Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When my son was young - Cub Scouts was thriving and Boy Scouts ~ not so much. We lived in a small town and it was like being in Boy Scouts was no longer 'cool'. Most boys left after the cub scout phase; now this could also be because sports started requiring more and more time. . . who knows.
That's just what I saw.
I would see Packs have tons of kids and Boy Scouts have anywhere from 15 to 30/40 kids in Troops. And yes Boy Scouts wasn't "as cool" as Cub Scouts and sports were sexier, but in the suburbs of New York, it thrived. But I still saw dropouts by age 13. At that point, most lost interest unless they wanted to become Eagle Scout. I did.
You said: I think the scouts need to be co-ed if that is what the community wants.
Is what you really meant to say: I think the scouts need to be co-ed if that is what the girls want.
No it is at face value, just as if the community wants homosexuals in the scouts and you cam find a charter who would support that troop, do it. Next time, don't try to put words in my mouth.
Quote:
Just because the Girl Scouts aren't meeting the needs of the girls, the boys need to lose the Boy Scouts? A co-ed Scouts organization won't be the Boy Scouts. I doubt the boys were clammering for girls to be admitted.
I wouldn't have cared 15 years ago honestly. I don't get the objections other than "it's an attack on masculinity." Many Venture and Explorer posts (another part of BSA) actually do have girls in it already and have for some time.
No, the parents who are in charge of the troops we've been talking about don't think "Girl Scout administration will miraculously realize that their organization leaves something to be desired." They realize that it is in their hands to run programming for their local troops.
If they can do it, why can't other troops?
I think I can respond, though I'm not sure if this is the case in girl scouts. In Boy Scouts it can depend on the Scoutmaster and Troop Committee Chair. If they want the program to be religious, it is religious. I was in two religious troops due to the charter organizations being local churches, and it was OK. I was in another that wasn't as pressed by the charter organization even though it was another local church. However there is also that said it can be more low impact based, more traditional plop a tent based or using fires for food based. It all depends on the program. Same goes for Venture Posts too. You just got to research the program.
I don't think boys "need to be boys." Masculinity is changing. It isn't as rugged as it use to be. Sorry you don't like it but that is the way it is. Men do care about looks now. Men don't always know how to fix things due to how complicated cars are. I think what it is yo be a man is changing and we don't know where it will go. I'm sorry change offends you.
I don't think girls will add pressure to boys in a bad way at all. I can't think of a way honestly that you don't see in Venture, Explorers or Sea Scouts. Care to explain further.
Older men that I've known like my father and grandfather always cared about how they looked too. I'd wager LESS people care about the way they look now vs. then. Boys do need to boys if they so choose. And as I've said, I do believe there is a place for single gender organizations in an every growing egalitarian society.
Does it offend you that in my area we have several girl specific clubs and camps but no boy specific ones?
Venture, Explorers and Sea Scouts are amazing groups. But so are BS and GS. The only reason this change was made was because of membership numbers. This isn't a statement by BS about equality. Its more of a desperate move of a dying organization.
Older men that I've known like my father and grandfather always cared about how they looked too. I'd wager LESS people care about the way they look now vs. then. Boys do need to boys if they so choose. And as I've said, I do believe there is a place for single gender organizations in an every growing egalitarian society.
Does it offend you that in my area we have several girl specific clubs and camps but no boy specific ones?
Venture, Explorers and Sea Scouts are amazing groups. But so are BS and GS. The only reason this change was made was because of membership numbers. This isn't a statement by BS about equality. Its more of a desperate move of a dying organization.
That is a lie unless it is a preemptive strike against the new Mormon program since the Mormon church was the biggest supporter to the scouts. https://www.lds.org/church/news/chur...ogram?lang=eng The reason it is a lie is the Boy Scouts (not sure if this includes females in Venture, Varsity and Explorers) has double the amount as Girl Scouts. This isn't about members unless it is to curb the Mormon departure over the gay objection.
I don't think boys "need to be boys." Masculinity is changing. It isn't as rugged as it use to be. Sorry you don't like it but that is the way it is. Men do care about looks now. Men don't always know how to fix things due to how complicated cars are. I think what it is yo be a man is changing and we don't know where it will go. I'm sorry change offends you.
