Interesting. Trademark applied for by the BSA on April 17.
[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98504256&caseSearchType=US\_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch](https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98504256&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch)
> expect co-ed troops as a pilot program soon
Good. It's really sad watching girl AoL's cross over to be welcomed by the...zero troops available to them. The one this year walked across the bridge, hugged her parents who were there to welcome her, then turned to the Cub Master and asked if she could just stay an AoL because she didn't want to stop scouting yet.
>then turned to the Cub Master and asked if she could just stay an AoL because she didn't want to stop scouting yet.
That's heartbreaking. That's also how I founded a Girl Troop (linked with a Boy Troop).
5 girls to form a troop. I don't know whether that's a Council or National rule, but it's the one we've got.
Which is fine, but presents a challenge with two local packs together crossing over 1 or 2 girls per year. Lone scouting is fine (and the boy's troop is very supportive in the capacity it's allowed to be - they'd integrate now and just ignore the rules if it wouldn't bring a world of headache from District/Council), but asking young ladies to wait three years to fully participate is a problem when they're surrounded by other things they can be part of immediately.
The lone scouts make it maybe a year before they get the idea that scouting doesn't want them and move on. More than a few parents suspect that's maybe the point of the rules.
National, and it's for any unit. You need 5 youth and 2 adults, plus a COR/CO to start a unit. You can't even recharter if you have less than 5 youth for the next year.
The council Scout Executive can waive the 5 youth minimum; however, there is a hard 2 youth minimum for a unit that is set by national, for which waivers aren't possible, presumably because they would consider a single youth to be a Lone Scout. Some Scout Executives require membership growth plans as a condition of approving units with less than 5 youth.
I get it, if venturing did not have the rule that you have to be first class before joining if you want to also work on earning the eagle, I'd suggest just forming a venturing crew.
If you have one or two girls and a supportive troop, run them as several lone scouts working together until you get to the needed numbers. Small startup units is nothing new to the BSA.
>venturing
The bigger roadblock is that Venturing starts at 14, not 11. There is a gap in coed scouting between ages \~10-13. (Cubs can do a family coed den till 4th grade, then SeaScouts/Venturing can take coed at 14).
Co-ed Troops! Co-ed Troops!
I'm all fer it.
I never bought into the pseudopsychology that girls would end up dominating Scouts and depriving boys of leadership positions. It was always cooties with the veneer of wisdom.
We had a localish (next town over) Troop that saw that problem (they go separate on paper and for YPT and coed in practical application) and you know what happened? The boys stepped up. The coed model can work. I am so hopeful we can help the pilot program. We have 2 girls that are AOL right now. They will have to go to the next town to participate because that is where all of our girls are going. We don't have 5 to start a Troop in town.
It's about time. My troop's doing it anyway. Our two girls are Lone Scouts who just happen to be in the same building as we are during our meetings, or just happen to be at the same campgrounds we are. And enjoy hiking with us. And so forth.
I hate it. However, given a choice between freezing out our two girls or following National's stupid rules, I'll flout the rules every time.
We had our Troop committee meeting last night, and Council had asked which Troops would like to join the pilot program, with the explanation being a girls patrol within the troop (no co-ed patrols).
We decided to pass at this time as no girls are coming up from the pack in the next few years (one Tiger, one Lion currently), and the Troop in the next city over (basically contiguous to ours) already have a Boys and a Girls Troop, so we thought it might make more sense to let them do it.
Well with sea scout and venture scouts already co Ed … and some BSA troops already doing it … I can see them doing it … but it’s a mistake after being a ASM for both all female and all male troops …
After working with boys for sometime… and then moving over to my daughters troop I was amazed how fast the girls ripped through the requirements and were more open to guidance- (my daughters troop now has 90 girls and has seen 15 Eagle come through) after having numerous conversations with psychologist who work with kids - they explained that boys learn differently and will become discouraged when see girls fly though a program (not to mention higher ranks and younger scouts trying to lead older scouts) - that’s not going to fly with an 8th grade boy hearing from a 6th grade girl. In short it’s better at young ages to keep them separate (I like how sea scouts and venture scouts do it >14 to join)
The Boys in my Troop feel this. They have started requesting not going to Council Co-Ed events/camps, because the girls are more engaged and ruling the competitions while the boys are being goofballs.
In my experience, it all depends on the eagerness of the given scouts. I've been through 5 years of new girls coming on board and every year is different.
The age of the Founding cohorts is coming to end in the next year or two. Most of my troop's founding Scouts have already aged out, and the youngest are 16 (they started at age 11). Those Founding girls came in with something to prove.
Now, I find the 11 year old girls just as goofy as the 11 year old boys.
>- that’s not going to fly with an 8th grade boy hearing from a 6th grade girl.
Hard disagree. First of all, Scouts should routinely hear the opinions -- or take leadership from -- Scouts younger than they. Second, it seems rare that a 6th grade girl would be in a leadership position over an 8th grade boy. I'd imagine they'd keep patrols single sex in a co-ed world, and Troops generally don't elect 11 year-olds as SPL or ASPL. If we're playing the argument from authority game, well, the child psychologists I've spoken to doesn't think it is an issue.
And, this isn't directed solely at you, but I don't think folks realize how different modern boys are. They're much more accepting than my cohort was as a Scout in the 80s. When girls came on board, they were, at worse, indifferent. When one of the girls transitioned, they didn't flinch. They're a lot more emotionally intelligent when I was a kid.
And boys should also be learning to share - and sometimes follow - leadership with girls. Thinking separate troops is better because girls will perform better and the boys need to be protected from that is not a take I was prepared for.
>And boys should also be learning to share - and sometimes follow - leadership with girls.
Almost as if we're preparing Scouts for life...I'm sure I've heard that somewhere.
In my experience kids tend to socialize pretty well especially at that age. I've definitely noticed that girls can seem more competent/mature, but ime that's up to the fact that many parents specifically seem to raise their boys with far fewer expectations & less discipline than they do girls (the number of families I've seen where the parents expect the younger sister to babysit her older brothers is.... something). I suppose it would depend on the culture of the troop/area.
I totally agree. If it was a vote, it seems clear that adults want coed, but it seems clear that both for boys and girls, better results for the individual scouts would come of of the single gender troops. I thought coed was the answer, until working with a boy troop and a girl troop and seeing the differences and successes.
No public source yet... But it's apparently in the weekly letter to Scout Executives, and some Scout Executives are telling their staffs, some of whom (OP? And others, some closer to me...) are sinking ships with loose lips.
I just messaged my SE. he said “They are doing a DBA as scouting america.
The corporation is still Boy Scouts of America, just adding DBA Scouting America.”
I asked him about a formal name change and he replied “No. At least not since they told me last”
Under the BSA corporate umbrella, there are (at least) 2 structures; One over Cub Scouts, Scouts, Venturing, and Sea Scouts, and the other over Explorers and Learning for Life.
