Boy Scouts to allow girls

[PollyannaMom]

I'd rather them start a new organization for girls and boys then add girls to Boys Scouts.

I actually wouldn't mind that idea at all. It's been a while since my DS did Cub Scouts, and he didn't continue on, but wasn't there a bunch of controversy in Boy Scouts not long ago with people sending back Eagle Awards? If that wasn't all resolved, maybe people are looking for something different. - The only problem I see is that if two organizations are struggling to get enough members, would splitting it into three make all of them fail?

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before girl scouts boys in.

I think it's going to be a lot slower. Right now, a girl who wants to do "boy things" is encouraged and admired. (There was even a recent TV series about a girl football player.) A boy who wants to do "girl things" is not treated the same way at all. I think we have a looooong way to go.

 

[Magpie]

Hm... I'm Canadian. My kids, both the boy and the girl, were in first Beaver Scouts, then Cub Scouts. Scouting here is both co-ed and non-denominational. It wasn't, at least 15 years ago, non-religious, but it was trying to be open to all faiths.

I put my daughter in Scouts, rather than Guides, for the simple reason that it was easier to coordinate getting the kids to one meeting, versus two. Both our local Girl Guides and Scouts Canada seemed to have similarly outdoorsy type programs, and badges, though Girl Guides put a little more emphasis on self-actualization. If I'd had two girls, instead of a girl and a boy, I might have considered Guides.

The children had a good experience in Scouts. They built and raced little cars, went hiking and camping and rock climbing, played games and collected their badges. When we took the kids out to a sleepover at the football stadium, boys slept on one side of the conference room, and girls slept on the other, with several adult chaperones sleeping with them. Facilities were never an issue.

Personally, I very much support co-ed scouting. Unfortunately, what the US Scouting movement is putting in place does not seem to be co-ed scouting. And I'm not a big fan of the whole "separate-but-equal" thing that BSA seems to be aiming for. I can definitely see why GSUSA is upset, as it really does look like the BSA is trying to directly compete with them by offering very much the same thing.

If this is a step to full integration, that's all to the good. But, it's a wobbly first step, at best.

Funny story - one of the leaders were guiding the children through the oath, and took a moment to carefully explain that they could choose to swear it to God, "however your family defines the concept of deity, or whatever your religious practices are". Which went entirely over the heads of this group of 5 and 6 year olds, almost all of whom - including my son - stared at her blankly. But my daughter bounced right up, and announced loudly, "Then I'm swearing MY oath to Aphrodite, because she's the PRETTIEST!"

 

[smiths02]

I don't believe for a second that this is only being done as some sort of publicity stunt while knowing that no actual change will take place. This reminds me of when it was announced that the BSA would allow women to be Boy Scout Troop leaders back in the 80's. The reaction in some circles is what we're hearing now regarding the next step to the BSA going full co-ed. As with female leaders, I'm sure that there won't be a large rush to make Packs co-ed. But some units will adopt the change... and over time I think it will become more and more the norm. Women boy scout leaders were once a novelty too after that change was adopted.

As for the "facilities" argument. Again, that "It won't work" protestation was raised with female Boy Scout leaders. However, over time each camp has development facilities to accommodate both males and females in terms of showers and bathrooms. Time slots may have to be implemented for the sharing of shower houses, but it can be managed. I've seen it done before with minimal issues. If what you predict is true, and there is not rush of girls that will join Packs, then there shouldn't be too much of a strain on the female facilities at camps.

Also, "kicking the decision down" has been used before when it comes to "sensitive" changes that the BSA has made. As I'm sure you know, each Cub Pack is "owned" by the sponsoring organization and is in fact operated as part of their larger program. So, any change that the BSA makes has the potential to "force" that change on the sponsoring organization against its will. This was also done with the decision to remove the prohibition against gay leaders. Though its critics weren't satisfied that the BSA didn't demand that all troops accept such leaders, they didn't opt to do so because such a move would have forced sponsors like the LDS church to accept gays as leaders of one of their youth programs. So they let it be a local decision for each troop. That prevented a full-scale exodus of LDS and other units sponsored by organizations that would have rejected the mandate.

