What it Means When There are No Boy Scouts

Senan wrote: It is less about being a "boy" and more about being interested in topics and activities that are traditionally "boy" oriented. That doesn't mean a girl couldn't or wouldn't share those interests and benefit from it. It is just that girls have traditionally been less likely to share these interests.

Which brings up the question:
Are girls traditionally less likely to share those interests, or traditionally told that they shouldn't share those interests?
When I was young(er), I got chastised a lot and frankly made fun of by one of my parents who had very narrow views, just for sharing those interests and wanting to learn about those things. I really believe that future generations will benefit from the current generation tossing those antiquated ideas out in favor of more tolerant views.

Kehta Nier wrote:

Senan wrote: It is less about being a "boy" and more about being interested in topics and activities that are traditionally "boy" oriented. That doesn't mean a girl couldn't or wouldn't share those interests and benefit from it. It is just that girls have traditionally been less likely to share these interests.

Which brings up the question:
Are girls traditionally less likely to share those interests, or traditionally told that they shouldn't share those interests?
When I was young(er), I got chastised a lot and frankly made fun of by one of my parents who had very narrow views, just for sharing those interests and wanting to learn about those things. I really believe that future generations will benefit from the current generation tossing those antiquated ideas out in favor of more tolerant views.

I believe that girls have been traditionally discouraged from sharing a lot of interests with boys by a male dominated society. There is definitely a case for women being discouraged from participating in certain activities even if they are interested and have a talent for them. The Boy Scouts have perpetuated a lot of this behavior by excluding girls and also not supporting the efforts of the Girl Scouts to make the programs more equivalent. There is no reason the Boy Scouts shouldn't have been sharing their facilities and resources with the Girl Scouts this whole time, even though they are separate. I really do hope the next generation of Scouts does toss out the antiquated stereotypes that still pop up.

That said, I will hedge a bit and say that there still are certain biological aspects of being a boy that support these stereotypes. Testosterone can make us gravitate toward certain caveman behavior that girls would never find acceptable

And a quick clarification... while the Boy Scouts are renaming their core training program "Scouts BSA" and allowing girls to join and participate in this program, troops will still be separated by sex. Girls will not be joining troops of boys to go on camping trips. The troops will remain separate in all aspects except that they will both teach the same lessons and share the same rank structure. Girls will be allowed a path to Eagle Scout, but won't have to be in a group with boys to do it.

Eventually they will break down even those antiquated beliefs and allow mixed sex packs and troops.

That is a hope I have as well. Jessi Poundstone was a friend of mine who went to Ranger School with me and since she spells her name differently she was accepted - letter- orders- everything .... till her boots hit the dirt . She was quickly escorted and sent home. Then... came Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye . Times Change - some times not to our liking or even when we like it .

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. As a girl scout who left after "cadet" I seem to remember something similar to the Eagle scout in our organization. What I do think the Eagle Scout name has is prestige, as exemplified by the fact that I can't remember ours. I looked. Its called the "Gold" award and has an analogous project called "Take Action".
I'm of mixed feelings here as there are many co-ed scout opportunties already in existence, but GSA and BSA are by far the most recognized. In any case, this seems to be where we are going. I'll simply be glad if the mission of both organizations is maintained.
The issue brought forward in the OP is the shrinking of masculine space and mentoring opportunities. Have we thought about how the Jedi can feature in this place of need? Not only in male-male mentorship, but just in mentorship period. After all, one of our statement of belief says:

Jedi Believe

In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.
In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.
In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.
In the positive influence of spiritual growth and awareness on society.
In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination within religious, political and other structures.
In the separation of religion and government and the freedoms of speech, association and expression

There might be so much more we could do in getting the ideals of Jediism "out there" if we took a more active role collectively in the outside world.

Apologies if another has already chimed in, but I haven't read every post.

I guess I've never really thought about it. I do see a trend against masculinity as I've mentioned in the Toxic Masculinity thread. But I don't think this is an example of that.

In Britain, girls aged between 15 and 20 have been able to join The Scouts since as early as 1976. And since 1990, girls aged from six upwards have been allowed into the fold.

I was in both The Cubs and The Scouts and had girls in those groups with me. I don't feel like that was a bad thing at all.

Brick wrote: Apologies if another has already chimed in, but I haven't read every post.

I guess I've never really thought about it. I do see a trend against masculinity as I've mentioned in the Toxic Masculinity thread. But I don't think this is an example of that.

