Boy Scouts Announce They Will Accept Girls | Hacker News Reader

Boy Scouts Announce They Will Accept Girls

nytimes.com

41 pointsvotepaunchy44 comments

This is sad. Not that they accept girls, but that the Girl Scouts apparently suck so much at understanding their audience.

Fallout from this would probably result in either 1) the Girl Scouts becoming much better at satisfying their target audience or 2) the Girl Scouts essentially becoming an irrelevant organization.

I hope the first, but the latter looks more likely. They’ve hidden behind cookie sales for years, and outside that, I can’t tell you one thing that they do.

Girl Scouts is actually a terrific organization in a lot of ways, one thing it's not great at is marketing and leadership support. On top of that We are a family of scouts and scout leaders, and my wife and I both did leadership for our daughters Girl Scout troop. I am also a leader in my sons Cub Scout pack.

Girl Scouts has been fundamentally more inclusive and secular than Boy Scouts. A scout is just a scout in Girl Scouts, no matter their gender or religious identity. The program for the girls has adapted well over time and has some great educational components across all types of activities. There is a real focus on getting the girls inspired by STEM. Our local council sponsored and provided materials and funds for First Lego League, and several troops went on to state finals. They hold science fairs, have great camp grounds (and summer camps) and have fantastic outdoor education from both an environmental and sports/leisure aspect.

Unfortunately, they also lack funds, so most of the support goes to the girls. Finding and maintaining good adult leaders and volunteers has become increasingly difficult, and adult leadership is what really makes for a good Girl Scout experience, especially when the girls are younger. And the fewer good leaders, the fewer girls who participate, and as a result fewer funds for the organization so spread around. I was in a "scouting family" when I was a kid, and the level of engagement of the adults back then was much better than today. For whatever reason people are "too busy" these to volunteer for something that benefits their kids, and often seem to want to use scouts as baby sitting :(

Also, I understand your sentiment on the cookies, but a surprising amount of the money goes back to the troop and to the girls in the form of rewards and scholarships. In our troop we had several girls who were super motivated to sell as it was the only way for their families to afford summer camp (you'd get if I remember correctly, 10% of your sales as money towards camp) and most of these girls would hustle enough to make all they needed to fully fund camp, which was $300-400. Yeah there's some profit for the cookie company, but I think it's something like 50% goes back to Girl Scouts (the org, the troop and the individual girls.)

They’ve hidden behind cookie sales for years, and outside that, I can’t tell you one thing that they do.

You think Boy Scouts, you think Eagle scouts, tying knots, and camping. Outdoorsy, can-do, and always prepared. The animal shelter at which I volunteer has benefitted from the multiple Eagle Scout projects that built needed equipment for us. You think Girl Scouts, you think Thin Mints. A Girl Scout could have built the agility equipment for that same animal shelter. Instead, the local GS troop did a water color wall painting. Way to go, you girls stay and decorate while the boys build useful stuff. That's a failure not only of marketing, but also of programming.

"You said you don't know jack about boating, how'd you know how to tie a bowline?"

"I was a Boy Scout."

That's my answer to a lot of "how'd you know...?" questions. And I'll bet not a week goes by that I don't use knowledge gained from Boy Scouts. From sharpening a kitchen knife to tying a timberline hitch for an ad hoc guy line, I wonder if even a day goes by that I don't use knowledge gained from scouts. Not to mention the leadership and mental attitude aspects.

I don't recall a woman ever answering "how'd you...?" with "I was a Girl Scout". Of the women I've questioned who were in Girl Scouts, I don't recall any that found it to be a particularly valuable experience.

Now, that's certainly anecdotal, and most likely very dated given my age. But GSA needs better PR than "we sell cookies", and they need the programs to match. I'm neutral on BSA accepting girls, but I'm disappointed that the GSA has failed girls such that it was needed to begin with.

When I think of Boy Scout leadership, I think of religious loonies who have an irrational fear of gay and transgendered scouts and leaders.

oooooor 3) The Girl Scouts accepting boys in their organization. Am I the only progressive optimist in this crowd? :p

Where did you get the impression that Girl Scouts "suck so much at understanding their audience"?

I'm fairly angry that someone would read that article and assume that if Boy Scouts decided to admit girls to help offset the decreasing memberships in Boy Scouts (noted in the article), that somehow that means Girl Scouts is to blame.

SERIOUSLY? This is exactly the kind of sexism that girls have to deal with day in and day out.

As someone who was a Boy Scout growing up, and now as a Girl Scout leader and Cub Scout leader, I find the Girl Scouts to be a much better run organization that provides a range of helpful, useful skills.