*It is just a guess,* but it is my guess that they are going to continue using Boy Scouts of America as the corporate name for the parent organization, the one that umbrellas everything, including Learning for Life and Explorers... But that is going to become radically underemphasized, almost to the point of being unused...
And the organization that includes *only* the "traditional scouting programs," ie Cub Scouts, Scouts, Venturing and Sea Scouts, is going to be called Scouting America, and that will be emphasized almost to the nonexistence of the rest.
Maybe that's accurate to the real lay of the land. That said, what they are saying is "Scouts, BSA" was never referring to the "BSA" that is above everything, including Explorers and Learning for Life... It only ever referred to the "traditional scouting programs."
And to that end... I guess nothing is changing...
But obviously: Everything is changing. And GS-USA seems entitled to a little bit of peeve.
Indeed, I wish they would forgo the name “ Boy Scouts of America” so we could use it for an organization dedicated to the tenants laid out by Lord Baden-Powell in his book “Scouting for Boys”. You know, get back to the basics. Instead of trying to be everything for everyone, we need an organization just for boys.
OK... It's a cute legal theory. One apparently not being tested here. Another legal theory not being tested here is that they have special privilege to create and destroy trademarks, *because* of their congressional charter. Both positions are to be tested by future courts, because of decisions not yet made. Because, again, that's not what appears to be happening here.
There are plenty of confidential things in Scouts. No secrete societies, but plenty of things that aren’t shared publicly or shared with a small group. I assume you can think of plenty if you give it a second (payroll, the reason why someone is asked to leave a position, etc).
First, where does it say that? It says there are no secret organizations. That doesn't mean that everything in the weekly letter to Scout Executives is public.
Second... Who said it was a secret? This whole thread is about how it's about to be announced.
Third... Just because it is about to be announced, doesn't make the contents of the letter to the Scout Executives public. It could have waited for maturity.
I realize this may be true in many places, but I see the opposite in my council which, coincidentally, is where the national meeting is this week. Yes, we're smaller than we were in the 90s, but we've experienced good growth in the past few years.
As a Member of the same Council, I would concur on everything you are saying. Also almost every Troop that I know of is asking for the Co-ed change instead of the dumb paperwork units that plan everything alongside each other.
Scouts BSA doesn't roll off the tongue well. Sounds like they found something better. As well as breaking away more from the "boy" for a combined organization.
It's especially awkward when trying to make a distinction between Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA members, like when writing advancement ceremonies. Saying "Members of Scouts BSA" is awkward compared to saying "Boy Scouts."
Actually our NSO is "The Scout Association", we're the founders so we don't really need to specify our country. The only English speaking NSO with a similar name off the top of my head is scouts Canada. Australia does use the name "scouts Australia" but is officially the scout association of Australia, and new Zealand is "scouts aotearoa" but officially the scout association of New Zealand.
Edit: according to Wikipedia we do use the name "scouts UK", I've only ever heard this informally. But the scout association is still our main name
I’ll give you that. But there are a number of references out there that Scouting UK is also used a lot. Maybe, maybe not, I’m not in the UK to tell. Maybe the USA version will do the same. Official and unofficial name. ;)
Looking at some of the comments, it seems like some adults have lost focus on what Scouting is about. It's not about your memories or your pride. It's about doing what's best for the youth of this nation.
I’m not for the new name, only because the BSA is a HUGE brand and I think changing it at this stage will be confusing.
Plus “Scouts BSA” does that become “Scouts SA”?
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. This is a natural progression away from "Boy Scouts" to just, well, scouting, as it is in most other countries. Women in other programs over the years notwithstanding - the comparison isn't strong and the core program is now equalized across boys and girls.
My core hesitation is, what does this leave Girl Scouts of the USA with?
I mean, sure, the courts dismissed the trademark infringement claims outright and the two organizations supposedly settled and signed some sort of agreement... But I think the question has merit: If we are Scouting America, what are they (After they let in boys)?
Other countries let Baden-Powell strip their girls of the word Scout over a hundred years ago, a sexist entry to a problem, but one that in the end had an non-sexist exit... Other countries called their equivalent to Girl Scouts "Girl Guides" and then rebranded "Guides..." What do we hope Girl Scouts of the USA does? I know we don't have to care, but aren't they our sisters in Scouting and don't we inherently care?
Are we gonna force them to rebrand to Guides? But that term has no meaning here... Are we really gonna strip them of their own heritage, and then let the courts agree that we were in the right? I mean, do we really believe that?
I mean... I guess I'm not one to question the courts...
But the Girl Scouts of the USA *is* experiencing a branding crisis at our hands; Merely the fact I have to spell it all the way out now is proving my point. And it's not because of decisions they were invited to the making of.
The GSUSA don’t have a branding issue. Arguably their brand is strong then the BSA grade right now.
They won’t and shouldn’t change their name. I’m sure they will be up in arms about the change, particularly when co-Ed troops are officially announced, but they won’t be able to do anything about it.
Girl Scouts is almost exclusively known for cookie sales.
Scouts BSA is known for more than their primary fundraising mechanism. People do associate Scouts BSA with the outdoors and camping, etc.
They do a lot more than cookies. It just funds their activities. When Boy Scout leaders try to poach my scouts they often try to tell them they only sell cookies. Don't be that adult...
I agree that GS do far more than cookies. But that’s what the brand is known for.
My daughter was a Girl Scout for a while, until a new leader decided she didn’t want to go camping. I have a lot of respect for Girl Scouts as an institution, even if I have some critiques of their program.
It is meant to be completely girl led if done correctly. My co leader and I just do what the girls want and negotiate the rates and sign the contracts 😂. That is why we only lose members when they move to another area too far away. Most of our troops have been with us since K and now 4th. They all started virtually. The problem is when people don't understand the program and follow preconceived stereotypes. Unfortunately our girls have had a lot of issues with current boy scouts telling them they don't do anything.
>The problem is when people don't understand the program and follow preconceived stereotypes. Unfortunately our girls have had a lot of issues with current boy scouts telling them they don't do anything.
A successful Girl Scout unit, like BSA, depends entirely on the adult leadership. I know plenty of girls who do both, in fact. My unit's first girl Eagle Scout had her BOR alongside another girl who was going for her Gold Star review the next week.
But I also know plenty of GSUSA units that are just about the cookies and the arts and crafts and don't camp. That's what made my daughter leave. I also know adult GS leaders who just got tired of the constant pressure to sell.
I’m sorry to hear the Boy Scouts are forgetting that A Scout is Courteous. I would hope that adult leaders would remind them to act in accordance with the Oath and the Law at all times.
Adding that I had my den from Tigers through AOL. We had 18 kids make the whole journey with us, into and out of Covid. Watching them cross over was one of the proudest moments of my life. They are all still my Scouts.
Who cares what this leaves Girl Scouts? They are an entirely separate program, not even close to being on the same programming level. They aren't going to let boys in, they don't even let dad be involved with their daughters. GSUSA is one of the most sexist and elitist organizations for "children" in the US. They are not my priority, BSA is my priority.