In Britain, girls aged between 15 and 20 have been able to join The Scouts since as early as 1976. And since 1990, girls aged from six upwards have been allowed into the fold.

I was in both The Cubs and The Scouts and had girls in those groups with me. I don't feel like that was a bad thing at all.

As per usual, Europe is ahead of the U.S. in this respect. Being the religious tightwads that we can be sometimes, it tends to be difficult for certain organizations in the U.S. to get past the moral and ethical implications of allowing religion to influence policy. The Boy Scouts of America are heavily influenced by churches, mostly Christian and specifically Mormon, so they lean very conservative accordingly. It's going to take time for this to change, but at least it seems we're headed in the right direction.

Rosalyn J wrote: The issue brought forward in the OP is the shrinking of masculine space and mentoring opportunities. Have we thought about how the Jedi can feature in this place of need? Not only in male-male mentorship, but just in mentorship period.
There might be so much more we could do in getting the ideals of Jediism "out there" if we took a more active role collectively in the outside world.

About this. I know the doctrine also discourages evangelizing. Where do we draw the line between setting out to make a positive difference and being suggestive and biased toward our own views?

Kehta Nier wrote: [Which brings up the question:
Are girls traditionally less likely to share those interests, or traditionally told that they shouldn't share those interests?
When I was young(er), I got chastised a lot and frankly made fun of by one of my parents who had very narrow views, just for sharing those interests and wanting to learn about those things. I really believe that future generations will benefit from the current generation tossing those antiquated ideas out in favor of more tolerant views.

"Masculinity" and "Femininity" are both social constructs, so culture, religion, social class, etc. are significant factors in what is considered "traditional" behavior or interests. Even when there are biological differences, the construct defines how they are interpreted (for instance, smaller body size may be viewed as feminine and larger masculine and affect how males and females are viewed when their bodies don't fit the norm.) In my culture, boys are conditioned into gender roles much earlier than females - boys would know what behaviors would get them punished for "acting like sissies" by kindergarten, while "tomboy" behavior was considered adorable in girls and would be allowed indefinitely as long as the major gender rules weren't broken. "The Rules" for girls get outlined and enforced at puberty, and primarily focus on sexual norms and religious attitudes. This is a rural culture where outdoor activity, hunting, farming sports and things involving wheels are very popular overall, and unless the family has specific religious codes forbidding it (which are found in less common denominations), girls can enjoy all those activities and even be considered more desirable than girls who fit the "delicate" model of femininity. Boys, on the other hand, better not show the slightest interest in anything associated with the indoors or domestic sphere. While shaming and teasing were the primary forms of conditioning gender in my families, I grew up with a lot of boys who had the masculine code literally beaten into them, and many of them have serious problems as adults from it.

So it's hard to know what would be "traditional" if people were allowed to be interested in anything that pleased them without gender being a part of it. Around here, you can't separate anything out from the defining cultural ideology, though it is starting to change in some areas (though not without some occasional flares of violence). What I'm seeing is that younger generations don't like to be told what they can and cannot find appealing, and that is a major source of change. Even among my own Gen X'ers here, it's becoming a lot more common for there to be a class and religious line that determines whether or not a guy can cook or sew if he wants to - the more education and affluence involved, the more likely both genders are to pursue whatever inspires their curiosity . Whether that is someone being "against" traditional codes or simply expanding them depends a great deal on one's own cultural/ideological beliefs and what you hold as the "norm".

Groups like the BSA and GSA are also losing their social prominence as new activities keep kids' schedules loaded, and around here, church youth groups do their best to cover all social needs (leaving less opportunity for kids to be exposed to unapproved messages). They have a lot of competition. It's been a long time since I was a GSA camp counselor, but I've been hearing about the membership decline for both orgs for a long time, and there are a lot of reasons for it, as Senan's comments have touched upon (and this is going on across the board for most all historic organizations in general, regardless of gender policies). There are generational trends suggesting that new styles of family interactions are also going to change how much room there is for this kind of traditional participation - Gen Z tends to have closer relationships with parents than previous ones, and there's more emphasis on family outings to learn the kind of "scouting" skills the BSA/GSA. In short, people these days like to have fun, and don't really want a lot of historical baggage telling them what they should or should not be doing in their free time. So, I think that without change, these groups face a very limited chance for long-term viability.

I think it's good idea to include girls/young women into the Boy Scouts. There are lots of adult women volunteers in Scouts and many of them would love to have their girls in Scouts. I would have enrolled my daughter to Boy Scouts activities, if allowed, as Girl Scouts didn't connect with her. Is some of this PC? For some it will be viewed that way. I believe if it helps young women be self-reliant and better leaders then it will only help prepare them for life just as it does for young men.