Without getting too political, I agree it wasn't done as a publicity stunt or a fake nod to feminism or something.

Your example of female leaders in BSA is a great one. From what our personal experience, the Cub Scout pack we were in would have ceased to exist if no female leaders were involved.

I understand that the BSA will really not be the "Boy" Scouts of America any longer, but I was discussing with my DH that if they were unwilling to change, the membership might have dwindled away to nothing anyhow.

 

[Geoff_M]

I wonder if the poster you quoted just doesn't understand the structure of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts and that was the problem with clarification.

I agree that is part of the confusion. It's also likely that the author of the news story that was the basis of their comment may have been the one that interjected the confusion.

 

[DopeyDame]

My daughter's Brownie pack is going to a camp skills event this weekend and already has 2 camps plan for this year. They work on badges and program work at meeting and are encouraged to do interest badges on their own as well. Does Girl Scouts not have a program of things the girls need to complete before moving up to the next level?

Nope - it actually doesn't. And that's one of the good and bad parts of Girl Scouts, I think. Their programming is WAY more flexible than the Boy Scout programming, and you move up levels by age, even if you haven't earned a single badge or journey in the previous level. So a girl can easily spend 12 years in Girl Scouts and never once go on a camping trip or even earn a single badge. On the flip side, it's a lot more flexible so a troop can really tailor the experience to make it meaningful to the girls in that group - really STEM focused or really outdoorsy or really crafty. That flexibility is AWESOME if you have a good leader who is good at pushing the girls and letting them know what all the different options and opportunities are. That flexibilitiy is awful if you have a leader who is content to just do the bare minimum (I laughed at the PP who talked about coloring a placemat - my coleader and I just totally redid a planning session to avoid coloring placemats!

ETA: Just for an example, I just pulled up the Brownie (2nd and 3rd grade) badge/award log. One troop could earn the Bugs, Cabin Camper, Hiker, Outdoor Adventure, and Outdoor Art Maker badges. Another troop could earn the Celebrating Community, Dancer, Household Elf, My Best Self, and Painter badges. Both would be totally legit and active troops, but would have very different experiences for the girls.

 

[Geoff_M]

Your example of female leaders in BSA is a great one. From what our personal experience, the Cub Scout pack we were in would have ceased to exist if no female leaders were involved.

That move was also a "This is the end of Boy Scouts!!!" moment, for sure. However, women were always allowed as Cub leaders (not sure about Cubmasters, though). This is why we had the term "Den Mother". The problem was previously when one of these dynamic female leaders wanted to move up to Boy Scouts along with their son as they got odler, they were once told "Sorry, men only in Troops!"

I understand that the BSA will really not be the "Boy" Scouts of America any longer, but I was discussing with my DH that if they were unwilling to change, the membership might have dwindled away to nothing anyhow.

It's no accident that the BSA has be quietly de-emphasizing the "B" part of its name in recent times. Just look at the Internet domain name for them: scouting.org More and more, they've adopted gender neutral "Scouting" as their branding.

 

[Lilacs4Me]

I didn't read through all the posts, so this might have been hammered to death already, but here is my perspective -

I have coached an all-girls sports team for many years. The girls I currently coach are in 6-8th grade. They all have different personalities and levels of maturity, but one thing they ALL have in common is that when the Middle School boys come around there is a marked shift in the behaviors, attitudes and ability level of the girls. They go from being confident, tough, strong young ladies to mean, competitive, wary, and yes, even sometimes dumbed-down versions of themselves.

As soon as the boys leave, status quo is restored. As a sociology nerd this is amazing to watch, and as a mom and woman, very sad at the same time.

In talking to DD13 about this, she reports that these same girls act very differently in school than they do at practice. In her words, they act helpless and stupid lol. At practice, they are leaders and role models and DD likes talking to them. At school, she stays away. She is much more of a "boy" girl - she hates the drama and backstabbing and prefers the relationships and camaraderie with the boys. But even for her in reverse, it's good for her to be around just all girls sometimes because it allows her to see a different side of the same girls whose behaviors she hates at school, act totally different when it's just girls around.

