safe, and on our list of things adult volunteers need to be alert to. So, my council camp has three separate b

7 hours ago, shortridge said:

... Are those Scoutlike values and messages?

Woah, Short, don't drink the bath water!

The message that it sends is that if you come to camp, we'll do our best to make sure you're with guys who are okay with you being in their 'hood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shortridge said:

I think that there is some confusion as to the rules. The rules require a 21+ female leader present at all activities. The activity is summer camp, not the MB class.

Under your interpretation, all classes or instructional sessions involving female Scouts must have a 21+ female leader present. That is simply impossible in a summer camp environment.

Not necessarily.  I have never seen any summer camp that didn't require each unit to have at least two leaders of their own present.  If your interpretation that summer camp itself is the activity, then all you would need is two adults in total on the property, regardless of the number of units.  In closed door situations, always you should not be the only adult that is left alone with a Scout, and that has always been part of youth protection policy.

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

 

So what would those troops be paying for?  Meals at the dining hall?

Yes. Also a facilities rental fee. I don’t know if things like watercraft and firearms are included or not. 

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

Yes. Also a facilities rental fee. I don’t know if things like watercraft and firearms are included or not. 

So they would be paying full price but not getting full benefit (merit badge counselors, etc.)?  That's not right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

Not necessarily.  I have never seen any summer camp that didn't require each unit to have at least two leaders of their own present.  If your interpretation that summer camp itself is the activity, then all you would need is two adults in total on the property, regardless of the number of units.  In closed door situations, always you should not be the only adult that is left alone with a Scout, and that has always been part of youth protection policy.

Can you point to that language in YPT? Perhaps I’m operating under a fundamental misunderstanding. The prohibition is against one-on-one contact, and that’s separate from two-deep leadership. One adult and one Scout is a no. Two adults and one Scout, or one adult and two Scouts - as in your original example - are OK. I’m not seeing anything about this closed-door, 21+ female interpretation. Can you show me where that’s written?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, qwazse said:

Woah, Short, don't drink the bath water!

The message that it sends is that if you come to camp, we'll do our best to make sure you're with guys who are okay with you being in their 'hood.

No, it really doesn’t. It sends the message that some Scouts’ feelings are more important than your Scouting program experience. It sends the message that those other Scouts have the power to exclude you because of their feelings and wants. It sends the message that you are of secondary concern to the people in authority.

Camp is not “their ‘hood,” referring to existing boys’ troops - it’s the ‘hood of all Scouts. No Scouts should have the ability to exclude other Scouts based upon arbitrary factors. It would be the same if during the 1950s an all-white troop said that no black Scouts could attend camp during their weeks.

They are all Scouts. Full stop.

If these all-boys troops that don’t want to associate with girls want to spend the money to buy out the entire camp and have it all to themselves, then go for it. But a Scout Council should not be in the business of favoring one group of Scouts over another by granting special rights. If there are slots open, then any Scout should be able to camp.

Makes me wonder where these councils are going to draw the line. Separate camporees for boys and girls troops? A gender-divided district pinewood derby? New OA lodges to accommodate those troops that would be offended by an Allowat with breasts? A separate Jamboree so boys attending the Summit won’t be distracted from soaring vistas by the presence of girls?

This is Scouting, and these girls will be Scouts. This isn’t America under some gendered version of Plessy v. Ferguson. I think separate troops is a reasonable compromise for now. But don’t mess with my girls’ program and summer camp because others have a problem with their presence. That’s their problem to get over, not my daughter’s problem to accommodate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shortridge said:

...

Camp is not “their ‘hood,” referring to existing boys’ troops - it’s the ‘hood of all Scouts. No Scouts should have the ability to exclude other Scouts based upon arbitrary factors. It would be the same if during the 1950s an all-white troop said that no black Scouts could attend camp during their weeks.

...

This is Scouting, and these girls will be Scouts. This isn’t America under some gendered version of Plessy v. Ferguson. I think separate troops is a reasonable compromise for now. But don’t mess with my girls’ program and summer camp because others have a problem with their presence. That’s their problem to get over, not my daughter’s problem to accommodate.

Have you seen boys at camp? Ever? It is theirs, for a week,  payed for with their own fundraising. Their own family's investment. Conversely, this is "your girl's" program  for but one week of the summer at one location.

Are you so deluded that you think we can force 10 troops who've demanded a certain unisex comraderie for their boys from their council? How would you block  access to their purchasing power?

Unlike racial segregation which reinforced financial disparity and access to quality education, unisex eduction opportunities seem to have produced none of those ills. Thanks to the charity of my Venturers, I've visited GS/USA camps, and those kids were having a snot load of fun.

Are you really afraid that your daughter's and the boys' troops who willingly share camp with her will not have as spirited a week as those troops who choose a  B-O or G-O week? If that's true, then you're making the unisex folk's case.

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

Have you seen boys at camp? Ever? It is theirs, for a week,  payed for with their own fundraising. Their own family's investment. Conversely, this is "your girl's" program  for but one week of the summer at one location.

There is no conversely about it. Each Scout should be treated the same. You suggest that the boys’ investment in their week is more important than the girls’. Or that boys should have priority because generations of previous boys paid for the camp infrastructure.

No. That’s not the way it works. Scouts are Scouts. Girls and their troops do not have to earn the right to have a quality program or a seat at the table. Boys do not control camps simply because they were there first.