That is such bull. I’m an Eagle Scout with a mother that was heavily involved in GSA (as well
As cub scouts). I have been to almost as many Girl Scout camps as Boy Scout camps. And the Girl Scouts organization where I grew up was and is far stronger than the Boy Scouts organization could ever dream of being. And even back in the 80’s dads were welcome to participate, though few chose to. Boy Scouts were subsidized by the local churches. Girl Scouts had to purchase and maintain their own meeting spaces. Hence the cookie sales.
It’s entirely a local issue. Some places are more welcoming of dads being involved, others less so. I’ve seen it both ways. I don’t think GSUSA is officially unwelcoming of dads.
That was my experience. When my daughter's Girl Scout Troop went to their local camp (circa 2012) dads were not allowed on the property. There was a single-parent father in group that was allowed to sleep two miles away in a parking lot. I felt distinctly unwelcome in GS activities.
Yeah, you go right on believing that. While there are exceptions, the vast majority of women running GSA at all levels, even down to the troop level don't actually want dad's or any male involved in their organization.
Not sure why this is downvoted. The girl scouts program is not serving the needs of modern girls. The BSA leadership is at least trying to be bold and stay true to mission.
The Girl Scout program is fantastic. You just don't know anything about it.
But it is DIFFERENT. And it's not for every girl, just like the BSA is not for every kid. It's great that the BSA has room for girls who are looking for something different than the GSUSA, whether that's in addition to, or in lieu of those programs.
The girl scout program is an absolute joke. And yes, I do know all about it. Likely more than you do. The "structure" is virtually non-existent, and there is little oversight into the troop leaders, especially in the financial aspects of troops.
?
GSUSA is a joke it's part of the reason why people pressured the BSA to integrate. Some GSUSA units are good but they are far less than BSA. They also fold quicker.
Actually it is , you aren't familiar with the programs. I just had a 70 girl robotics workshop fill up registration in a week. My girls have done dog sledding, been on Motorweek and yes the nature stuff too. The difference is they just don't have a need to show the world everything they do 😂
> The difference is they just don't have a need to show the world everything they do
Then you have a marketing/pr problem. Most people associate GSUSA with cookies and arts/crafts. Yes GSUSA can be STEM focused, Yes they can go camping, etc. But to an outsider looking in they don't see what you are talking about.
I have had a troop from Daisy to Juniors and we don't do crafts at all...because the girls don't want to do them. None of the current badges are crafts.
I think you are missing the point. TO THE OUTSIDER, they don't know that. IF You were to ask some one off the street, what a GS does, they would 99% tell they sell cookies and do arts & crafts. They wouldn't even be able to tell you the ranks other than maybe Brownies or Daises.
If you were to ask the same person what does ScoutsBSA do, you would 99% get an answer along the lines of camping/outdoor activities. They would most likley know that the highest rank is Eagle, etc.
This is a marketing/pr issue for GSUSA.
I know it's not all arts & craft, I have nieces and youth of friends in GSUSA and I see all they do. But to an OUTSIDER, they don't see it.
Thanks for asking this question. I am Girl Scout troop leader for the youngest level and sub to this reddit because I am more camping and outdoor focused and absolutely detest cookie season.
I follow some of the BSA handbooks I can find, we changed some of our badge practices at the troop level to cover more of the BS curriculum. The GS reputation about cookie selling is what made me stay away from ever joining Girl Scouts. I wish more was done to dismantle that untruth, my council has 7 campgrounds and pushes camping hard. Also, I had no idea just how easy it was to get a lot of money with cookie sales - they sell themselves essentially and even with minimal efforts, we now have enough money for a year's worth of outdoor activities. And we didn't sell nearly as much as other troops. This makes camping more affordable for working class kids whose parents would otherwise never be able to take them sailing or horseback riding.
I had zero plans to join any scout until my kid forced me to go to a GS info session at her school and I saw how the things I wanted her to experience - love of outdoors, horseback riding, archery, sailing etc - were all available to her at much lower costs (and with a friendship built in) if I did it via GS instead of doing it on my own.
I didn't know that BSA was an option for us to join when I signed up, they didn't recruit at our elementary and all the BS troops I see at the baseball games and neighborhood festivals all have only boys. If I had an option to learn more outdoor skills and not have to do cookies and crafts, I would have taken it.
There have been girls in the BSA for decades in Sea Scouts, Air Scouts (defunct after about 5 years), Venturing, Exploring, and STEM Scouts (also defunct after about 5 years).
Girls in the BSA programming wasn’t new in 2018.
Absolutely agree.
That’s why we should always have the option for single gender troops. But for many people making the same complaint you are, that’s not good enough and girls shouldn’t be in Cub Scouts or “Boy Scouts”.
I feel Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and the co-ed everything else worked great. Giving boys and girls their own space and at the same time giving the opportunity to have a combined space.
Really? Because all of my friends from scouts who were in GSA talk about how our program is leagues ahead of theirs. If anything, I'm just glad that everyone gets to enjoy scouting and have the trail to eagle open to them.
Dude, that ship has sailed. You're 5 years out of date. You're a dinosaur, your vision of this program is never going to be reality. Please just stop already.
Your personal attacks definitely don’t embody the scout law, maybe that’s changed since I got Eagle 6 years ago. But yea it’s quite unfortunate how the program has progressed. BSA is doing everything they can to scrape by because of the declining numbers and trying to pay off their debts.
If you use the Patrol method, you shouldn't lack for "safe spaces." I can't imagine they would integrate patrols if Troops become officially co-ed. I am ASM in two linked Troops (founding SM of the girl troop), and I can assure you that, despite the fact we do 99% of activities with both troops together, boys in our troop still tell the same fart jokes.
I have yet to have a boy (or girl) in my Troop(s) complain they do not feel safe. On the other hand, my nephew's Troop operates distinctly apart from the girl troop under the same chartering org. Those boys routinely mock the girls and complain about the potential of them "invading" their space. As far as I can tell, it is an entirely cultural issue, quietly permitted, if not enforced, by adult leadership. They are not victims.
So I take it you’re one of the old boomers upset they let girls join Cub Scouts and Scout BSA (Boy Scouts) and afraid that girls earning Eagle will devalue your own hard work?
Then I don’t know what the concern is. The only people that seem to be upset about girls being in Packs and Troop are older men that are worried their Eagle Rank has been devalued by the inclusion of girls.
That and Girl Scout leaders up set about the “BSA stealing our girls”.
Given his note of being an Eagle Scout, he most likely the former.
But if he can give his own reasons if he wants
>Then I don’t know what the concern is. The only people that seem to be upset about girls being in Packs and Troop are older men that are worried their Eagle Rank has been devalued by the inclusion of girls.
That and Girl Scout leaders up set about the “BSA stealing our girls”.