There are a ton of co-ed groups kids in my area can join - Wyldlife, Kiwanis Kids, Leadershop, etc....I think having an all-boys and all-girls alternative is a good thing and it should stay that way. Not everything in life needs to be "all inclusive" for goodness sake! Maybe integrating scouts in the younger grades would help the boy/girl middle-school phenomenon, maybe not. I don't know. But I do know that the girls I see several times a week are much more relaxed and open to being themselves when it is just THEM and the distraction of boys is eliminated.

 

[Geoff_M]

Nope - it actually doesn't. And that's one of the good and bad parts of Girl Scouts, I think. Their programming is WAY more flexible than the Boy Scout programming, and you move up levels by age, even if you haven't earned a single badge or journey in the previous level. So a girl can easily spend 12 years in Girl Scouts and never once go on a camping trip or even earn a single badge.

I also think that this highlights one of the reasons, instead of crass sexism, that more people are aware of the rank of Eagle than the Gold Award. One of the concepts that Boy is organized around is individual achievement and rank advancement. Once out of Cub Scouts, you don't just move along with your peers. You're also right about the importance of good leaders... that goes for both programs in the GSUSA as well as the BSA.

 

[DopeyDame]

I also think that this highlights one of the reasons, instead of crass sexism, that more people are aware of the rank of Eagle than the Gold Award. One of the concepts that Boy is organized around is individual achievement and rank advancement. Once out of Cub Scouts, you don't just move along with your peers. You're also right about the importance of good leaders... that goes for both programs in the GSUSA as well as the BSA.

Eh, not really. You move along with your peers in levels, but not in awards. So You can be an Ambassador Girl Scout (11th and 12th grades) without doing diddly. But the Gold Award itself is very proscribed and has a ton of requirements.

 

[DopeyDame]

I didn't read through all the posts, so this might have been hammered to death already, but here is my perspective -

I have coached an all-girls sports team for many years. The girls I currently coach are in 6-8th grade. They all have different personalities and levels of maturity, but one thing they ALL have in common is that when the Middle School boys come around there is a marked shift in the behaviors, attitudes and ability level of the girls. They go from being confident, tough, strong young ladies to mean, competitive, wary, and yes, even sometimes dumbed-down versions of themselves.

As soon as the boys leave, status quo is restored. As a sociology nerd this is amazing to watch, and as a mom and woman, very sad at the same time.

In talking to DD13 about this, she reports that these same girls act very differently in school than they do at practice. In her words, they act helpless and stupid lol. At practice, they are leaders and role models and DD likes talking to them. At school, she stays away. She is much more of a "boy" girl - she hates the drama and backstabbing and prefers the relationships and camaraderie with the boys. But even for her in reverse, it's good for her to be around just all girls sometimes because it allows her to see a different side of the same girls whose behaviors she hates at school, act totally different when it's just girls around.

There are a ton of co-ed groups kids in my area can join - Wyldlife, Kiwanis Kids, Leadershop, etc....I think having an all-boys and all-girls alternative is a good thing and it should stay that way. Not everything in life needs to be "all inclusive" for goodness sake! Maybe integrating scouts in the younger grades would help the boy/girl middle-school phenomenon, maybe not. I don't know. But I do know that the girls I see several times a week are much more relaxed and open to being themselves when it is just THEM and the distraction of boys is eliminated.

I'd love to hear from parents of older kids (my oldest is only 8) if this same phenomenon happens with boys. I am VERY familiar with it with girls through STEM work. Maybe it's not an issues for boys, which would then make the fact that boy scouts doesn't want to remain single sex more understandable perhaps. Frankly, just from what I see with my own boy, I don't see his behavior change, but I do see the *acceptance* of his stereotypical boy behavior change between coed and single sex environments. I want him to have a place where he's not getting in trouble for being active and antsy and rough and tumbly. For him, that place is his all boys soccer team, but I can see how boy scouts would fill that role for lots of other boys.

