Dubayoo

Boy Scouts Allow Girls to Join, Girl Scouts Backlash

12 posts in this topic

I'm heavily involved in this (Scouts for Equality and otherwise) and will drop the lengthy post I'm writing in here when I finish it (probably this weekend).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point about having Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts is to ensure equality.  What's going on here is just a blatant disregard for language. 

Some people say there's no need to separate genders, but the fact is different genders have different paths of development and different forms of anatomy that influence how they behave even if there are ranges among those behaviors.  Should there be opportunities for cooperation?  Perhaps, but the Venture Scouts already exist for that.  

Beyond this, there are two serious issues:

One, the inclusion of girls allows for tomboys to become centers of attention at the expense of other boys.  If anything, Boy Scouts already suffer from disciplinary problems when going on camping trips where rugged individualism is confused for being an outdoorsman.  Including girls in troops will create situations where girls will be played favorites towards just because they're attractive, and they'll be allowed to act up and get away with reinforcing the bullying that often goes on in troops.  Girl Scout troops have likewise complained about this from girls finding boys attractive, and playing favorites towards those boys while outcasting other girls in order to grab the boy's attention. 

The second is the inverse of this where the girls get picked on just because they can't perform at the same physical level or because they're more sensitive.  It's similar to how women don't excel in the military when applying for physically intense roles.  Are there exceptions to the rule?  Sure, but the scouting organizations aren't defined by a personality attribute.  They're defined by a gender.  They're not looking for those personality attributes some might be the exception to.  They're deliberately organized towards traditional gender role interpretations of behavior.  The Boy Scouts might become watered down to accommodate that sensitivity, but people will just leave once that happens.  

If anything, this is just going to further the reduction of members joining the organization.  People just won't be comfortable doing what's expected, they'll be told that if they don't like it then they can leave, and that's what they'll do.  The organization will be left only with exceptions to the rule, and it will eventually just become unsustainable.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just toss them up into Army/Navy/Air Cadets :P

(This is a joke, I'm more informed on Canadian Cadets than American stuff and that)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lelouch Vi Britannia said:

Just toss them up into Army/Navy/Air Cadets :P

(This is a joke, I'm more informed on Canadian Cadets than American stuff and that)

lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

The whole point about having Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts is to ensure equality.  What's going on here is just a blatant disregard for language. 

Some people say there's no need to separate genders, but the fact is different genders have different paths of development and different forms of anatomy that influence how they behave even if there are ranges among those behaviors.  Should there be opportunities for cooperation?  Perhaps, but the Venture Scouts already exist for that.  

Beyond this, there are two serious issues:

One, the inclusion of girls allows for tomboys to become centers of attention at the expense of other boys.  If anything, Boy Scouts already suffer from disciplinary problems when going on camping trips where rugged individualism is confused for being an outdoorsman.  Including girls in troops will create situations where girls will be played favorites towards just because they're attractive, and they'll be allowed to act up and get away with reinforcing the bullying that often goes on in troops.  Girl Scout troops have likewise complained about this from girls finding boys attractive, and playing favorites towards those boys while outcasting other girls in order to grab the boy's attention. 

The second is the inverse of this where the girls get picked on just because they can't perform at the same physical level or because they're more sensitive.  It's similar to how women don't excel in the military when applying for physically intense roles.  Are there exceptions to the rule?  Sure, but the scouting organizations aren't defined by a personality attribute.  They're defined by a gender.  They're not looking for those personality attributes some might be the exception to.  They're deliberately organized towards traditional gender role interpretations of behavior.  The Boy Scouts might become watered down to accommodate that sensitivity, but people will just leave once that happens.  

If anything, this is just going to further the reduction of members joining the organization.  People just won't be comfortable doing what's expected, they'll be told that if they don't like it then they can leave, and that's what they'll do.  The organization will be left only with exceptions to the rule, and it will eventually just become unsustainable.

Sounds like someone hates co-ed schools. Is this analysis coming from personal experience?

Also, east Asia is gearing up for war, millions are about to lose healthcare, the president has gone mad to the point where even members of his own party are calling him a !@#$ing moron and are potentially planning for the president's removal, the American economy has lost 75 thousand jobs last month, and the GOP tax plan is about to eliminate the estate tax which is practically the only legal means to level the playing field against the top 0.1% that also conveniently applies to all of Trump's estate, and! AND! Sparta just suicided itself again for the second time in a row. Boy Scouts are very low on most people's priority list. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, both of them should return to shooting guns over .22 and .410. That'll solve the problem. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 9:37 AM, Caecus said:

Sounds like someone hates co-ed schools. Is this analysis coming from personal experience?

Also, east Asia is gearing up for war, millions are about to lose healthcare, the president has gone mad to the point where even members of his own party are calling him a !@#$ing moron and are potentially planning for the president's removal, the American economy has lost 75 thousand jobs last month, and the GOP tax plan is about to eliminate the estate tax which is practically the only legal means to level the playing field against the top 0.1% that also conveniently applies to all of Trump's estate, and! AND! Sparta just suicided itself again for the second time in a row. Boy Scouts are very low on most people's priority list. 

Schools are about academic education, not character building.  It's a totally different situation.  If anything, public schools are problematic since children don't have character built in advance of attending them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2017 at 0:07 AM, Caecus said:

Sounds like someone hates co-ed schools. Is this analysis coming from personal experience?