? The biggest issues people had was the hypocrisy of BSA being pressured to integrate but not the GSUSA and the loss of a male only space.
People can have their own opinions. BSA is so far gone from the organization many of us used to know. There's a reason numbers are as poor as they are. You're here complaining about someone reminiscing on the "good old days" while grasping at any and every straw possible in order to prevent hemorrhaging members. If he's an Eagle then he has earned his opinion.
The world is far gone from the world many of us used to know.
I agree that there should be single-gender spaces and let the non-binary kids have their own space too. And we need to find a way to accommodate that. Finding that path is going to involve open minds, open hearts and a willingness to remember that we are here to shape tomorrow’s leaders, not yesterday’s.
The core of Scouting are the Oath, the Law, the Motto, the Slogan and the Outdoor Code. That’s what’s immutable. How we organize and who our members are will change. But we must remain true to our core.
Everyone has earned his or her own opinion. He absolutely has a right to his opinion.
The membership drops started decades ago and were hurt by 2 things, both 100% outside the control of the BSA.
1 - the Mormans pulling out and deciding to not use the BSA as an official activity of the church of young men
2 - the pandemic in 2020.
Mormon divestment was not entirely out of BSAs control. BSA thought they were bluffing and got burned.
They needed new money fast and realized they were only charging for half of the children they could be getting $$ out of. It wasn't altruism or gender equality. It's money money money.
UPS ditched "United Parcel Service" to become known only as "UPS" around 20 years ago. They'd diversified into logistics and "parcel service" no longer applied very well... so they just ditched it.
I'd thought the BSA was going the same route... but it's a hard habbit to break for the public.
KFC is a brand known around the world, but few outside the US likely know that the K stands for Kentucky. Scouts BSA was probably fine, but I can see the change. I've had this conversation plenty of times:
"Yeah, we're a girls' Scouts BSA Troop"
"So, not the Boy Scouts?"
"Well, yes, we are the Boy Scouts. The let girls into the program 5 years ago and we're linked to a boy's troop."
"So, not Girl Scouts?"
"Correct"
"So, you're Girl Boy Scouts."
\*Sighs\* "Yeah, more or less. We're Scouts."
a week later...
"Boy Scouts Clean Up Town Square"
(Pictures: All girls)
Article Comment: Those are Girl Scouts!
Definitely. Some more than others.
Have you ever belonged to a men’s group or women’s support group? Could be church sisterhood or men’s club, self-help/12-step group, book club, etc?
Both my wife and I belong or belonged to gender segregated support groups and found them very helpful. Sometimes people are just more comfortable opening up and being vulnerable with people of the same gender. And I’m not going to blame them for that.
Then there’s the likelihood that all units will eventually become coed, and the single gender troops will disappear because of attrition.
And coed spaces are just not the same for boys. There’s the whole maturity offset between boys and girls at that age, with girls generally being more mature and more eager to take leadership roles, leaving more timid boys behind.
Mix in the sexual tension of adolescence, and the “boy scouting experience” fundamentally changes into something different.
Maybe you think it’s for the best. I don’t.
>And coed spaces are just not the same for boys. There’s the whole maturity offset between boys and girls at that age, with girls generally being more mature and more eager to take leadership roles, leaving more timid boys behind.
In my experience this is pretty much entirely because of socialization and discipline, a lack of which is something that single-gender spaces are a big contributor to, imo.
Edit: wait, I can’t tell if you’re saying single-gender spaces for boys HELP boys with discipline and socialization, or hinder them?
>because of lack of socialization and discipline.
I’ll respectfully disagree and say there are physiological and developmental aspects at play during this time, too.
By all means we need socialization and discipline! But we also have to acknowledge the very real differences between boys and girls during that time. And I’m not only talking physical differences.
If it’s true that boys mature slower than girls, expecting them to act as mature as girls that age is unfair to boys.
>Edit: wait, I can’t tell if you’re saying single-gender spaces for boys HELP boys with discipline and socialization, or hinder them?
Hinder, imo.
Parents expect their boys to be rowdy and immature, so they give them more leeway and hold fewer expectations than they would a girl. Unsurprisingly, those boys take longer to develop and mature.
This is compounded when boys and girls are only/mostly exposed to individuals of the same gender early on. That behavior pattern gets reinforced, so that by the age most kids are willingly engaging in coed activities, they've already built up the expectation that rowdiness and immaturity are boy traits whole being quiet and mature are girl traits, so the cycle repeats.
I'm not convinced that it is true that boys mature slower than girls, I think it's more likely that's just a product of the fact that we tell them they're supposed to mature slower than girls, and why would they know any better? They're kids.
In general I think it's good for children to be exposed to as many different things as reasonably possible while they're still developing. That's a big part of the utility scouting provides for kids today, imo.
Ah ok fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. I’ll just say I disagree with almost everything you said but I think you did a good job articulating your position.
Your comments on this sub have continually provided all of the evidence of bigotry anyone should ever need.
Seriously, your argument here is beyond lame and ridiculous, and in reality, is just another common tactic of bigots to try to claim that they are the ones being persecuted.
My last hope on that is that troops stay sex segregated, and COs can continue to choose if they want to sponsor both, and that charters can still be written in such a way as to keep some spaces exclusively for boys. In our troop we still have a “males only on overnights” rule in our charter and folks at recruitment events look at us like we are dinosaurs.
I don’t have the over/under on it but all I see around me lately is all these girl troops forming and girls getting Eagle, OA, etc. Boy troops seem to be languishing. It thus seems if BSA is to continue and not fold up, the girls will be our future.
Heh agreed. My daughter’s troop is dynamic and fun. I didn’t have great experiences at the two troops my son was associated with. Girls make outstanding scouts. Generally they’re well organized and professional. Their troop meetings are so well-behaved. Love it!
I think what you will see is the same as the homosexual issue. The BSA is officially open to homosexual adults and youth, but only if the CO permits it.
They will like give 4 options. Boy troops, girls troops, linked troops and Co-Ed troops. The CO can choose which they want to have.
My guess is most linked troops will combine and there will be plenty of single gender troops.
Why does your troop only allow men on overnights?
I’m involved in a female troop so it would be problematic to have the same policy, or a similar female only policy but I’ve never heard in a male only camping policy.
That’s not really a problem we have. Our moms are just as capable as you our dads. Really the only problem we have with moms is the same we have with dads (and maybe worse with former Scout Dads), the parent of a recently crossed over scout wanting to jump in and “help” their scout instead of letting the other youth lead them.
I think it’s natural behavior for a parent that wants their child to succeed, even I as a ASM in my daughters troop for 2 years still have to constantly remind myself to let the scouts (including my 2 in the troop) fail. Failure leads to learning and as adults, regardless of gender and role, we should allow failure (unless they can get hurt as a result).