 

[Geoff_M]

I didn't read through all the posts, so this might have been hammered to death already, but here is my perspective -

All I can say, as pointed out by several of our foreign friends, many many successful Scouting age programs around the World have been co-ed for many decades now. The BSA is not plowing virgin prairie here.

This isn't directed at you, but over the last 24 hours I've find it personally rather amusing that in years past the BSA was socially pilloried and sued for barring girls from membership... and now that they've decided to lift that bar they're now being criticized (from many in the same circles) for setting girls up for social harm and trying to harm the GSUSA.

 

[DopeyDame]

Wow, my wife or I could have written this. I also state that I have no issue with anyone who enjoys Girl Scouts. My daughter is one, and has been since brownie times. (She's 15 now). I agree with all the statements you make above, and while I would normally have a major issue with an organization like the Boy Scouts allowing girls, as a parent that also has a 9 year old boy, currently a Cub Scout, I'm glad this is happening.

Maybe it's just our area, I'm sure different troops across the country are different, but honestly, the Boy Scouts feels like a true family organization. Each and every event our son attends is open to everyone from the parents to our daughter. We do everything together from camping to field trips. We do so many activities and outings there is no way we could attend them all. With the Girl Scouts, in our area, that is almost unheard of. To be frank, even as long as our daughter has been in it, there has never been that sense of comradery we have with the boys.

Another poster mentioned how this is actually being organized, from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts, and I feel even better after reading that. I've really felt for years there should be a more national\global scouting organization. Heck, even the military is more co-ed now.

This is also one of the big differences between Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and something again where YMMV. Girl Scouts is definitely not a family organization. It's a GIRL organization. Even at the Daisy (K and 1st grade) levels, we encourage parents to drop off their girls and leave. (Obviously parents *can* stay if they want to - I'm not going to kick a mom away from her 5 year old.) When DS started Cub Scouts I was flabergasted that I was expected to attend all the events. It's one of the (multiple) reasons he didn't last the year in Cub Scouts.
Different strokes for different folks!

 

[smiths02]

This is also one of the big differences between Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and something again where YMMV. Girl Scouts is definitely not a family organization. It's a GIRL organization. Even at the Daisy (K and 1st grade) levels, we encourage parents to drop off their girls and leave. (Obviously parents *can* stay if they want to - I'm not going to kick a mom away from her 5 year old.) When DS started Cub Scouts I was flabergasted that I was expected to attend all the events. It's one of the (multiple) reasons he didn't last the year in Cub Scouts.
Different strokes for different folks!

I wonder if the BSA has always been like this...at least the Cub Scout side?
I mean I don't really see any problem in camp outs and separation for Cub Scouts because all the camp outs were family based anyhow. The kids just stayed in your tent with you, the boys didn't camp alone.
It is one reason we stayed with Cub Scouts...we had a lot of friends think we were crazy. Some talked about the sexual abuse allegations, but we were able to come back with "we are always there, so there is no room for that at the Cub Scout level" and others came with the "BSA are anti-gay" but that policy has changed.

 

[Geoff_M]

Eh, not really. You move along with your peers in levels, but not in awards. So You can be an Ambassador Girl Scout (11th and 12th grades) without doing diddly. But the Gold Award itself is very proscribed and has a ton of requirements.

I'm not trying to diminish the Gold Award. I know that it requires a lot of effort and is comparable to the rank of Eagle. My point is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't sense that there is the push towards rank advancement in Girl Scout programs as there is in Boy Scouts. In fact, if I'm reading it right, there doesn't seem to be a comparable ladder "rank" system for Girl Scouts. I see "Levels" that appear to be age-based, and within levels a single "Award" can be earned. I see that in order to earn "Gold" you have to also have earned "Silver", but "Bronze" appears to be optional.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

I agree w/ both of these assessments.

However, I wonder... is the Eagle Scout recognition that the Boy Scouts offer the main reason some girls want in the Boy Scouts?