I don't think there's a decline in masculinity, just that there is a decline in masculinity as we know it in the West. And, even the one we think is traditional is more recently traditional, since, as we have covered in other posts, the definition of masculinity has changed over the centuries. That one feels their masculinity is threatened by the presence of a different gender tells me way more than has been written. I would say that there has been an actual decline in the preservation of male connection, as has been covered so far in this thread. I agree that there does need to be more spaces for male-only interaction, just as there are those for female-only interaction. There's more below the surface of the issue, but it isn't as alarming as it's being made to be.

I think the specific details of the BSA case have been fairly well explained and for the most part, folk have been mollified,

so to incite general rage - I have no interest in specifically excluding any particular individual from any particular rule (other than a lack of merit, which is what I am getting at) - and it all sounds fantastic in a define-yourself sort of inspiration speech, or even in a research paper (or anecdotal evidence) that mixed groups (cultures, genders, heights, what have you) perform better over a given range of activities or challenges.


The problem (as I experience it, and I infer from that that it is not isolated) is that at an Organisational level, they seem to misapply "don't exclude based on X" as "Must include based on X"

the short of it is - I work with a number of people who are underqualified, inexperiened, and frankly rubbish at their jobs, with little to no interest in improving because they presume they are safe due to the particulars of affirmative action type hiring practices - and any "evidence gathering" against their suitability for a given role is seen as discrimination.



The healthy-relationship building aspect of clubs, sports, and schools is more or less foreign to me, as I never managed to build any healthy relationships, but I can certainly understand that people fear any dilution or alteration of a given "standard" as the start of a slippery slope (I'll use the scouts for an example, though I know close to nothing about them) - if we're opening the doors to all and sundry (whatever the qualifier should or shouldn't be, don't care for the sake of the example) how long until they make it an overnight process to be an Eagle Scout and everyone gets an award for turning up?

MAGNUS wrote: Our inequalities go back hundreds of thousands of years. I have grown to think that as long as humans have the same sexual dimorphism of primates in general we will never be 100% equal, no matter what social constructs we put in place.

Humans are not "Sexually Dimorphic"; most species aren't. Driver ants are dimorphic, pheasants and red-wing black birds are dimorphic, as well as peacocks, as just a few examples, but primates most certainly aren't. If you can't tell the difference from a distance, they aren't.

When observing "dimorphic" species, the difference between the 2 sexes is RADICAL.

If you're going to try and cite science in any discussions, especially one like this, please at least do so accurately and honestly.

That irk aside, I don't see a problem with redefining the scouts.

My masculinity is not so fragile as to be threatened by ceasing to "other" people. "No girls allowed" is a mark of immaturity, in my opinion, and you don't teach boys and young men to be better by reinforcing negative behaviors, nevermind build a better society.

There's always going to be differences between people, but that shouldn't bar them from interacting with each other or enjoying similar or indeed the same activities.

The world is changing, as is the nature of socializing in it's various forms. We can either learn, adapt, and move on with the world, or stand our ground, rail against it as though it were some genuine oppression/injustice, and be left behind by history. Just do so knowing that you look like a child having a tantrum.

And for the comparisons being made to affirmative action? incompetent employees not being terminated is a result of incompetent and cowardly managers; their fear will disappear as soon as those individuals do anything close to warranting termination. not giving a shit about your job is not among them, nor is being sloppy. You are projecting your own insecurities, and in very telling ways, but know this: You are not oppressed simply by others having the same privileges and opportunities you/we've always had. Reverse racism isn't real.

And finally, oh, the "participation trophy" argument.. Can you feel my eye's roll? Am I doing it hard enough to disturb the Force? Our generation (I say this as a "Millennial", I'm at the oldest end of the spectrum) didn't make the decision about handing those things out, our parent generation is the one that insisted on it, and the fact that it's now used against us is just as insulting as it is absurd. Not only did we not decide we had to have them, but we noticed and most certainly didn't care when it stopped being a thing as we grew older, because we understood why.

I... Simply fail to see how this is an actual problem, overall, and am far more bothered by the same old (wrong) arguments I see over every little thing like this.

My masculinity is not so fragile as to be threatened by ceasing to "other" people. "No girls allowed" is a mark of immaturity, in my opinion, and you don't teach boys and young men to be better by reinforcing negative behaviors, nevermind build a better society.