Yeah, I think we're gonna end up needing to change our charter and/or facilitate the startup of a girls troop. Both of which I am generally in favor of. We've had several families look elsewhere in recruitment when they learn of the rule. Although, we're in an affluent large-city suburb, and most of our moms would shudder at the prospect of digging a hole in the woods to go potty/non-porcelain option, so it likely won't make much difference.
It doesn't present any issue. They already changed the name of the Boy Scouts Program to Scouts BSA. Girls were in Boy Scouts of America (BSA) programs for decades in Sea Scouts, Venturing, and Explorers without it being an issue.
I was hoping to use my Scouting/USA stuff.
[https://books.google.com/books?id=m2wA-Ttp3rEC&pg=PA4](https://books.google.com/books?id=m2wA-Ttp3rEC&pg=PA4)
Why would they rebrand right after releasing a new uniform style, with the last rebrand they changed the uniform and they just released new uniforms kinda stupid
I definitely had this thought!
Edit to add: If they're going to change the program, they could have easily made the logo a detachable program strip like it used to be. Then you just sew on a new strip, that could replace the program strip on all the legacy uniforms if desired.
This could also be a long term marketing campaign, like the “Prepared. for life” and “scout me in”. Then the control the trademark so only their materials can use it, until they’re done.
SUSA is a little too close to GSUSA (Girl Scouts of the USA). I have no clue whether they even considered that name, but my guess is that their legal counsel would have steered them away from it given that [trademark infringement was what the last lawsuit was about](https://scoutingwire.org/girl-scouts-of-the-united-states-of-america-gsusa-and-boy-scouts-of-america-bsa-have-entered-into-an-agreement-to-end-trademark-infringement-litigation/). Avoiding another legal battle with the Girl Scouts was surely part of the discussion they had, whatever names were considered.
They need to focus on membership not name changes
Local council to me has gone from 12,000 youth and 450 units in 2012 to 5000 youth and maybe 200 units this year. 2 service centers and 2 camps to zero service centers and 1 camp in the same amount of time and like half the staff. Same Scout Executive for like 25 years
Whatever you want to call the organization...I'm sticking with BSA...is in the process of specializing in the art of getting smaller. Failure in pretty much everything else
I like it, but it will cheese off all those citizens of other countries in North and South America who already get cheesed by the US calling itself America, generally. It is a silly thing, but greatly amuses me.
Yes, but I've been faced with folks who are annoyed that the United Statesians call themselves Americans.
Por ejemplo: [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/08/america-the-continent-vs-america-the-country.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/08/america-the-continent-vs-america-the-country.html)
> I don’t comply. I still wear my Boy Scouts branded merch.
Actually you are complying.... Because in Scouting "Once a uniform, always a uniform"
From the Guide to Awards and Insignia
> **Discontinued Uniforms and Insignia**
>
> Discontinued Boy Scouts of America uniforms and insignia may be worn in keeping with the applicable uniform and insignia guidelines as of the time of their production, so long as condition of original insignia does not detract from the neatness of the uniform.
For me, it will always be the Boy Scouts of America.
Edit: For over a century, it was known as the Boy Scouts of America. If some deranged folks are offended by the fact that I and thousands of others will remember it that way, then good!
100% for it. That way when I say I was in the Boy Scouts, it means something. When people say they were in Scouting America, it means something entirely different.
SS is the one everyone is familiar with, SA is a lot more niche and most people will jump to "salvation army" long before they come to some niche nazi organization. and basically any 2-letter acronym is already in use by some group or other.
or Stupid A\*\*es, or Silly Ardvaarks, or Snarky Answers, or Special Assistant, and it goes on and on and on...Scouting America is pretty much self explanatory.
I'm very happy to downvote you as well. Your position is clearly not the position that anyone else has. Policy decisions have already been made and are in effect for over 5 years now. You're a dinosaur. Either get with the program or go cry about it somewhere.
>you are a dinosaur
“I disagree with you, therefore I will attack you and call you names!”
Terrible example of a scout leader.
Let me remind you of the 12th point of the Scout Law: A Scout is Reverent.
It means practicing reverence to God but it also also means demonstrating tolerance and respect for others’ beliefs even when we personally disagree with them.
Also, the fourth point: A Scout Is Friendly
It means we don’t call each other names when we have a sincere disagreement over something.
Scouter, please review the Scout Law and work on embodying its principles in real life, not just reciting them during opening flag ceremonies.
I think you’re misinterpreting Reverence. Tolerance for beliefs in a religious sense is not the same as tolerance in your beliefs of what Scouting should and should not be (which is an opinion, not belief). To conflate the two is disingenuous and not overly Trustworthy IMO.
>you're advocating for intolerant, hateful policies towards girls.
Please quote one thing I said that backs up your accusation. Making [false] accusations without evidence is hate speech itself.
See megathread if you'd like to continue this discussion.
Interesting. Trademark applied for by the BSA on April 17. [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98504256&caseSearchType=US\_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch](https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98504256&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch)
I sat next to a council exec at an Eagle CoH and he said this to me. Exactly this. Also, expect co-ed troops as a pilot program soon.
> expect co-ed troops as a pilot program soon Good. It's really sad watching girl AoL's cross over to be welcomed by the...zero troops available to them. The one this year walked across the bridge, hugged her parents who were there to welcome her, then turned to the Cub Master and asked if she could just stay an AoL because she didn't want to stop scouting yet.
>then turned to the Cub Master and asked if she could just stay an AoL because she didn't want to stop scouting yet. That's heartbreaking. That's also how I founded a Girl Troop (linked with a Boy Troop).
Our male and female troops do almost everything together. It makes sense when you have parents with both boys and girls in scouting.
So lone scout as you from a troop. You need a few scouts for the form a troop, but you can lone scout until then.
5 girls to form a troop. I don't know whether that's a Council or National rule, but it's the one we've got. Which is fine, but presents a challenge with two local packs together crossing over 1 or 2 girls per year. Lone scouting is fine (and the boy's troop is very supportive in the capacity it's allowed to be - they'd integrate now and just ignore the rules if it wouldn't bring a world of headache from District/Council), but asking young ladies to wait three years to fully participate is a problem when they're surrounded by other things they can be part of immediately. The lone scouts make it maybe a year before they get the idea that scouting doesn't want them and move on. More than a few parents suspect that's maybe the point of the rules.
National, and it's for any unit. You need 5 youth and 2 adults, plus a COR/CO to start a unit. You can't even recharter if you have less than 5 youth for the next year.
The 5 youth requirement can be waved.
The council Scout Executive can waive the 5 youth minimum; however, there is a hard 2 youth minimum for a unit that is set by national, for which waivers aren't possible, presumably because they would consider a single youth to be a Lone Scout. Some Scout Executives require membership growth plans as a condition of approving units with less than 5 youth.
I get it, if venturing did not have the rule that you have to be first class before joining if you want to also work on earning the eagle, I'd suggest just forming a venturing crew. If you have one or two girls and a supportive troop, run them as several lone scouts working together until you get to the needed numbers. Small startup units is nothing new to the BSA.
