Coed Troops

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

On 5/11/2024 at 5:51 AM, BetterWithCheddar said:

@AwakeEnergyScouter, do you really see a lot of damage and suffering caused by men who cling to traditional gender roles? Can you provide an example? I do believe there is such thing as "toxic masculinity" (where one's narrow focus on perceived masculine attributes becomes a net negative on society or their personal relationships), but men embracing the traditional "provider" role is still largely a good thing. Think of how many of today's problems could be solved by a present father who ensured his children were housed, clothed, and fed. I view the lack of masculinity as the greater pitfall.

** And to be clear, my wife and I have a lot of strengths and interests that follow traditional gender roles and some that don't. Every couple is different and that's OK. This isn't some weird flex on my part. I'm not particularly handy, I drive an old Camry, and would take a margarita over a beer. I do, however, earn enough to pay our bills, save a little for retirement, and occasionally buy a sweet Lego set. 🙂

I find it interesting - and I don't mean strange or wrong, but literally interesting - that you ask a woman for examples of how traditional gender role expectations hurt men even though another man just gave a whole list with a lot of passion. Because I'm not one, all my examples are going to be second-hand, parroting back what I've heard or seen men say about their own lives. My personal contribution can only be checking that what they're saying is consistent with what I see from the outside. Why ask me, not @Eagle94-A1, when he's the one arguing that I underestimate the problem? I did find a short rundown that seems to summarize a lot of what I've heard, although I notice that it lacks the 'losing everything' type problems that Eagle94-A1 brought up: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/202303/the-state-of-todays-male-psyche

I'll note that while the male gender role makes it harder to connect with others, it's also not really the case that all women are totally fluent with recognizing their own emotions and talking to others about them, either. Brené Brown's legendary (at least among agilists) TED talk on the importance of vulnerability for connection includes her personal struggle with being vulnerable, for example. But our gender role doesn't make whatever personal hurdle we have taller and steeper.

I do agree that two-parent households work better than one-parent households just based on adult-to-child ratio. I don't have a lot of opinions about any lack of masculinity in part because I don't know what you mean by masculinity exactly. It's one of those words used by a lot of people to mean a lot of things. I suspect you and I have pretty similar ideas of what a 'real man' is like, at least compared to the people who take toxic masculinity way too seriously. I routinely hear men who I find quite masculine called not masculine by others and rarely with a kind spirit, so... Without some kind of working definition of masculinity I don't really want to wade into that.

Now, I think I should say something about what is not a problem in addition to what is, namely natural and authentic overlap between one individual's way of being and interests and traditional gender roles. While gender roles are made up (i e socially constructed), they do connect to patterns of behavior. The key issue for me is freedom to choose how to live your life.

I suppose, strictly speaking, that the problem isn't the abstract existence of gender roles but that some (actually a lot of) people use them as a hammer to force people to live a certain way. The toxic masculinity and femininity problems are the folks who hide their insecurities behind a gender role wall. ("You can't criticize me because I'm the perfect man/woman!") But there's also a more subtle (but also much more common) level of basically pleasant but somewhat (or even very) unhappy people who don't feel like they can openly be who they are on all the points that don't live up their gender role 100%. And let's face it, that's most of us! Few people totally embody stereotypical maleness or femaleness, and that's ok. The male and female gender roles hammer people differently, but the basic problem is being hammered in the first place. 

I've been called a lesbian (I'm straight) and/or masculine for liking STEM. Good effort hammering there, but since I'm cishet and traditionally feminine presenting it's pretty obvious that the people trying to hammer are the ones with the problem, not me, especially because us girls and women in STEM seem to have no problems whatsoever finding partners. There are plenty of men who want a smart woman with high earning potential.

Like you and your wife, my husband and I conform to traditional gender roles in some ways but not others, and, well... Doesn't every couple? Like you say, every couple is different and should be allowed to make things work however the two of them (or the n of them, whatever, same principle) please. If that confirms to traditional gender roles, fine. If it doesn't, also fine. The question that matters is "does this work in practice?"

[skeptic]

14 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I find it interesting - and I don't mean strange or wrong, but literally interesting - that you ask a woman for examples of how traditional gender role expectations hurt men even though another man just gave a whole list with a lot of passion. Because I'm not one, all my examples are going to be second-hand, parroting back what I've heard or seen men say about their own lives. My personal contribution can only be checking that what they're saying is consistent with what I see from the outside. Why ask me, not @Eagle94-A1, when he's the one arguing that I underestimate the problem? I did find a short rundown that seems to summarize a lot of what I've heard, although I notice that it lacks the 'losing everything' type problems that Eagle94-A1 brought up: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/202303/the-state-of-todays-male-psyche

I'll note that while the male gender role makes it harder to connect with others, it's also not really the case that all women are totally fluent with recognizing their own emotions and talking to others about them, either. Brené Brown's legendary (at least among agilists) TED talk on the importance of vulnerability for connection includes her personal struggle with being vulnerable, for example. But our gender role doesn't make whatever personal hurdle we have taller and steeper.