I'm in favor of letting girls and boys participate in these activities and having equal access to whichever experience is best for them. So far, the Girl Scouts have done an amazing job at making me feel welcome as an adult male leader and giving me the tools that I need to support the girls in my troop. They know what they are doing, they know how to create girl-oriented programming, and they are training the next generation of female leaders.

My rage as the apparent sexism aside, I also think that an individual scout's experience (girl or boy) will depend heavily on the adult leadership in their location (both district, troop/pack, and den/group). It's truly a YMMV situation.

I agree that equal opportunity should be available to both, which is why I support Girl Scouts opening up their membership to boys too.

I think that's a pretty good idea. Our daughter joined the Girl Scouts for two years and all she got out of it was to be free child labor for cookie manufacturers. Apparently the troop leader did something fishy with the cookie money and even though they met their goal, they didn't get the reward. We still have boxes of the stuff in our pantry.

I was a Weeblo (Boy Scouts) as a kid and didn't get much out of it other than classroom learning, but it was better than selling cookies. I got bored after a few months and didn't go back. Like any nationwide organization, the quality is determined by the locality support.

I guess they will have to change their name from The Boy Scouts if enough girls show interest.

Putting aside the context of whether this makes sense with the existence of Girl Scouts, as an Eagle Scout I’m pretty happy that the organization has made strides to turn around its image of exclusivity. It’s certainly about 15 years later than it needed to be, but such a huge organization that is dedicated to inspiring ideals in young people should be sending the right message. It’s a far cry from the early 2000’s era Boy Scouts which was projecting a much different message.

I’m quite ambivalent about the organization’s attitude toward religion, in that it is impossible to be an outspoken atheist and reach the rank of Eagle Scout. To reach the highest rank you must undergo an Eagle board of review, which is an interview of sorts with highly ranked regional council members. During mine, I was asked questions that were mostly formalities until the final question: “Do you believe in a higher power?” When given context to the question, it made a bit more sense: I was told the higher power could be anything, like the Mother Nature or karma. It was then that I understood that the question, however poorly worded, isn’t meant to really be around religion, but instead letting go of your ego. There are much better ways to ask that sort of question though, and being atheist and letting go of your ego are not two mutually exclusive properties.

I was agnostic at the time so it was easy for me, but I still question the approach now even though it wasn’t the WASP-like approach I expected.

Make no mistake, they were asking if you believed in "God". The BSA prohibits atheists / agnostics [1]

My troop told me to lie. I chose to not participate.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080509074048/http://www.bsaleg...

Literally any belief system as long as it's not atheist/ agnostic. It just blows my mind that people draw the line there.

Interesting about agnosticism. I didnt specifically process as an agnostic and I was not directly asked the question. The simple question was “Do you believe in a higher power” and no more detail was requested upon my initial answer of “yes”. I imagine if I had elaborated the answe night not have been to the liking of the reviewers.

Many other countries already have gender-integrated scouting, so the BSA is just following in the footsteps of much of the rest of the world. Here in Australia, Scouts have accepted girls for decades, although there is still a separate girls-only Girl Guides organisation (equivalent to Girl Scouts). Anecdotally, many girls prefer Scouts to Guides. I think if you give young people the choice between gender-integrated or gender-segregated activities, most will prefer the former, especially once they reach a certain age. It varies from individual group to individual group, but as a generalisation, Scouts tends to put greater emphasis on outdoor activities than Guides, and some girls find that greater emphasis appealing. From a parent's viewpoint, if you have children of both genders, then being able to put them all in the same program can have its logistical advantages.

What if it turns out that there is a deep-seated psychological need present in many (NOT ALL) humans to participate in peer groups defined along lines of gender - and what if it turns out that if society denies them acceptable outlets for this need, that they fill the need by joining socially unacceptable groups (ie. gangs)? If we suspect that this psychological need is present, do we persist in denying acceptable outlets for it?

So in fewer words you're asking, "what if by allowing girls into scouts, boy scouts will be driven to join gangs?"

Gangs may not be the best example, but your interpretation is a mangled version of what op actually said. Clearly we don't know the long term ramifications of these changes. And we're sprinting towards these changes at high speed and acting like we know everything we need to know about gender. We don't.

We don't know whether it's merely a social construction or something deeper. And if it turns out to be something deeper, then we run the risk of fucking up a generation of kids.

You should be charitable with the way you interpret what people say. That person probably meant "e.g. gangs." I find it frustrating how combative people are when discussing anything on the fringes of what is socially acceptable to say.

That was a poor attempt at argument by ridicule. You didn't actually address anything I said.

Boy scouts in the past was more about camping and activities. It was about self-improvement and learning how to be men. Now that purpose seems to be weakening.