I don't know what the highest ranking is for the Girl Scouts, but I think (& I could be wrong) that the Eagle Scout ranking is seen as more prestigious & more advantageous for its recipients than whatever the Girl Scouts offer?

DD was in Girl Scouts for a couple of years. My nephew was in Boy Scouts & has achieved the Eagle Scout Ranking. From my (admittedly very limited) viewpoint, the Boy Scouts program looks more impressive & like it's a better overall experience to me than the Girl Scouts program - again, I don't have very much experience w/ either. My opinion is basically that of an outsider looking in, I know!

My girls have both completed their Bronze Awards (grades 4-5), and my oldest is currently working on her Silver Award (grades 6-8). They invest a lot of time and energy into their projects, and often receive little recognition for all the work and effort put into them.

For Girl Scouts it's the Gold Award (grades 9-12). You're right in that Boy Scouts earn more recognition for their award, but the amount of hours that a girl must put into her project is in no way diminished. It's a minimum of 80 hours of service, where the project must go through a review committee for approval (or at least it did in my council), and the project needs to be sustainable, not a one and done activity. Plus in order to be eligible to complete the Gold Award a girl needs to have completed a combination of badge work and/or received the Silver Award which is 50 hours of service and badge work.

A dad in my former troop who's a Den Leader commented that the work the girls go through for their Gold Awards is more than the boys go through in order to receive Eagle Scout.

Earning the Gold Award was a ton of work. Both the projects my troop completed for our gold and silver awards are still yearly events almost two decades later. I still have the letters I got from various members of government and news articles about the event we created.

I will say, however, that it does requiring explaining to those "not in the know" the level of work that goes in to earning the Gold Award and that it is truly earned. I think even if people don't know what goes into making Eagle Scout, they know it takes time, dedication, and hard work.

 

[DopeyDame]

I'm not trying to diminish the Gold Award. I know that it requires a lot of effort and is comparable to the rank of Eagle. My point is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't sense that there is the push towards rank advancement in Girl Scout programs as there is in Boy Scouts. In fact, if I'm reading it right, there doesn't seem to be a comparable ladder "rank" system for Girl Scouts. I see "Levels" that appear to be age-based, and within levels a single "Award" can be earned. I see that in order to earn "Gold" you have to also have earned "Silver", but "Bronze" appears to be optional.

This is starting to get into lots of details, but you seem legitimately interested and I have some time to kill

Here are the badge logs for each level: http://www.girlscoutshop.com/JOURNEYS-GUIDES/GUIDES2/UPDATED-BADGE-LOGS

The levels (Daisy, Brownie, Junior, Cadette, Senior, Ambassador) are all grade based and all generally meet separately. There's not the equivalent of packs where the different levels get together or anything like that. (There are some multi level troops, but those are relatively rare and usually happen in either rural areas or areas with other unique needs - like the Girls Behind Bars programs for girls with moms in jail.)

Within each level, there are journeys and badges to be earned. Journeys are what people complain about the most - several years ago GSUSA came up with the journey concept, and theoretically it's sort of a structure of the year. Some of the journeys are really crappy. Some are great. (The new ones are a lot better than the original ones, and again of course it's up to the leader and troop how it gets implemented) Badges are more traditional "skill" type badges. A troop can do all or none of the journeys and all or none of the badges. Journeys and badges combined make the heart of the "curriculum" (for lack of a better word)
You can be a Girl Scout and literally earn no badges and no journeys if you want. (It would be a super crappy experience, and I"m not sure why you'd waste the time, but GSUSA won't kick you out and you'll keep moving up levels as you get older.)

Then there are the three big "awards" - Bronze Award for juniors, Silver award for Cadette, and Gold Award for Seniors/Ambassadors.
For each award, you need to complete a certain number of journeys, hold a certain number of leadership positions (can be within or outside of scouts), and do a service/take action project of some sort - that's the 50 and 80 hour project a PP had mentioned.
Some troops have a huge push and focus on earning the awards. Others don't.
So a girl who earns her Gold Award didn't get there because she was in a structure that "pushed" her up the rank ladder. Instead, she got there because she (with troop support, presumably, although sadly not always) took the initiative to complete all the requirements, complete a huge amount of the GS curriculum, and do the project.