I do agree that two-parent households work better than one-parent households just based on adult-to-child ratio. I don't have a lot of opinions about any lack of masculinity in part because I don't know what you mean by masculinity exactly. It's one of those words used by a lot of people to mean a lot of things. I suspect you and I have pretty similar ideas of what a 'real man' is like, at least compared to the people who take toxic masculinity way too seriously. I routinely hear men who I find quite masculine called not masculine by others and rarely with a kind spirit, so... Without some kind of working definition of masculinity I don't really want to wade into that.

Now, I think I should say something about what is not a problem in addition to what is, namely natural and authentic overlap between one individual's way of being and interests and traditional gender roles. While gender roles are made up (i e socially constructed), they do connect to patterns of behavior. The key issue for me is freedom to choose how to live your life.

I suppose, strictly speaking, that the problem isn't the abstract existence of gender roles but that some (actually a lot of) people use them as a hammer to force people to live a certain way. The toxic masculinity and femininity problems are the folks who hide their insecurities behind a gender role wall. ("You can't criticize me because I'm the perfect man/woman!") But there's also a more subtle (but also much more common) level of basically pleasant but somewhat (or even very) unhappy people who don't feel like they can openly be who they are on all the points that don't live up their gender role 100%. And let's face it, that's most of us! Few people totally embody stereotypical maleness or femaleness, and that's ok. The male and female gender roles hammer people differently, but the basic problem is being hammered in the first place. 

I've been called a lesbian (I'm straight) and/or masculine for liking STEM. Good effort hammering there, but since I'm cishet and traditionally feminine presenting it's pretty obvious that the people trying to hammer are the ones with the problem, not me, especially because us girls and women in STEM seem to have no problems whatsoever finding partners. There are plenty of men who want a smart woman with high earning potential.

Like you and your wife, my husband and I conform to traditional gender roles in some ways but not others, and, well... Doesn't every couple? Like you say, every couple is different and should be allowed to make things work however the two of them (or the n of them, whatever, same principle) please. If that confirms to traditional gender roles, fine. If it doesn't, also fine. The question that matters is "does this work in practice?"

I had to go looking to make sure I understood the terminology used.  Admittedly, I was not cognizant of the definintion of cisnet and its related terms.  Perhaps they are more precise in the current atmosphere, but I am not sure that they may also play into the greater confusion so many seem to have.  Most of the confusions and conflict appears, to me anyway, to simply be that emotions that once were sublimated are now often expected to be shared, even when the person with them is still confused and not sure about it.  Are we as a society, here in the U.S. at least, too conflicted within to allow others to deal on their own terms?  Are we threatened somehow?  E.G.; I have never understood why some push the issue in religion versus atheism.  It is a play on words to me, as the definition of atheism contradicts itself in my view.  Still, much of the legal wrangling on that front relates to someone "feeling oppressed" by simply having to on occasion see a cross or other religious symbol, and so insists that their right to not be conflicted by a symbol overrides that of those who use or represent that symbol.  I always wonder why they are threatened, as they simply can not look, or ignore it.  Again though, what we once called "common sense" is a vague, almost non existent thing now.  

     Even more sadly, we seem to add to the confusion with too many young people just because we are roiled ourselves emotionally.  

 

[BetterWithCheddar]

17 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I find it interesting - and I don't mean strange or wrong, but literally interesting - that you ask a woman for examples of how traditional gender role expectations hurt men even though another man just gave a whole list with a lot of passion.

Apologies, @AwakeEnergyScouter - I see were referring to internalized suffering that was mentioned in another post, which I have no problem believing is real (I think we can all relate to some degree). I initially read your post to mean suffering by society from the outward projection of masculinity (also real, but debatable IMHO). I tagged you simply because I thought you've added a lot of thoughtful replies and I've enjoyed engaging with you in this thread.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

2 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

Apologies, @AwakeEnergyScouter - I see were referring to internalized suffering that was mentioned in another post, which I have no problem believing is real (I think we can all relate to some degree). I initially read your post to mean suffering by society from the outward projection of masculinity (also real, but debatable IMHO). I tagged you simply because I thought you've added a lot of thoughtful replies and I've enjoyed engaging with you in this thread.