Men and women are different, both physically and psychologically[1]. Acting like those differences don't exist hurts everyone IMO. Sure, we should be accepting of aberrations from the norm, but that doesn't mean we should hurt the majority in the process.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

What is it that Boy Scouts teaches that you don't think girls should be taught?

It's not that I don't think girls shouldn't be taught certain information, but it's rather a mindset that is taught. A group of boys being led by men can learn a mindset better suited for the mind of a man. With their greater testosterone, men have much more aggression an desire for status overall than women, and with guidance by a father figure, can learn to harness and focus that energy in a way a woman wouldn't be able to. I worry that in the pursuit of inclusion, that kind of mindset implanting will be lost.

I agree with you on a scientific level, for example, that men have more testosterone and thus are more likely to be aggressive in their pursuits, which is often critical to success. At the same time, however, there are many men who are less aggressive and women who are more aggressive; broad averages aren't the perfect solution.

Couldn't we promote this 'aggressive' ideology as genderless? As long as we're clear about the Boy Scouts' ideal member (aggressive), nothing will be disrupted, as only boys and girls who fit and enjoy that environment will choose to join.

> Couldn't we promote this 'aggressive' ideology as genderless?

In an ideal world that might work, but it seems like everywhere that makes gender inclusivity a priority always ends up losing its masculine traits. I just don't see why there can't be some boys-only organizations and girls-only organizations anymore.

I understand the plight and I think that has certainly occurred in some instances, however, in reaching the ideal, the importance seems to be inclusiveness yet straightforwardness in purpose.

We should aim to promote gender inclusivity, but not stigmatize traditional gender mindsets, i.e. 'aggressiveness', as negative in the process. If an institution starts accepting females and then (oftentimes purposely) loses that common mindset, it simply reinforces gender stereotypes.

> it simply reinforces gender stereotypes

I have a serious question, and this arises from my mentality that we should be accepting of aberrations from the norm, but that doesn't mean we should hurt the majority in the process.

Why are gender stereotypes bad? If we understand that men and women are different overall, and that those differences lead to a bimodal distribution with gender traits something like this[1], then wouldn't stereotypes naturally emerge? Should we be punishing behavior that large chunks of people align to?

[1] https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YMOXSZ4aTmg/Vwf79cRcjOI/AAAAAAAAO...

Gender stereotypes, when applied to individuals instead of large populations, severely punish anyone that falls on the "wrong" side of the median.

Yup I agree with this. People who are not in the norm will struggle moving forward because they'll always be judged by the cover.

There's also the non-scientific stereotypes. "Girls are worse at math" for example.

I agree with that mentality!

In regards to gender stereotypes: children are very impressionable, and we should encourage the ideology that people of either gender can have any combination of personality traits, interests, and so on. If gender stereotypes are naturally disassembled to an extent, I think the world would be a somewhat better place.

The only point of contention I have is when people begin to associate the personalities involved in gender stereotypes with the negative connotation of gender stereotypes, and thus discourage those personalities. We shouldn't try to remove all gender stereotypes with punishment, as you said; some are natural. We should just aim to remove restrictions on personalities as much as possible, and see what the effects are.

This is the right answer. The GP comment made me angry with its absolute generalisation about "the mind of a man." Being a non-aggresive guy sucked growing up when you get bullied for not meeting this gender stereotype for males.

I also really enjoy outdoor adventuring, like many of the activities provided by Scouts. Is it because I'm aggressive? No, it's because I enjoy the calm and serenity that the outdoors provides.

Testosterone is not that simplistic that you can infer aggressiveness based on it. Take a group of men (or boys) and sort them based on aggressive behavior, and then measure testosterone, and the later will be very a poor predictor for the first.

For example people have tried to "treat" crime by chemically castrate violent criminal, but it did not work. Researchers expected an increase in testosterone levels to inevitably lead to more aggression, and this didn't reliably occur. Only at levels far above normal variance (roid rage) can such effect be measure, and you need either a medical condition or injections to have that occur. Research about testosterone and aggression indicates that there's only a weak connection between the two, and when aggression is more narrowly defined as simple physical violence the connection all but disappears. In fact, in a study of men castrated to calm them down, nine out of sixteen died as a result of aggressive encounters.

Testosterone does have an effect on inter-sex competition, such as tendency to seek social rank and dominance. If one consider a function of testosterone is reproduction, this make sense. A high social ranked male in say a baboon group will have better reproductive success than other males, but a indiscriminate violent male won't. Interestingly, testosterone also increase after gaining ranks (such as winning contest), implying that the body is "telling" itself that it should focus more on reproduction because of the new increased chance.