I don't think girls will add pressure to boys in a bad way at all. I can't think of a way honestly that you don't see in Venture, Explorers or Sea Scouts. Care to explain further.
I don't have a problem with change. Men have always cared about their looks, that is not what this is about. You made my point. We already have other scouting groups that are Co-Ed. Why the Boy Scouts now? MONEY, and enrollment. And yes boys need to be boys, and act up, and be silly, and graphic, and rowdy.
I don't have a problem with change. Men have always cared about their looks, that is not what this is about. You made my point. We already have other scouting groups that are Co-Ed. Why the Boy Scouts now? MONEY, and enrollment. And yes boys need to be boys, and act up, and be silly, and graphic, and rowdy.
No, the parents who are in charge of the troops we've been talking about don't think "Girl Scout administration will miraculously realize that their organization leaves something to be desired." They realize that it is in their hands to run programming for their local troops.
If they can do it, why can't other troops?
I'm talking about the national program. Only a portion of the argument is about individual troops and packs. Have you bothered to read the responses here? Boy Scouts is a very different program at the national level. Others have explained this (and there are some specific examples below). Some changes would need to be made from the top down if Girls Scouts was ever to become more like Boy Scouts, and given how defensive the leaders of the girls organization have been, you can see how likely they are to listen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
That is a lie unless it is a preemptive strike against the new Mormon program since the Mormon church was the biggest supporter to the scouts. https://www.lds.org/church/news/chur...ogram?lang=eng The reason it is a lie is the Boy Scouts (not sure if this includes females in Venture, Varsity and Explorers) has double the amount as Girl Scouts. This isn't about members unless it is to curb the Mormon departure over the gay objection.
Mormon here. I think this has a LOT to do with the Mormons leaving, which angers me to no end, but not on the Boy Scout side. The reason the church offered up for leaving was because they said the boys were losing interest in the program, and they felt like they needed to create their own program to better serve the needs of Mormons (which I totally read as 'we don't like the decision about gays'). I think the Boy Scouts were interested in reaching girls long before this announcement, but were afraid of losing Mormon membership. (The Boy Scouts had tried to talk to the Girl Scouts about a merger prior to this, which could have been the ideal solution, but the talks went nowhere.) Once the church stated their intention to leave the BSA and start their own program, that changed everything.
The sad part is that while you could find successful Mormon troops, a lot of the troops never followed the BSA program that closely. Rather than troops being led by volunteers - who are involved because they want to be - you have leaders who are appointed (or "called") to the position. While it's possible to turn down a calling, in actuality it rarely happens. You get called; you serve. So the boys end up with a Scout Master who does the bare minimum needed and you have meetings that consist of reading from the handbook and playing basketball in the gym. Is it any wonder the boys are bored and drop out?
They also have this huge push for boys to make Eagle by the age of 13 or 14, which is practically impossible if you're following the program the way it's laid out. The patrol method used by Boy Scouts lets the boys gain needed leadership skills. The patrol leader is chosen by the boys of that rank, and the position changes hands at regular intervals. There are other Positions of Responsibility that a boy can hold, and order to attain the rank of Eagle, a boy has to serve in two POR's (in addition to earning merit badges, etc.). In a robust troop, it will be a few years before a boy has the chance to fulfill that requirement. The way too many Mormon troops were led, this either didn't happen, or when it did they boys weren't really 'leading' because of the lack of opportunity to be in situations that needed true leadership.
By contrast, in many non-Mormon troops the earliest a boy gets his Eagle is 15, and a lot of boys are pushing to finish up their projects before they age out at 18. Again, I've seen first-hand some Mormon troops that are fantastic, but they're the exception rather than the rule. So it pisses me off that they say the program isn't working, when they rarely followed it to begin with.
If the folks here who thinking co-ed Boy Scouts is a really good thing for society, where then are the protests that the Girl Scouts will continue to only have girls? Where are the protests against the female-only fitness clubs? Female-only professional support organizations? Female-only social organizations?
Why is it OK for females to have their own organizations in which males are not allowed if it is not good when males have a male-only organization?
There are male only organizations and fitness clubs and male rape support organizations.
YMCA
Elks
Order of the Moose
Free Masons
Sons of the Confederacy
ACFC
Bohemian club
NOMAS
gay mens organization
etc.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