Oh, I see! That makes sense. I was a little surprised that you wouldn't have noticed at all. I also appreciate your willingness to explain your thinking process in several steps, and your thoughtfulness. I've enjoyed talking to you, too. 

[BisonBison]

Our Troop has been in the co-ed pilot (very successfully), but we've had no communication from BSA or the District as to what is happening now. Is the pilot continuing? Is this now an ongoing option for troops? Anyone know?

[HashTagScouts]

1 hour ago, BisonBison said:

Our Troop has been in the co-ed pilot (very successfully), but we've had no communication from BSA or the District as to what is happening now. Is the pilot continuing? Is this now an ongoing option for troops? Anyone know?

General discussion at National Annual Meeting on it. Videos of presentations found here: https://nam.scouting.org/presentations/

No decision on continuing the pilot will be announced until October.  

[RememberSchiff]

Found similar info with this AI summary.  Angelique Minett is Scouts BSA national program chair.

Source:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/512240731294585/posts/753077680544221/

 

Edited yesterday at 02:41 AM by RememberSchiff

[Tron]

18 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Found similar info with this AI summary.  Angelique Minett is Scouts BSA national program chair.

Source:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/512240731294585/posts/753077680544221/

 

So October is another change right? In that NAM video don't they say December is the new decision point? 

[HashTagScouts]

16 hours ago, Tron said:

So October is another change right? In that NAM video don't they say December is the new decision point? 

The "Make Our Program Highly Relevant" presentation was the relevant one to watch (https://nam.scouting.org/presentations/). Angelique spoke in that video on the pilot and what they are reviewing and timing as "fall". The "Opening General Session" Roger Krone" mentioned October on decision specific to this pilot. Not sure where the December was coming from, but the February that Angelique mentions in the FB post is - to me anyway - odd If the pilot is killed for existing units (for forming new units, that would correlate to AoL crossover, which makes sense if continuing the pilot). I still say that with the 174 units that are in pilot, Scouting America is highly unlikely to do away with this option. 

[skeptic]

3 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

The "Make Our Program Highly Relevant" presentation was the relevant one to watch (https://nam.scouting.org/presentations/). Angelique spoke in that video on the pilot and what they are reviewing and timing as "fall". The "Opening General Session" Roger Krone" mentioned October on decision specific to this pilot. Not sure where the December was coming from, but the February that Angelique mentions in the FB post is - to me anyway - odd If the pilot is killed for existing units (for forming new units, that would correlate to AoL crossover, which makes sense if continuing the pilot). I still say that with the 174 units that are in pilot, Scouting America is highly unlikely to do away with this option. 

We are dealing with an obderate council that refused to allow our small unit to be part of the pilot locally, but we have two girls we will register anyway, though how we have not figured out for sure.  Otherwise we lose them, and they are part of the family already with committed parents.  Two others are a year back.  I suggested to the leaders they just move them at charter like normal and then we deal with the nonsensical "stuff".  Small units like ours really need ALL the youth we can get, period.  

 

[BisonBison]

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

We are dealing with an obderate council that refused to allow our small unit to be part of the pilot locally, but we have two girls we will register anyway, though how we have not figured out for sure.  Otherwise we lose them, and they are part of the family already with committed parents.  Two others are a year back.  I suggested to the leaders they just move them at charter like normal and then we deal with the nonsensical "stuff".  Small units like ours really need ALL the youth we can get, period.  

 

Long before the co-ed pilot, our troop operated as a co-ed unit. We had to register separate girls and boys troops and have adult leaders cross-registered (technically with two scoutmasters), but we ran a single program (with co-ed supervision at all times). 

[HashTagScouts]

5 minutes ago, BisonBison said:

Long before the co-ed pilot, our troop operated as a co-ed unit. We had to register separate girls and boys troops and have adult leaders cross-registered (technically with two scoutmasters), but we ran a single program (with co-ed supervision at all times). 

We had started off with intent to keep units separate, then when numbers fell and recruitment just wasn't bringing in new girls, for practical purposes we had to do everything jointly. The pilot just made sense- especially as we were told from our Field Service Director that National did not want councils to keep letting units re-charter with 3-4 youth year-over-year anymore- that it was survival for us. Too many girls in our pack have brothers, and to lose pairings each year would kill us, and eventually begin to make parents question why they are even registering their kids in our pack when they'll have to move to the town over in 3 years like their BFF's kids had to do.

Edited 5 hours ago by HashTagScouts