There's always going to be differences between people, but that shouldn't bar them from interacting with each other or enjoying similar or indeed the same activities.

The world is changing, as is the nature of socializing in it's various forms. We can either learn, adapt, and move on with the world, or stand our ground, rail against it as though it were some genuine oppression/injustice, and be left behind by history. Just do so knowing that you look like a child having a tantrum.

And for the comparisons being made to affirmative action? incompetent employees not being terminated is a result of incompetent and cowardly managers; their fear will disappear as soon as those individuals do anything close to warranting termination. not giving a shit about your job is not among them, nor is being sloppy. You are projecting your own insecurities, and in very telling ways, but know this: You are not oppressed simply by others having the same privileges and opportunities you/we've always had. Reverse racism isn't real.


And finally, oh, the "participation trophy" argument.. Can you feel my eye's roll? Am I doing it hard enough to disturb the Force? Our generation (I say this as a "Millennial", I'm at the oldest end of the spectrum) didn't make the decision about handing those things out, our parent generation is the one that insisted on it, and the fact that it's now used against us is just as insulting as it is absurd. Not only did we not decide we had to have them, but we noticed and most certainly didn't care when it stopped being a thing as we grew older, because we understood why.

I'm not sure if you have thought about this deeply, or if grabbing the moral high ground and looking down your nose at people for discussing possible issues and calling them immature and insecure is just a go to debate technique.

I don't necessarily think a lot of decisions are simply a matter of "protecting masculinity", but (like it or not) some people will feel more comfortable and potentially perform better in specific, controlled environments - Scouts (as good as an example as any) is aimed at young men developing their individual, group, and community skills and confidence - it may be that it has been tried and tested that this works well in an environment where the young men can relax and communicate with other young men dealing with similar challenges.

Which is completely different from saying "girls can't play with our toys".

As for the "world changing" - how does it do that exactly? change (some people sell it as progress) isn't something inevitable, it is something that we do - therefore it is something we can slow down or speed up, there's not really a final perfect form for the world, and hastening change because at a quick glance it sounds like a fantastic idea....often isn't.

And for the comparisons being made to affirmative action? incompetent employees not being terminated is a result of incompetent and cowardly managers; their fear will disappear as soon as those individuals do anything close to warranting termination. not giving a shit about your job is not among them, nor is being sloppy. You are projecting your own insecurities, and in very telling ways, but know this: You are not oppressed simply by others having the same privileges and opportunities you/we've always had. Reverse racism isn't real.

I didn't say I was being oppressed, or that I was missing out on opportunities, I said I work with useless people that should never have been hired, and are hard to fire - so settle down chief.
Maybe my example is alien to you, and I envy you your experience. I was just giving it as an anecdotal aside, and you can infer whatever you like, the data as I gave it is as I gave it, and unlikely the window to a deeper psychoanalysis as you seem to hope. (I also envy your employment where being sloppy and careless is not grounds for being sacked)

The only part where you were almost right was that yes, managers are afraid to take executive action for fear of the backlash from social justice warriors who care far less about workplace outcomes and business success than about any given "victim" a world of support.

And finally, oh, the "participation trophy" argument.. Can you feel my eye's roll? Am I doing it hard enough to disturb the Force? Our generation (I say this as a "Millennial", I'm at the oldest end of the spectrum) didn't make the decision about handing those things out, our parent generation is the one that insisted on it, and the fact that it's now used against us is just as insulting as it is absurd. Not only did we not decide we had to have them, but we noticed and most certainly didn't care when it stopped being a thing as we grew older, because we understood why.

I don't recall accusing a particular generation or cohort of anything, I was remarking on people's tendency to believe that one change will beget another, and another, and that often changes (or "compromises") cost more than they gain once all is tallied up.

I'm not really interested in arguing the pedantic nonsense with you, I just wanted to clarify my position so that it might still be apparent, even if people with signs on sticks are in front of me yelling things.

Stormcaller wrote: Humans are not "Sexually Dimorphic"; most species aren't. Driver ants are dimorphic, pheasants and red-wing black birds are dimorphic, as well as peacocks, as just a few examples, but primates most certainly aren't. If you can't tell the difference from a distance, they aren't.