29 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Are you so deluded that you think we can force 10 troops who've demanded a certain unisex comraderie for their boys from their council? How would you block  access to their purchasing power?

It’s simple: Scouts BSA after Feb. 1 will no longer be a unisex organization. A CO can control its youth’s experience to a certain degree with its unit’s program by electing to sponsor only a boys’ troop or only a girls’ troop, but you can’t control the world beyond your doors. If units are demanding that, then they can run their own camps. Scouts BSA does not value one type of troop or Scout over another, and councils need to stick to that fundamental principle. 

29 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Are you really afraid that your daughter's and the boys' troops who willingly share camp with her will not have as spirited a week as those troops who choose a  B-O or G-O week? If that's true, then you're making the unisex folk's case.

How are you so deluded as to deliberately misrepresent my point? The issue is not about the spirit of the Scouts who will be at camp during a given week. It’s the fact that one type of Scout has been given veto power over the program schedule and camp opportunities over another type of Scout. Can you not see that that is fundamentally unfair?

We didn’t have this issue when gay Boy Scouts were allowed in. You didn’t see troops demanding “hetero-only” weeks. So why are boys’ troops so darn threatened by the prospect of having to share a Pioneering class or a rifle range with some girls?

Please go talk to some of these female Venturers you know and ask them if they think it’s right that boys should be able to have their pick of weeks at camp, while girls are relegated to the leftovers.

Edited by shortridge
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, shortridge said:

There is no conversely about it. Each Scout should be treated the same. You suggest that the boys’ investment in their week is more important than the girls’. Or that boys should have priority because generations of previous boys paid for the camp infrastructure.

I don’t see this as a long term need, but adding girls to Scouts is new for us.  BSA will still have many units who desire to remain boy only.  The vast majority of Scouts will be boys.  If there are enough units that are Boy only and desire a bit only camp it should be offered.  As long as girls are not regulated to the inferior camps or very limited weeks we should be able to accommodate these units.  

Boys and the parents who want them to have a boy only experience should still have that option in the BSA.  Girls have that option in GSUSA and they have the coed option in BSA.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shortridge said:

No, it really doesn’t. It sends the message that some Scouts’ feelings are more important than your Scouting program experience. It sends the message that those other Scouts have the power to exclude you because of their feelings and wants. It sends the message that you are of secondary concern to the people in authority.

Camp is not “their ‘hood,” referring to existing boys’ troops - it’s the ‘hood of all Scouts. No Scouts should have the ability to exclude other Scouts based upon arbitrary factors. It would be the same if during the 1950s an all-white troop said that no black Scouts could attend camp during their weeks.

They are all Scouts. Full stop.

If these all-boys troops that don’t want to associate with girls want to spend the money to buy out the entire camp and have it all to themselves, then go for it. But a Scout Council should not be in the business of favoring one group of Scouts over another by granting special rights. If there are slots open, then any Scout should be able to camp.

Makes me wonder where these councils are going to draw the line. Separate camporees for boys and girls troops? A gender-divided district pinewood derby? New OA lodges to accommodate those troops that would be offended by an Allowat with breasts? A separate Jamboree so boys attending the Summit won’t be distracted from soaring vistas by the presence of girls?

This is Scouting, and these girls will be Scouts. This isn’t America under some gendered version of Plessy v. Ferguson. I think separate troops is a reasonable compromise for now. But don’t mess with my girls’ program and summer camp because others have a problem with their presence. That’s their problem to get over, not my daughter’s problem to accommodate.

So what you're saying is it's wrong for units who want a boy-only week to force that sitation on girls, but, it's ok for units that only want co-ed weeks to force that situation on boys.  It's ok for girls units to devalue the feelings of boys, it's ok to make the boys feel like their wants and needs are of secondary concern, it's ok for the boys to be excluded, etc.  The current movement on both the left and the right in America not for peace but to destroy one's enemies is disturbing.  And the culture of victimization is crying out for adults of character to teach youth to look inside themselves for validation and strength and to be accepting of the other.  But alas, all dissent must be crushed.  Sigh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don’t put words in my mouth. No, @walk in the woods, I’m saying that Scouts BSA is a unified organization for both boys and girls, and that one should not be prioritized over the other. Scouting is no longer a same-sex organization. If you don’t like that, then you need to make your choice.

Your concern is that your Scouts’ feelings and wants will be negatively impacted if boys are forced to share a survival overnight or a COPE course with a girl. There is no part of the aims or methods or the Oath or Law that includes this value of Scouting.

My concern is that my Scouts’ entire program experience will be negatively impacted (being shunted to less desirable weeks), that their options will be limited (they can’t attend whatever week they choose), and that the overall quality of their Scouting experience will be diminished — because another Scout’s feelings and wants has been granted special status thanks to their outwardly expressed gender.

Feelings don’t trump program. Boys don’t trump girls. Scouts are Scouts.

Edited by shortridge
Replaced “male genitalia” with a more accurate term.
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Moderators, please delete @shortridge's insulting reduction of the unisex argument to mere anatomy.

It is demeaning and disrespectful of Americans (Mormons, Muslims, and other sects) who think highly of different gender roles.

That has been updated. Thank you for pointing out my error.

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
×
×
  • Create New...