It's not about what he's saying. If you went on to read the article, you could see that the Girl Scouts' leaders think that this is an issue from a developmental perspective as well. Take it from this quote 

Quote

"Girl Scouts is the best girl leadership organization in the world, created with and for girls," the organization wrote in the post. "We believe strongly in the importance of the all-girl, girl-led, and girl-friendly environment that Girl Scouts provides, which creates a free space for girls to learn and thrive."

It continued, "The benefit of the single-gender environment has been well-documented by educators, scholars, other girl- and youth-serving organizations, and Girl Scouts and their families. Girl Scouts offers a one-of-a-kind experience for girls with a program tailored specifically to their unique developmental needs."

1

You'll notice that the Girl Scouts will continue to exist as an all-girl organisation - where's the equality here? Why can't boys join the Girl Scouts but girls can join the Boy Scouts? What is the purpose behind this change? It is simply to take boys out of a masculine-friendly institution and feminise it by catering to the needs of the few girls that will join the Boys Scouts. Now, if the two organisations merged and simply became the Scouts then this wouldn't be so much of an issue, but that's not the case at all. It's just the Boy Scouts admitting girls into their ranks. 

Even then, there are already co-ed programs for those young scouts that are so inclined as to work and develop alongside members of the opposite gender (don't start on the gender spectrum, please). Is having the option to choose so terrible for these young and impressionable people? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Schools are about academic education, not character building.  It's a totally different situation.  If anything, public schools are problematic since children don't have character built in advance of attending them.

If schools were ONLY about academic education and not building social skills or character, nobody would go to public schools, it would be a waste of taxpayer's money. You make it sound like all post-teen boys want only to !@#$ girls, and if you put in that sweet delicious meat in front of them, they can't focus on their education. But why stop there? Why have co-ed dorm rooms, or work with people of the opposite sex in the workplace, or have laws that let women show off more than those ankles? The logical extreme of "boys can't focus if there are girls around" (or vice versa, assuming that this isn't just a one-way sexist street) is that there should be a complete separation of genders at all levels of society, otherwise productivity would plummet. 

After recently seeing the Wolf on Wall Street, I may be starting to believe the logical extreme myself. Sex and productivity rarely go hand-in-hand. I can't exactly remember the last time anyone has ever told me "After 'studying' with my boyfriend for 4 hours, I totally have a better understanding of the course material!" I seem to recall all of them walking bow-legged for a while. 

4 hours ago, Gabranth said:

It's not about what he's saying. If you went on to read the article, you could see that the Girl Scouts' leaders think that this is an issue from a developmental perspective as well. Take it from this quote 

You'll notice that the Girl Scouts will continue to exist as an all-girl organisation - where's the equality here? Why can't boys join the Girl Scouts but girls can join the Boy Scouts? What is the purpose behind this change? It is simply to take boys out of a masculine-friendly institution and feminise it by catering to the needs of the few girls that will join the Boys Scouts. Now, if the two organisations merged and simply became the Scouts then this wouldn't be so much of an issue, but that's not the case at all. It's just the Boy Scouts admitting girls into their ranks. 

Even then, there are already co-ed programs for those young scouts that are so inclined as to work and develop alongside members of the opposite gender (don't start on the gender spectrum, please). Is having the option to choose so terrible for these young and impressionable people? 

Ah, yes. I'm aware, I just don't understand why people care. I suppose this is where my apathy for social policy is showing through. I mean, perhaps if you had kids in the programs, but even then, it's a free market and free world. I'm pretty sure that the Boy/Girl Scouts aren't the only summer youth program. 

Also, to be fair, that quote is from the Girl Scout's blog where they were trying to self-fellate themselves in order for people to join. I'd take it with a grain of salt when the source that claims they know what's best for your kid and how to develop those much-desired leadership skills is the same organization that wants your kid to join their ranks for that sweet, sweet mulah.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy Scouts are for boys, Girl Scouts are for girls.

There is no point at all for allowing girls into boy scouts. This isn’t “everyone gets a chance scouts”, it’s Boy Scouts. What’s next? allowing girls to go to all boy schools? It’s ridiculous. There is a clear line of what are for boy and what are for girls. I’m all for equality, but this is too far.

The world isn’t gonna be as happy and accepting as what we want children to beleive. So why are softening them? Why not toughen them up and teach them that they aren’t gonna get everything they want and that they aren’t gonna be happy all the time? Because they’re just children? Well they’re gonna be adults one day and you might as well teach them before it’s too late and they all come back cring to their moms asking why isn’t the world the way they thought it was.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Caecus said:

If schools were ONLY about academic education and not building social skills or character, nobody would go to public schools, it would be a waste of taxpayer's money. You make it sound like all post-teen boys want only to !@#$ girls, and if you put in that sweet delicious meat in front of them, they can't focus on their education. But why stop there? Why have co-ed dorm rooms, or work with people of the opposite sex in the workplace, or have laws that let women show off more than those ankles? The logical extreme of "boys can't focus if there are girls around" (or vice versa, assuming that this isn't just a one-way sexist street) is that there should be a complete separation of genders at all levels of society, otherwise productivity would plummet. 

There are no grades that students get for social skills or character because there are no such things as "social skills" due to how they're based on getting the approval of others, and how character is a matter of value instead of fact.  Many students are accused of lacking social skills just because they're unpopular, and other students lack character because society isn't willing to do what it should to punish them when they lack it.

Everything else you said here is very selective listening with a highly specific hypothetical scenario.  It comes off as blatant liberal crackpot trolling, and I've no interest in listening to you anymore.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now