It appears that the decision is done; see letter.

[InquisitiveScouter]

7 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

Concur.

Now I have " The end of the Civil War was near when quite accidently..." in my brain. Thank you so very much @RememberSchiff.  😀

https://youtu.be/7YBLGOnX3hE

A show that could not be made today...

 

Edited yesterday at 03:32 PM by InquisitiveScouter

[RememberSchiff]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

Concur.

Now I have " The end of the Civil War was near when quite accidently..." in my brain. Thank you so very much @RememberSchiff.  😀

Beginning to sound like a Seinfeld episode.

[skeptic]

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

https://youtu.be/7YBLGOnX3hE

A show that could not be made today...

 

Not on purpose.  It seems to me that we have something similar in process in D.C.  

 

[jcousino]

On 11/23/2025 at 6:52 AM, BetterWithCheddar said:

Not a fan of the name "Family Scouting" ... it gives the impression that Mom and Dad can earn badges too. 🙂

What's saying they won't be .if SA can make money on it, it will happen.

[fred8033]

18 minutes ago, jcousino said:

What's saying they won't be .if SA can make money on it, it will happen.

Hard to pick a good term these days.  "Family scouting" implies helicopter parents subverting the program even more.  "Co-ed" scouting implies more societal change like the last twenty years. 

Terms ... I hope we can get beyond terms.  Scouting is really not about gender.  It's about getting outside, being active, being responsible and having adventures.  All of which lead to personal growth.  I pray we can focus on the basics of scouting someday.

Edited yesterday at 07:58 PM by fred8033

[Tron]

34 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Hard to pick a good term these days.  "Family scouting" implies helicopter parents subverting the program even more.  "Co-ed" scouting implies more societal change like the last twenty years. 

Terms ... I hope we can get beyond terms.  Scouting is really not about gender.  It's about getting outside, being active, being responsible and having adventures.  All of which lead to personal growth.  I pray we can focus on the basics of scouting someday.

We're going to get there. Now that this hurdle is cleared it's time to fix other things so we have more resources in place for program. 

[Armymutt]

Here's where I see trouble with this model - from the files posted: 

We should ensure no Scouts are excluded from events due to lack of appropriate adult volunteer leadership. If, despite best efforts, an event or outing lacks appropriate adult volunteer leadership, it should be canceled rather than excluding any youth.

This has the potential to be severely damaging.  No females volunteer to go on an outing, it gets cancelled.  The boys blame girls for being in the program and causing them to miss out.

[DuctTape]

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

Here's where I see trouble with this model - from the files posted: 

We should ensure no Scouts are excluded from events due to lack of appropriate adult volunteer leadership. If, despite best efforts, an event or outing lacks appropriate adult volunteer leadership, it should be canceled rather than excluding any youth.

This has the potential to be severely damaging.  No females volunteer to go on an outing, it gets cancelled.  The boys blame girls for being in the program and causing them to miss out.

I did not think of that. Good point.

Perhaps a push for more Patrol outings instead of troop focus is in order. Depending on patrol makeup, this might mitigate the problem.?

[Tron]

2 hours ago, Armymutt said:

Here's where I see trouble with this model - from the files posted: 

We should ensure no Scouts are excluded from events due to lack of appropriate adult volunteer leadership. If, despite best efforts, an event or outing lacks appropriate adult volunteer leadership, it should be canceled rather than excluding any youth.

This has the potential to be severely damaging.  No females volunteer to go on an outing, it gets cancelled.  The boys blame girls for being in the program and causing them to miss out.

This is absolutely avoidable by recruiting as many leaders as possible. If we take an honest look at most packs and troops there are very few leaders. Everyone complains but no one is asking. I forced the issue this year to recruit at least 4 more NEW leaders and it was tough to get everyone onboard, it was about 3 months of going around and talking about what adults were close to aging out, how succession plans really work, how doing a right-seat-ride (you'll like that Armymutt) enables successors to really learn a position. The reality of most units is that we're all running lean because there is a certain point where the number of leaders becomes harder to manage the dynamics between leaders. There are a lot of units running on 4-6 leaders because it's just enough to get stuff done but not too many to make administrative work; when you go to those units and say "hey you need to recruit some female leadership into your SM corps and your committee" those units balk. 

1 hour ago, DuctTape said:

I did not think of that. Good point.

Perhaps a push for more Patrol outings instead of troop focus is in order. Depending on patrol makeup, this might mitigate the problem.?

My gut tells me more patrol outings fixes a lot of problems. 

[Eagle94-A1]

3 hours ago, Armymutt said:

This has the potential to be severely damaging.  No females volunteer to go on an outing, it gets cancelled.  

National could remove the double standard, i.e. 2 females can take males youth out, but 2 males cannot take female youth out.

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

35 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

National could remove the double standard, i.e. 2 females can take males youth out, but 2 males cannot take female youth out.

 

While I agree with your sentiment, I understand why they do this.

It is men, by far, who are statistically more likely to appear in the reports, or be convicted, of sexual abuse (notice how I phrased that...)

https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/sexual-abuse

From that page, note that ~92% of offenders were men, and ~72% of offenders had little or no prior criminal history.

It is not about you or me, it's about "us."  We men appear to be the overwhelming majority of the problem.

I do believe there is a lot more adult female to youth male abuse that goes on that is not reported, and that the societal tide is turning on reporting and convicting those women who abuse.  (See recent reports, particularly from school settings.) But the numbers will never near parity with men as perpetrators.

This is a policy made through the input of actuarials, lawyers, and public relations folks, among others.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by InquisitiveScouter

[Tron]

23 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

National could remove the double standard, i.e. 2 females can take males youth out, but 2 males cannot take female youth out.

 

Changing the rule to force 2 male leaders on any/all unit functions that include male youth only complicates the issue. If the argument is "fairness" the only answer is MORE restriction and regulation. There are NO circumstances where getting rid of the female leader requirement ever happens. There are exceptions to the rule; however, basic sociology has explained and it's been proven across all societies that there is a higher potential for abuse between a male leader and a female youth than a female leader and a male youth to the observed and proven physical attraction that occurs between older males to younger females. We have to protect female youth, it's plain and simple.