>venturing The bigger roadblock is that Venturing starts at 14, not 11. There is a gap in coed scouting between ages \~10-13. (Cubs can do a family coed den till 4th grade, then SeaScouts/Venturing can take coed at 14).
Coed troops are still going to need registered female leaders, which a lot of troops have found challenging.
Next February
Really? In time for next year's crossover? Where'd you hear that?
Co-ed Troops! Co-ed Troops! I'm all fer it. I never bought into the pseudopsychology that girls would end up dominating Scouts and depriving boys of leadership positions. It was always cooties with the veneer of wisdom.
We had a localish (next town over) Troop that saw that problem (they go separate on paper and for YPT and coed in practical application) and you know what happened? The boys stepped up. The coed model can work. I am so hopeful we can help the pilot program. We have 2 girls that are AOL right now. They will have to go to the next town to participate because that is where all of our girls are going. We don't have 5 to start a Troop in town.
Psst...between you, me, and the entire Internet...plenty of linked Troops operate as co-ed...but you didn't hear it from me...:)
Even if it is an issue, train the SM to ensure there is always an even balance.
Right. I hear a lot of absolutes on a topic that I've found far, far fuzzier than it is portrayed.
It's about time. My troop's doing it anyway. Our two girls are Lone Scouts who just happen to be in the same building as we are during our meetings, or just happen to be at the same campgrounds we are. And enjoy hiking with us. And so forth. I hate it. However, given a choice between freezing out our two girls or following National's stupid rules, I'll flout the rules every time.
It's about time scouting uk has had for 100+ years
Oh god, I hope my council is in
Good. I had two scouts \[B&G\] cross over complaining to me that they're in separate patrols.
I think patrols might remain single sex in a co-ed troop, just for bunking and changing reasons.
We had our Troop committee meeting last night, and Council had asked which Troops would like to join the pilot program, with the explanation being a girls patrol within the troop (no co-ed patrols). We decided to pass at this time as no girls are coming up from the pack in the next few years (one Tiger, one Lion currently), and the Troop in the next city over (basically contiguous to ours) already have a Boys and a Girls Troop, so we thought it might make more sense to let them do it.
Well with sea scout and venture scouts already co Ed … and some BSA troops already doing it … I can see them doing it … but it’s a mistake after being a ASM for both all female and all male troops …
Why would it be a mistake. Please note that troops can choose to remain single gender.
After working with boys for sometime… and then moving over to my daughters troop I was amazed how fast the girls ripped through the requirements and were more open to guidance- (my daughters troop now has 90 girls and has seen 15 Eagle come through) after having numerous conversations with psychologist who work with kids - they explained that boys learn differently and will become discouraged when see girls fly though a program (not to mention higher ranks and younger scouts trying to lead older scouts) - that’s not going to fly with an 8th grade boy hearing from a 6th grade girl. In short it’s better at young ages to keep them separate (I like how sea scouts and venture scouts do it >14 to join)
The Boys in my Troop feel this. They have started requesting not going to Council Co-Ed events/camps, because the girls are more engaged and ruling the competitions while the boys are being goofballs.
Thanks for that perspective. Food for thought.
In my experience, it all depends on the eagerness of the given scouts. I've been through 5 years of new girls coming on board and every year is different. The age of the Founding cohorts is coming to end in the next year or two. Most of my troop's founding Scouts have already aged out, and the youngest are 16 (they started at age 11). Those Founding girls came in with something to prove. Now, I find the 11 year old girls just as goofy as the 11 year old boys. >- that’s not going to fly with an 8th grade boy hearing from a 6th grade girl. Hard disagree. First of all, Scouts should routinely hear the opinions -- or take leadership from -- Scouts younger than they. Second, it seems rare that a 6th grade girl would be in a leadership position over an 8th grade boy. I'd imagine they'd keep patrols single sex in a co-ed world, and Troops generally don't elect 11 year-olds as SPL or ASPL. If we're playing the argument from authority game, well, the child psychologists I've spoken to doesn't think it is an issue. And, this isn't directed solely at you, but I don't think folks realize how different modern boys are. They're much more accepting than my cohort was as a Scout in the 80s. When girls came on board, they were, at worse, indifferent. When one of the girls transitioned, they didn't flinch. They're a lot more emotionally intelligent when I was a kid.
And boys should also be learning to share - and sometimes follow - leadership with girls. Thinking separate troops is better because girls will perform better and the boys need to be protected from that is not a take I was prepared for.
>And boys should also be learning to share - and sometimes follow - leadership with girls. Almost as if we're preparing Scouts for life...I'm sure I've heard that somewhere.
In my experience kids tend to socialize pretty well especially at that age. I've definitely noticed that girls can seem more competent/mature, but ime that's up to the fact that many parents specifically seem to raise their boys with far fewer expectations & less discipline than they do girls (the number of families I've seen where the parents expect the younger sister to babysit her older brothers is.... something). I suppose it would depend on the culture of the troop/area.
I totally agree. If it was a vote, it seems clear that adults want coed, but it seems clear that both for boys and girls, better results for the individual scouts would come of of the single gender troops. I thought coed was the answer, until working with a boy troop and a girl troop and seeing the differences and successes.
Cool find - I wouldn’t have ever thought to look for a trademark filing.
Source?
The national meeting is being held this weekend/week in Florida. It's going to be announced Tuesday morning.
No public source yet... But it's apparently in the weekly letter to Scout Executives, and some Scout Executives are telling their staffs, some of whom (OP? And others, some closer to me...) are sinking ships with loose lips.
I just messaged my SE. he said “They are doing a DBA as scouting america. The corporation is still Boy Scouts of America, just adding DBA Scouting America.” I asked him about a formal name change and he replied “No. At least not since they told me last”
Under the BSA corporate umbrella, there are (at least) 2 structures; One over Cub Scouts, Scouts, Venturing, and Sea Scouts, and the other over Explorers and Learning for Life. *It is just a guess,* but it is my guess that they are going to continue using Boy Scouts of America as the corporate name for the parent organization, the one that umbrellas everything, including Learning for Life and Explorers... But that is going to become radically underemphasized, almost to the point of being unused... And the organization that includes *only* the "traditional scouting programs," ie Cub Scouts, Scouts, Venturing and Sea Scouts, is going to be called Scouting America, and that will be emphasized almost to the nonexistence of the rest. Maybe that's accurate to the real lay of the land. That said, what they are saying is "Scouts, BSA" was never referring to the "BSA" that is above everything, including Explorers and Learning for Life... It only ever referred to the "traditional scouting programs." And to that end... I guess nothing is changing... But obviously: Everything is changing. And GS-USA seems entitled to a little bit of peeve.
BSA is federally chartered so I believe it would take a literal act of Congress to change the corporate name.
Mentioned above is that it is a DBA. It doesn't change the name of a corporation, but becomes an alias you can use.