I have a good friend who is a Pack leader and also the Girl Scout Service Unit manager. She is an uber-Scout for sure. (I haven't gotten the chance to talk to her about the BSA change yet - I'm really interested to hear what she said!) Her take is that the two awards are very comparable in what's actually required, but that a Gold Award is typically much harder to achieve because it takes a lot more individual initiative. There's not the rank progression/expectation of earning a Gold Award that there is of earning a Eagle Scout.

All of which to say, if you're comparing a random Ambassador Girl Scout to an Eagle Scout, you're right to give more credit to the Eagle Scout, since Eagle is an actual accomplishment, while Ambassador just means she's still in Scouts. But if you know a Gold Award winner, you can be sure she's accomplished an enormous amount within the GS curriculum and has demonstrated a ton of initiative and independence.

 

[CarolAnn856]

I wonder if the BSA has always been like this...at least the Cub Scout side?
I mean I don't really see any problem in camp outs and separation for Cub Scouts because all the camp outs were family based anyhow. The kids just stayed in your tent with you, the boys didn't camp alone.
It is one reason we stayed with Cub Scouts...we had a lot of friends think we were crazy. Some talked about the sexual abuse allegations, but we were able to come back with "we are always there, so there is no room for that at the Cub Scout level" and others came with the "BSA are anti-gay" but that policy has changed.

Cubs Scouts has always been more parent-child oriented. Once they cross over to a Boy Scout troop, though, it changes, or at least it should, if the leaders truly follow the tenent of "youth led." This concept, where youth are given increasing levels of responsibility and adults are there to guide, not decide everything, is where so much of the leadership growth comes from.

 

[Geoff_M]

So a girl who earns her Gold Award didn't get there because she was in a structure that "pushed" her up the rank ladder. Instead, she got there because she (with troop support, presumably, although sadly not always) took the initiative to complete all the requirements, complete a huge amount of the GS curriculum, and do the project.

I have a good friend who is a Pack leader and also the Girl Scout Service Unit manager. She is an uber-Scout for sure. (I haven't gotten the chance to talk to her about the BSA change yet - I'm really interested to hear what she said!) Her take is that the two awards are very comparable in what's actually required, but that a Gold Award is typically much harder to achieve because it takes a lot more individual initiative. There's not the rank progression/expectation of earning a Gold Award that there is of earning a Eagle Scout.

All of which to say, if you're comparing a random Ambassador Girl Scout to an Eagle Scout, you're right to give more credit to the Eagle Scout, since Eagle is an actual accomplishment, while Ambassador just means she's still in Scouts. But if you know a Gold Award winner, you can be sure she's accomplished an enormous amount within the GS curriculum and has demonstrated a ton of initiative and independence.

Thanks for the information. I wholeheartedly agree that the Gold Award is on the same plane as the rank of Eagle. I would like to add a few perspective items from my side of the fence, so to speak. "Push" is a relative term. From the leadership side it's more like encouragement. From the youth side, it's can be more like peer-pressure. You can find 16 year-old 2nd Class Scouts (next rank after Tenderfoot), but they will get occasional ribbing from their higher-ranked age peers that they are languishing back with 11 or 12 year-olds in terms of rank. Each Scout it presented the rank ladder, how far they go up it is their decision alone.

As for Eagle, there should be as little pushing a possible. Support yes, "pushing" no. Just like Gold, the kid has got to "want it" for themselves. It's up to them to take the initiative present to them. I last thing I want, as a leader and Eagle Scout, is to see a kid "pushed" or "drug" over the finish line. I have two sons... the oldest got his Eagle, the younger one stalled a couple of rungs down and turned 18. I wasn't about to push the younger one (though my wife would have liked it if I had done so). Eagle review boards are also trained to be on the lookout for "pushed" candidates and ours has a strict policy that they will only communicate with the candidate and not his mother, father, or leader. This sentiment was expressed perfectly not long ago by Mike Rowe (Eagle Scout, and TV host/narrator) when a father asked him to write a letter to his son to try an encourage him to complete his Eagle rank. Rowe wrote the letter, but not perhaps the tone of letter he had thought of:

Kelby,

Your Dad asked me to drop you a line and say something inspirational that might persuade you to dig down deep and find the determination to make the rank of Eagle Scout. It’s a reasonable request, from a father who obviously wants to see his son succeed. But here’s the thing – The Eagle Award is not really meant for people who need to be dragged across the finish line. It’s meant for a select few, and I have no idea if you have the guts to see it through.