A group of boys will compete for social ranking, but so will girls. If school yards has anything to show it is that kids of both gender need to learn to harness and focus that energy into cooperation and self-improvement.

Maybe it isn't about what's being taught, but acknowledging that boys will behave differently when girls are present. So then an environment where no girls are present can be an opportunity to engage with teenage boys in a different context, which I do think is important to provide some kind of mentorship or guidance that isn't possible in a mixed environment. There aren't many situations where this is still the case, and getting rid of all such opportunities for the sake of inclusivity might be missing the point, and do more damage than good.

Yes, thank you.

Boys behave differently around girls and will form weaker bonds with each other.

Boys grow up to be providers and need to be pushed hard because life is hard on them.

Men's income forms the largest tax base. The average man provides a net positive return on tax base whereas women a net negative in North America.

Men are disproportionately representing in:

- Wars, army (98%)

- Suicides

- Occupational death and injury

- On average tend to work longer hours

- Die many years younger lofe expectancy

- Hard, but important jobs like coal mining, drilling, construction, etc)

There are almost as many rapes of boys and men as there are girls and women each year.

I dare you to dig through and find the stata yourself and when you understand why these stats are buried, you will start to see what we have been tricked into.

Finally catching up with the rest of the world. As a child in Canada, I was a member of the local Scout troupe which had quite a few girls in it. Definitely made for a better, more balanced experience.

We would make fun of the American troupes who weren't allowed to have any girls in them. Made no sense why not.

> As a child in Canada...Made no sense why not.

That's pretty much the answer right there.

Something you have to understand about the BSA is just how deeply enmeshed religion - specifically Christianity (with a heavy leaning toward Protestantism) - is within the organization.

One of the largest (if not the largest) chapters (?) of the BSA is run by the Mormon church (LDS), for instance.

This is a nice step forward, and certainly unexpected, but they have more yet to go. For instance, the Girl Scouts allow transgendered individuals to join; I guess we'll see if the BSA ever allows that.

Also - despite what another poster said earlier - the BSA is not friendly to atheists, whether they are children, parents of children, or as leaders. There are plenty of fairly recent incidents and announcements about that, just within the past couple of years, to attest to that stance.

Having a 10 year old boy and 7 year old girl. This is great; my daughter always lamented about how her brother was able to more as a cub scout.

She tried girls scouts for a year, then her troop leader left which caused her troop to fold. We could have moved her to another troop, but she didn't want to, she liked the way things were. I would intermittently bring to her different Cub Scout functions. Every time I would she would be included in the activities and encouraged to participate by everyone from leaders to parents.

I wasn't keen on the idea of my son joining a god loving, gay hating, etc. organization. It was his choice, his friends were doing it and I went along to make sure nothing happened. After three years of cub scouting I can say that each troop operates on it's own and does what it's leaders feel is best for the kids. If you don't like how your local troop is run try another one, or just take your kids camping, do weekly exercises on rope tying, building bird houses etc.

In Canada they just have Scouts of Canada the genders are treated equally. My daughter is excited, I'm only saddened she missed out a few years of fun.

The Boy Scouts sell popcorn -- it's just less visible/successful. Prices start at $20. I remember feeling bad for the kid salesmen, as adults balked at the high prices, asking "do you have anything cheaper?" Products: https://www.trails-end.com/store/products

When I was young here in Sweden, we had "Scouterna" (loosely translated as the scouts) which included both boys and girls. With little to no single-sex education it is very naturally that educational organizations also do not segregate on gender.

When the boy scouts started in 1908 I would guess that single-sex education was the norm in the US?

I knew the BSA was on a mission to become more inclusive due to declining membership but I didn't see this one coming! I doubt it's a mortal blow for the GSUSA but it's probably going to hurt memberships, especially in the older age groups. Nothing compares to the danger & adventure offered at your typical BSA summer camp.

Just merge the two organizations and call it "scouting" - solved

Rather than merge the organizations, have the Girl Scouts start accepting Boys.

This.

Make no mistake here. This has nothing to do with giving "equal opportunity" of activities to all.

But a way of suppressing healthy masculine development.

The girl scouts will never accept boys and probably cite some bogus reason due to "safety from icky boys" as the reason.

There is nothing wrong with having groups for people based on ethnic background (Black Lives Matter, etc), gender or religiosity.

Having girls join the Boy Scouts was a massive shit test, and they failed it.

Weird, because my Scout leader led adventure scouts; http://adventurescoutsusa.org/

Girls have been a part of the Venture Scout program (usually 16-17).

This change adds girls to Cub Scouts (8-10), Boy Scouts (usually 11-13), and Varsity Scouts (usually 14-15).

I think Baden Powell would be proud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com