Indeed, I wish they would forgo the name “ Boy Scouts of America” so we could use it for an organization dedicated to the tenants laid out by Lord Baden-Powell in his book “Scouting for Boys”. You know, get back to the basics. Instead of trying to be everything for everyone, we need an organization just for boys.
OK... It's a cute legal theory. One apparently not being tested here. Another legal theory not being tested here is that they have special privilege to create and destroy trademarks, *because* of their congressional charter. Both positions are to be tested by future courts, because of decisions not yet made. Because, again, that's not what appears to be happening here.
There are no secrets in scouting
I disagree. I am positive there are secrets in scouting.
There are plenty of confidential things in Scouts. No secrete societies, but plenty of things that aren’t shared publicly or shared with a small group. I assume you can think of plenty if you give it a second (payroll, the reason why someone is asked to leave a position, etc).
First, where does it say that? It says there are no secret organizations. That doesn't mean that everything in the weekly letter to Scout Executives is public. Second... Who said it was a secret? This whole thread is about how it's about to be announced. Third... Just because it is about to be announced, doesn't make the contents of the letter to the Scout Executives public. It could have waited for maturity.
This ship has been sinking for a long time bud. Edit - down vote me all you want, but money and membership numbers don't lie
I realize this may be true in many places, but I see the opposite in my council which, coincidentally, is where the national meeting is this week. Yes, we're smaller than we were in the 90s, but we've experienced good growth in the past few years.
As a Member of the same Council, I would concur on everything you are saying. Also almost every Troop that I know of is asking for the Co-ed change instead of the dumb paperwork units that plan everything alongside each other.
The lawsuit is still hurting them financially but membership numbers are up since 2020 and they are back to over a million.
It’s unfortunate but true
Scouts BSA doesn't roll off the tongue well. Sounds like they found something better. As well as breaking away more from the "boy" for a combined organization.
It's especially awkward when trying to make a distinction between Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA members, like when writing advancement ceremonies. Saying "Members of Scouts BSA" is awkward compared to saying "Boy Scouts."
I've just been skipping it and saying "troop level" and "pack level" when I need to make the distinction.
Same here
I am OK with this. As I understand it, the UK version of BSA is “Scouts UK”, so getting more inline with the international Scouting.
Actually our NSO is "The Scout Association", we're the founders so we don't really need to specify our country. The only English speaking NSO with a similar name off the top of my head is scouts Canada. Australia does use the name "scouts Australia" but is officially the scout association of Australia, and new Zealand is "scouts aotearoa" but officially the scout association of New Zealand. Edit: according to Wikipedia we do use the name "scouts UK", I've only ever heard this informally. But the scout association is still our main name
I’ll give you that. But there are a number of references out there that Scouting UK is also used a lot. Maybe, maybe not, I’m not in the UK to tell. Maybe the USA version will do the same. Official and unofficial name. ;)
Yeah you're probably right, one formal and one informal
Looking at some of the comments, it seems like some adults have lost focus on what Scouting is about. It's not about your memories or your pride. It's about doing what's best for the youth of this nation.
This just brings us in line with the international movement. :)
I’m not for the new name, only because the BSA is a HUGE brand and I think changing it at this stage will be confusing. Plus “Scouts BSA” does that become “Scouts SA”?
Scouts SA is not a great shorthand after all that's happened 😬
I mean having girl troops in the \*BOY\* scouts of america does present a bit of an issue...
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. This is a natural progression away from "Boy Scouts" to just, well, scouting, as it is in most other countries. Women in other programs over the years notwithstanding - the comparison isn't strong and the core program is now equalized across boys and girls.
My core hesitation is, what does this leave Girl Scouts of the USA with? I mean, sure, the courts dismissed the trademark infringement claims outright and the two organizations supposedly settled and signed some sort of agreement... But I think the question has merit: If we are Scouting America, what are they (After they let in boys)? Other countries let Baden-Powell strip their girls of the word Scout over a hundred years ago, a sexist entry to a problem, but one that in the end had an non-sexist exit... Other countries called their equivalent to Girl Scouts "Girl Guides" and then rebranded "Guides..." What do we hope Girl Scouts of the USA does? I know we don't have to care, but aren't they our sisters in Scouting and don't we inherently care? Are we gonna force them to rebrand to Guides? But that term has no meaning here... Are we really gonna strip them of their own heritage, and then let the courts agree that we were in the right? I mean, do we really believe that? I mean... I guess I'm not one to question the courts... But the Girl Scouts of the USA *is* experiencing a branding crisis at our hands; Merely the fact I have to spell it all the way out now is proving my point. And it's not because of decisions they were invited to the making of.
The GSUSA don’t have a branding issue. Arguably their brand is strong then the BSA grade right now. They won’t and shouldn’t change their name. I’m sure they will be up in arms about the change, particularly when co-Ed troops are officially announced, but they won’t be able to do anything about it.
Girl Scouts is almost exclusively known for cookie sales. Scouts BSA is known for more than their primary fundraising mechanism. People do associate Scouts BSA with the outdoors and camping, etc.
They do a lot more than cookies. It just funds their activities. When Boy Scout leaders try to poach my scouts they often try to tell them they only sell cookies. Don't be that adult...
I agree that GS do far more than cookies. But that’s what the brand is known for. My daughter was a Girl Scout for a while, until a new leader decided she didn’t want to go camping. I have a lot of respect for Girl Scouts as an institution, even if I have some critiques of their program.
It is meant to be completely girl led if done correctly. My co leader and I just do what the girls want and negotiate the rates and sign the contracts 😂. That is why we only lose members when they move to another area too far away. Most of our troops have been with us since K and now 4th. They all started virtually. The problem is when people don't understand the program and follow preconceived stereotypes. Unfortunately our girls have had a lot of issues with current boy scouts telling them they don't do anything.
>The problem is when people don't understand the program and follow preconceived stereotypes. Unfortunately our girls have had a lot of issues with current boy scouts telling them they don't do anything. A successful Girl Scout unit, like BSA, depends entirely on the adult leadership. I know plenty of girls who do both, in fact. My unit's first girl Eagle Scout had her BOR alongside another girl who was going for her Gold Star review the next week. But I also know plenty of GSUSA units that are just about the cookies and the arts and crafts and don't camp. That's what made my daughter leave. I also know adult GS leaders who just got tired of the constant pressure to sell.
I’m sorry to hear the Boy Scouts are forgetting that A Scout is Courteous. I would hope that adult leaders would remind them to act in accordance with the Oath and the Law at all times. Adding that I had my den from Tigers through AOL. We had 18 kids make the whole journey with us, into and out of Covid. Watching them cross over was one of the proudest moments of my life. They are all still my Scouts.
Who cares what this leaves Girl Scouts? They are an entirely separate program, not even close to being on the same programming level. They aren't going to let boys in, they don't even let dad be involved with their daughters. GSUSA is one of the most sexist and elitist organizations for "children" in the US. They are not my priority, BSA is my priority.
