Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday October 13 2017, @12:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the somebody-get-the-popcorn dept.

A major shift from the Boy Scouts of America:

Irving, Texas – October 11, 2017 – Today, the Boy Scouts of America Board of Directors unanimously approved to welcome girls into its iconic Cub Scout program and to deliver a Scouting program for older girls that will enable them to advance and earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout. The historic decision comes after years of receiving requests from families and girls, the organization evaluated the results of numerous research efforts, gaining input from current members and leaders, as well as parents and girls who've never been involved in Scouting – to understand how to offer families an important additional choice in meeting the character development needs of all their children.

"This decision is true to the BSA's mission and core values outlined in the Scout Oath and Law. The values of Scouting – trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind, brave and reverent, for example – are important for both young men and women," said Michael Surbaugh, the BSA's Chief Scout Executive. "We believe it is critical to evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children. We strive to bring what our organization does best – developing character and leadership for young people – to as many families and youth as possible as we help shape the next generation of leaders."

[...] Starting in the 2018 program year, families can choose to sign up their sons and daughters for Cub Scouts. Existing packs may choose to establish a new girl pack, establish a pack that consists of girl dens and boy dens or remain an all-boy pack. Cub Scout dens will be single-gender — all boys or all girls. Using the same curriculum as the Boy Scouts program, the organization will also deliver a program for older girls, which will be announced in 2018 and projected to be available in 2019, that will enable them to earn the Eagle Scout rank. This unique approach allows the organization to maintain the integrity of the single gender model while also meeting the needs of today's families.

I'll admit it, I was a little surprised by the announcement. As a longtime member of the BSA and an Eagle Scout, I find this extremely interesting. I know some who are dead set against it, and others who are totally for it. My personal opinion is that it will be a good thing, both for the BSA and for the young men and women who become part of the organization.

The biggest loser in all of this will probably be the Girl Scouts. I can see their membership numbers dwindling rapidly if/when this takes off.

As a side note, Scouting has been co-ed in many countries for decades.

Both the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts have seen decreasing membership in recent years, and both have been trying to find ways to increase their membership. In this context, they now seem to be butting heads:

The Boy Scouts will soon include girls, and not everyone's happy about it.

The 107-year-old organization announced Wednesday that younger girls will be allowed to join Cub Scouts and that older girls will be eligible to earn the prestigious rank of Eagle Scout.

[...] For months, Girl Scouts USA had a notion BSA would try to start recruiting girls. In August, Buzzfeed News obtained a strongly worded letter in which GSUSA President Kathy Hopinkah Hannan accused the BSA of courting girls to boost falling enrollment numbers.

From the letter:

We are confused as to why, rather than working to appeal to the 90 percent of boys who are not involved in BSA programs, you would choose to target girls.

What are your thoughts? Were you ever a boy scout, or a girl scout, or did they ever affect you in any way? And do you think the BSA should be praised for opening their doors to girls or should they be castigated for 'targeting' girls who would be better off staying with their own kind?


Original Submission #1   Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday October 13 2017, @04:48AM (7 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday October 13 2017, @04:48AM (#581566)

    It is the usual Prog program though.

    1. ID a respected institution
    2. Kill it
    3. Gut it
    4. Wear it's carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
    5. Institution fades away, Progs can't understand why.
    6. GOTO 1

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by FakeBeldin on Friday October 13 2017, @08:23AM

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday October 13 2017, @08:23AM (#581636) Journal

    That modus operandi fits extremely well to the current US administration. Does that make the current US administration is a prime example of "Prog program"?
    Or is this behaviour typical of a certain class of idiots, found on all sides of the political spectrum in the USA?

  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday October 13 2017, @03:21PM (5 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Friday October 13 2017, @03:21PM (#581799)

    One thing that has always been true in American politics is that the right-wing is just better organized than the left-wing. They built all these institutions and organizations and bureaucracies to make the country what it is. And the left has always been unable to compete on the same footing.

    So what has changed? Is the left suddenly good at organizing? Maybe; it's a lot easier to build momentum on social media than in traditional media programs. But the thing that social media requires is an actual plurality that supports your position.

    Which leaves us with two options for why the left suddenly has so much leverage on social issues. Either 1) new technology has made it possible for the left to tap into an existing plurality in support of social progress, or 2) the population has actually moved significantly enough in support of social progress that conservative organizations are no longer viable.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 13 2017, @03:40PM (4 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday October 13 2017, @03:40PM (#581813) Homepage Journal

      One thing that has always been true in American politics is that the right-wing is just better organized than the left-wing.

      Um... You don't think controlling the entertainment industry, the news media, and the educational institutions is weapons grade organization?

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday October 13 2017, @04:44PM (3 children)

        by meustrus (4961) on Friday October 13 2017, @04:44PM (#581855)

        I don't think the entertainment industry is run by people with any more than a veneer of liberalism; look at how much they glorify gun violence, how difficult it is for minorities to get leading roles, and how difficult it is for women to get any roles that don't rely on their attractiveness.

        I don't think the news media, which includes such conservative blockades as the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and the Sinclair Group (which now controls a majority of local news stations), is run by people that could even be remotely described as liberal. I would definitely say they have a strong urban bias, which probably looks like the same thing to rural folks. But I assure you, outside the conservative publications I mentioned (and the liberal groups like The Nation and MSNBC), the mainstream media is pretty mainstream...for urban politics.

        And I don't think educational institutions are all that well organized. Bureaucratic, sure, but not organized.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 13 2017, @05:14PM (2 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday October 13 2017, @05:14PM (#581874) Homepage Journal

          Showing gun violence does not mark you as non-liberal. Promoting the idea that citizens should have the right to own and carry firearms does. As for the rest, I never said they weren't hypocrites as well. When they vote or contribute to a political campaign/cause though, it's nearly always liberal.

          I don't think the news media, which includes such conservative blockades as the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and the Sinclair Group (which now controls a majority of local news stations), is run by people that could even be remotely described as liberal.

          Major urban centers are far more liberal than the rest of the nation. Middle of the road for them is liberal for the nation and without them very few Democrats would ever be elected. Oh, and 80% or so of journalists/reporters/commentators self-identify as liberal. Own the win if you're winning.

          And I don't think educational institutions are all that well organized. Bureaucratic, sure, but not organized.

          Try inviting an unapologetic and uncompromising conservative to speak at any university (religious and military academies excluded, obviously). You'll see the organization. Or read up during the past few years about all the canceled or denied speaking engagements by conservatives if you don't feel like waiting.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday October 13 2017, @07:33PM (1 child)

            by meustrus (4961) on Friday October 13 2017, @07:33PM (#581963)

            There's a difference between the administration and the actual workers. Actors and journalists could be 100% liberal and it wouldn't mean their organizations are based on liberal principles.

            And it doesn't take organization to cancel events. That's pretty much the default state, really. But I would view this as pretty much one more way that the country has changed in some way. Either new technology made it easier for anti-racists to organize against Yiannopoulos, or the views of enough people have shifted to make the anti-racist perspective overwhelming. Although in this case there is a third option: there was always a problem with this kind of speech making it onto campuses and we didn't know because there weren't any shock jocks going around seeing how deep they can go into neo-nazi ideology before getting thrown out of the forum.

            --
            If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 13 2017, @08:13PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday October 13 2017, @08:13PM (#581990) Homepage Journal

              Any claims of racism about Yiannopoulos need to come with at least one citation. I've been watching his antics for years and not heard a single racist word out of him. Cultural? You bet your sweet ass. Every day and twice on Sunday. Culture is not race though.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.