Statistically, I suspect you do not. Only one out of a hundred Scouts make Eagle, so if you fail, there will be lots of other people with whom you can share excuses. Quitting now might disappoint your Dad, but I doubt that he or anyone else will be overly surprised. Anytime 99 out of 100 people do the same thing, it’s not exactly a shock.

I’m not trying to be cute with a bunch of reverse psychology. When I was 15, there was nothing that anyone could have said to me that would have inspired me to do something I didn’t want to do, especially a stranger with a TV show. So I’m not going to assume you’re any different, or pretend that I have some influence or insight that you haven’t already heard from a dozen other people who actually know and care about you. I’ll just tell you straight up, that doing something extraordinary can be very lonely, and most people simply aren’t cut out for it. Being an Eagle Scout requires you to be different than most everyone around you, and being different is really, really hard. That’s why the award is called “an accomplishment.”

Personally, and for whatever it’s worth, the best decisions I’ve made in my own life, are those decisions that put me on the outside of being cool. Singing in the Opera, working in home shopping, starring in the school play when the entire football team laughed at me, and especially earning my Eagle, were all choices that required sacrifice, hard work, and delayed gratification. I have no idea if you possess those qualities, or even envy them.
But I can tell you for certain, that NOT getting your Eagle, will be one of the easiest things you’ve ever done.

Anyway, I have no idea if you would prefer an easy life of predictability and mediocrity, or if have the passion to follow the road less traveled. Only you get to decide that.

Good Luck,
Mike

That pretty much sums it up. Afterwards, a self-described "not a very enthusiastic scout" Scout in Illinois wrote Rowe a response that said that he was "slightly offended" by Mike's words to Kebly. Rowe's response to the 2nd Scout was even more frank.

 

[AppleDumpling]

Not sure how I feel about this. I'm usually pretty open-minded, but do believe strongly that there is value in certain activities segregated by gender, both for boys and for girls. If the troops go coed, like they are in many other countries, it really changes the dynamic for the boys. And BSA already has a coed branch for older kids, Venturing, which could be expanded by lowering the age.

DS is an Eagle Scout. I don't have daughters, but was a Girl Scout myself a long time ago, and as others have said, the current GS program seems much different than what it used to be. Which is really a shame, if it is driving girls away and leading them to join BSA to get the type of opportunities that appeal to them.

It will be interesting to see how it is implemented and how it plays out in the years to come.

 

[keri125]

As an atheist, my son is not welcomed in the Boy Scouts, so all this talk about whether or not to be inclusive is a little ironic to me. He has instead attended Camp Fire camps every summer, and I looked into establishing a Camp Fire group where I live, but you pretty much have to be a stay-at-home parent or not work full-time to establish a club. I used to be totally on the side of all-gender inclusive, and I do see the value in that as well. After all, we know how well "separate but equal" tends to work out (as in, it doesn't). However, my son (who will be turning 13 in February) has mainly friends who are girls, and I find myself wishing he had more friends who were boys. He has a couple, but I think there can be value in learning how to get along with a group of only boys. He can be somewhat sensitive and, as an only child, misses out on how to handle good-natured ribbing that often occurs with boys. My aunt sent her two youngest girls to a private all-girls school because she said she saw a huge difference in the amount of time and attention that actually went towards the academics as opposed to the drama, as opposed to her oldest daughter who went to a co-ed school. I think this is a really difficult, many-layered issue, with many grey areas. Not sure what the answer is here.