So I'm no zoologist...
But...
Consider Canis familiaris, the domestic dog. If of the same breed, there are a few differences between male and female specimen: The male ones tend to pee standing more than the females, and barring a freak mutation, the female skeletons never have a penile bone. In every other respect, there is almost no telling them apart whatsoever. They look the same, they sound the same, and outside of breeding season they behave the same also.
Humans are not like dogs. The proportions in the skeletons and musculature correlate with the specimen's sex to the point where even many lay people can see a difference. As a result, our postures can be different between males and females. Our voices have demonstrably different spectra, even after matching mean frequency. Males tend to develop a generally stronger body smell, all else being equal, which attracts more insect parasites, but also grow more body hair, which protects them better against said insects. Speaking of the smell, aforementioned dogs, who I hope we don't need to debate whether they have a sense for human fashion, can tell us apart and behave differently towards us, correlating in part to their own sex. The differences in upper body strength of human females and males, and the effort it takes to build any are immense. Uniquely in the current animal kingdom, human females grow permanent breasts, and males do not. Some would insist that the general and culture-independent differences in non-sexual behaviour of humans is due to societal conditioning, so I won't bring it up. Surely I have said enough to build a case even without it.
To say that dimorphism is something so superficial that if you can't tell the difference by the colours of our tails, then there isn't one is frankly asinine. All sexually reproducing species have noticeable differences between their respective males and females. Whether we deem a species as dimorphic is a matter of scale and relation. Compared to the peacock humans are barely dimorphic at all. Compared to the domestic dog, we are rather quite dimorphic indeed.

I hope it will suffice to say, well thought out as your ideas are, Gisteron, science still doesn't recognize humans as sexually dimorphic. Google is free. Wikipedia, too.

But, I've subjected you all to my "soap boxing" far more than is necessary or appropriate, for which I'd like to apologize, and bow out before I derail the discussion (not debate, again, my bad) any further.

Stormcaller wrote: I hope it will suffice to say, well thought out as your ideas are, Gisteron, science still doesn't recognize humans as sexually dimorphic.

So I just searched for scientific publications by the key phrase "sexual dimorphism in humans" in google. It returned 118000 articles throughout all time. Now, to make sure that we are talking about active research, I narrowed it down to only articles published in 2018. That cut the number to a mere 7530. If we assume that only half of them will be in disciplines we can both agree are science, like medicine or biology more broadly, and yet a half of that will have any relevance, and only a tenth of that will show conclusive findings of dimorphism in various physiological and psychological structures in humans, that'll still leave us with some 188 articles this year alone. Still too many to list them all here, I reckon, but if you have suggestions how to narrow it down even more to ensure it's proper science only, we can try that.

Depends how you want to skin the cat I suppose. A bit of a yuck proverb there LOL
I don''t think its actually dimorphic, because if you look at the things which are different you will find they exist in both forms but are expressed to different extents. No sex has something the other does not, rather the same things are expressed at different extents and ways.... even to the degree that the their function and morphology changes. Which sort of means you could perhaps call it dimorphic - since the morphology has changed
But the salient point being, that its not one or the other - it's a range of expression; and as such expression various and there its not di. So not dimorphic IMO. So while it might vary in morphology its not one or the other, albeit referencing those poles in degrees... and if that is enough to classify something as dimorphic then so be it, but there is lots of variation in sex expression among individuals so, which is sort of goes back to the point I think - people.

Well yea, and I wouldn't say that the line is necessarily a perfectly sharp one (not sure if it is with any other species for that matter). But surely, things like the shape and relative size of the rib cage and especially pelvis, or the growth rate and structure of facial hair or breast tissues are genetic expressions the individual person had in their lifetime very little say on. Sure, people can dress up as they like, they can even - hopefully with the approval of their physician - take hormones to influence their body's development, but let's at least agree that there are, all else being equal, natural tendencies for the vast, vast majority of males and females of our species to grow very clearly distinguishable bodies beyond just the different sex organs. You can tell by my probably gross misuse of language that human anatomy is not my field of expertise by any means, so I do have yet to learn of where in the biological or medical literature this controversy is even so prevalent as to have spilled over into the public discussion. Something tells me that's not whence it came at all, though...

It's good for young males to establish positive relationships with other males. Creates a sort of brotherhood that will be important later in life. Having institutions like the Boy Scouts is suppose to be a place to somewhat guarantee a positive direction for that aspect of male development.. it's going to happen regardless and this is where we get street gangs.

I do feel there's a sort of dilution of masculinity as a whole. Kind of like the gun argument. Instead of treating the negatives like rarities. They're treated as a general rule. Hence "rape culture" which i don't ever remember being taught or implied..

Though, in light of historical habits, I'm not surprised at this and other ways the power structure keeps the male aspect in check. You cant just go around killing your political opponents. Not in the West anyway. It's generally looked down upon internationally as well..