Jump to content

Boy Scouts Allow Girls to Join, Girl Scouts Backlash


Dubayoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://abcnews.go.com/US/girl-scouts-slam-boy-scouts-decision-accept-girls/story?id=50433448

That's right.

Apparently, the Boy Scouts are so desperate for members that they'll let girls join.  The Girl Scouts said they're seriously messed up.

Link to comment
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.

 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
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)

IYT09l4.png

Ex-Archduke of Defence for BK

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

@Lelouch Vi Britannia - BK needs you, but they really don't deserve you.  Thanks for the dankness.

 

 

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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. 

  • Upvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.  

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
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.

"There's nothing you can know that isn't known,
Nothing you can see that isn't shown,
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be,
All you need is love,
Love is all you need."
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2017 at 6:46 AM, Gabranth said:

 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.

My guess is that this will happen eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really care about the egalitarian aspects of this, but I suspect a large piece of why there's a market for girls to join the boy scouts is because the girl scouts as an organization just isn't that compelling and hasn't done that well at marketing itself. I doubt very few people even know what the girl scout equivalent of an eagle scout would be without googling it and I suspect that it doesn't look as impressive on a college app or a resume for that reason. I agree it's at least a little silly on the face of it for the boy scouts to be open to girls but honestly, what's the point of a girl joining the girl scouts if she's scouting inclined to begin with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2017 at 11:35 PM, Dubayoo said:

The whole point about having Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts is to ensure equality.  Separate, but equal, you mean? 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.  Do Boy Scouts spend a lot of time on sex education?

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. So, you write fiction. It's not very well done and this hasn't been done before so it's probably a bit early to say it doesn't work.

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.  As well they should. Female soldiers fight very well. If the Boy Scouts need to shut down their weird cult/molestation bank of boys for their sex offender population's comfort that's probably overdue

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 good. Win-win.

 

 

 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 13/10/2017 at 5:35 AM, 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. 

blah blah blah

Honestly I used to go to scouts here and it was Unisex. We didn't have too many problems at all. I don't know why your American culture is so shit. Everyone's getting picked on and teased. Anyways I believe simple rules will avoid all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2017 at 3:37 PM, Caecus said:

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

I've seen a few of your posts now and it seems all you can do you rage about Trump and the end of the world. Your more delusion then those Redneck, hillbilly, gun-tooting, Trump support's.

DDYivxLUQAAIp3x.jpg

so you can better find yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pylon69 said:

I've seen a few of your posts now and it seems all you can do you rage about Trump and the end of the world. Your more delusion then those Redneck, hillbilly, gun-tooting, Trump support's.

DDYivxLUQAAIp3x.jpg

so you can better find yourself

I've read one of your posts now, and it seems like you would be the type of person who has his head so far up his ass that you !@#$ up basic English grammar through constantly sucking the anal secretions through your ears and shamelessly regurgitating your bullshit out one of your filthy orifices for the public to see. I'm not surprised that you think I'm the one who is delusional: after all, if I spent my entire life believing the walls of my anal cavity were reality, I would be just as ignorant and !@#$ed up as you. 

  • Downvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pylon69 said:

I've seen a few of your posts now and it seems all you can do you rage about Trump and the end of the world. Your more delusion then those Redneck, hillbilly, gun-tooting, Trump support's.

DDYivxLUQAAIp3x.jpg

so you can better find yourself

xaXy88P.jpg

I hate to break it to you but any idiot with a basic understanding of politics is capable of creating a political spectrum that fits their own political convictions and confirms their own biases. It doesn't mean there's any truth to what they're presenting whatsoever.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/11/2017 at 5:56 PM, Caecus said:

I've read one of your posts now, and it seems like you would be the type of person who has his head so far up his ass that you !@#$ up basic English grammar through constantly sucking the anal secretions through your ears and shamelessly regurgitating your bullshit out one of your filthy orifices for the public to see. I'm not surprised that you think I'm the one who is delusional: after all, if I spent my entire life believing the walls of my anal cavity were reality, I would be just as ignorant and !@#$ed up as you. 

Fight me. Punk. Go ahead. Click on my nation link ;^)

On 29/11/2017 at 5:56 PM, Caecus said:

If I spent my entire life believing the walls of my anal cavity were reality, I would be just as ignorant and !@#$ed up as you. 

So anal cavities aren't real now? You know what, It would be rude of me to challenge the mentally handicapped.

On 29/11/2017 at 6:29 PM, Big Brother said:

It doesn't mean there's any truth to what they're presenting whatsoever.

Shhhh... don't let anyone know that. You'll ruin the fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pylon69 said:

Fight me. Punk. Go ahead. Click on my nation link ;^)

So anal cavities aren't real now? You know what, It would be rude of me to challenge the mentally handicapped.

Shhhh... don't let anyone know that. You'll ruin the fun

Ur literally too small for me to give a shit. 

That's a surprise, I never thought the day would come where I would have to tell a Trump supporter that the word "reality" is not "real." You dirty Mexican rapist, you can't fool me with your second-rate English. Trump's going to send you to a "holding facility" for an indefinite period of time slaving away at some menial labor task while you wait for deportation, and then presumably after the Senate building catches fire and martial law is declared, he'll start literally adding you to the American melting pot. 

  • Downvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Caecus said:

Ur literally too small for me to give a shit. 

That's a surprise, I never thought the day would come where I would have to tell a Trump supporter that the word "reality" is not "real." You dirty Mexican rapist, you can't fool me with your second-rate English. Trump's going to send you to a "holding facility" for an indefinite period of time slaving away at some menial labor task while you wait for deportation, and then presumably after the Senate building catches fire and martial law is declared, he'll start literally adding you to the American melting pot. 

There you go again. With your delusional fantasies. You literally sound like one of those batshit insane Trump supporters. Every little thing that came out your post is exactly word for word what I'd expect one of those "Alt-right" Supporters to spout out. It's like your some kinda troll.

WHITE POWER!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody got my Hitler joke there? Damn, people either need to get a better sense of humor or crack a book on the rise of Nazis in Germany. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.