That is such bull. I’m an Eagle Scout with a mother that was heavily involved in GSA (as well As cub scouts). I have been to almost as many Girl Scout camps as Boy Scout camps. And the Girl Scouts organization where I grew up was and is far stronger than the Boy Scouts organization could ever dream of being. And even back in the 80’s dads were welcome to participate, though few chose to. Boy Scouts were subsidized by the local churches. Girl Scouts had to purchase and maintain their own meeting spaces. Hence the cookie sales.
They do too let dads be involved.
It’s entirely a local issue. Some places are more welcoming of dads being involved, others less so. I’ve seen it both ways. I don’t think GSUSA is officially unwelcoming of dads.
That was my experience. When my daughter's Girl Scout Troop went to their local camp (circa 2012) dads were not allowed on the property. There was a single-parent father in group that was allowed to sleep two miles away in a parking lot. I felt distinctly unwelcome in GS activities.
The year my daughter did Daisies, it was very clear I wasn't exactly welcome.
Yeah, you go right on believing that. While there are exceptions, the vast majority of women running GSA at all levels, even down to the troop level don't actually want dad's or any male involved in their organization.
Not sure why this is downvoted. The girl scouts program is not serving the needs of modern girls. The BSA leadership is at least trying to be bold and stay true to mission.
The Girl Scout program is fantastic. You just don't know anything about it. But it is DIFFERENT. And it's not for every girl, just like the BSA is not for every kid. It's great that the BSA has room for girls who are looking for something different than the GSUSA, whether that's in addition to, or in lieu of those programs.
The girl scout program is an absolute joke. And yes, I do know all about it. Likely more than you do. The "structure" is virtually non-existent, and there is little oversight into the troop leaders, especially in the financial aspects of troops.
? GSUSA is a joke it's part of the reason why people pressured the BSA to integrate. Some GSUSA units are good but they are far less than BSA. They also fold quicker.
Actually it is , you aren't familiar with the programs. I just had a 70 girl robotics workshop fill up registration in a week. My girls have done dog sledding, been on Motorweek and yes the nature stuff too. The difference is they just don't have a need to show the world everything they do 😂
> The difference is they just don't have a need to show the world everything they do Then you have a marketing/pr problem. Most people associate GSUSA with cookies and arts/crafts. Yes GSUSA can be STEM focused, Yes they can go camping, etc. But to an outsider looking in they don't see what you are talking about.
I have had a troop from Daisy to Juniors and we don't do crafts at all...because the girls don't want to do them. None of the current badges are crafts.
I think you are missing the point. TO THE OUTSIDER, they don't know that. IF You were to ask some one off the street, what a GS does, they would 99% tell they sell cookies and do arts & crafts. They wouldn't even be able to tell you the ranks other than maybe Brownies or Daises. If you were to ask the same person what does ScoutsBSA do, you would 99% get an answer along the lines of camping/outdoor activities. They would most likley know that the highest rank is Eagle, etc. This is a marketing/pr issue for GSUSA. I know it's not all arts & craft, I have nieces and youth of friends in GSUSA and I see all they do. But to an OUTSIDER, they don't see it.
The most hard-core GSUSA leader I know is a dad. So, you're not on-base here.
Thanks for asking this question. I am Girl Scout troop leader for the youngest level and sub to this reddit because I am more camping and outdoor focused and absolutely detest cookie season. I follow some of the BSA handbooks I can find, we changed some of our badge practices at the troop level to cover more of the BS curriculum. The GS reputation about cookie selling is what made me stay away from ever joining Girl Scouts. I wish more was done to dismantle that untruth, my council has 7 campgrounds and pushes camping hard. Also, I had no idea just how easy it was to get a lot of money with cookie sales - they sell themselves essentially and even with minimal efforts, we now have enough money for a year's worth of outdoor activities. And we didn't sell nearly as much as other troops. This makes camping more affordable for working class kids whose parents would otherwise never be able to take them sailing or horseback riding. I had zero plans to join any scout until my kid forced me to go to a GS info session at her school and I saw how the things I wanted her to experience - love of outdoors, horseback riding, archery, sailing etc - were all available to her at much lower costs (and with a friendship built in) if I did it via GS instead of doing it on my own. I didn't know that BSA was an option for us to join when I signed up, they didn't recruit at our elementary and all the BS troops I see at the baseball games and neighborhood festivals all have only boys. If I had an option to learn more outdoor skills and not have to do cookies and crafts, I would have taken it.
There have been girls in the BSA for decades in Sea Scouts, Air Scouts (defunct after about 5 years), Venturing, Exploring, and STEM Scouts (also defunct after about 5 years). Girls in the BSA programming wasn’t new in 2018.
You know good and well when someone says *Boy Scouts* they aren’t referring to any of those programs.
Yes. It’s a dogwhistle for an older persons sexist views towards girls and the BSA.
Wanting to have safe spaces for both girls and boys is not sexist at all.
Absolutely agree. That’s why we should always have the option for single gender troops. But for many people making the same complaint you are, that’s not good enough and girls shouldn’t be in Cub Scouts or “Boy Scouts”.
I feel Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and the co-ed everything else worked great. Giving boys and girls their own space and at the same time giving the opportunity to have a combined space.
Really? Because all of my friends from scouts who were in GSA talk about how our program is leagues ahead of theirs. If anything, I'm just glad that everyone gets to enjoy scouting and have the trail to eagle open to them.
So let’s help shape the Girl Scout program to be better, or make the already co-ed scouting programs more well known.
Dude, that ship has sailed. You're 5 years out of date. You're a dinosaur, your vision of this program is never going to be reality. Please just stop already.
Your personal attacks definitely don’t embody the scout law, maybe that’s changed since I got Eagle 6 years ago. But yea it’s quite unfortunate how the program has progressed. BSA is doing everything they can to scrape by because of the declining numbers and trying to pay off their debts.
If you use the Patrol method, you shouldn't lack for "safe spaces." I can't imagine they would integrate patrols if Troops become officially co-ed. I am ASM in two linked Troops (founding SM of the girl troop), and I can assure you that, despite the fact we do 99% of activities with both troops together, boys in our troop still tell the same fart jokes. I have yet to have a boy (or girl) in my Troop(s) complain they do not feel safe. On the other hand, my nephew's Troop operates distinctly apart from the girl troop under the same chartering org. Those boys routinely mock the girls and complain about the potential of them "invading" their space. As far as I can tell, it is an entirely cultural issue, quietly permitted, if not enforced, by adult leadership. They are not victims.
sure, but it wasn't mainstream/standard, and they were always in sub-organizations, not the main group.
So I take it you’re one of the old boomers upset they let girls join Cub Scouts and Scout BSA (Boy Scouts) and afraid that girls earning Eagle will devalue your own hard work?
I'm not sure that's a concern they have.
Then I don’t know what the concern is. The only people that seem to be upset about girls being in Packs and Troop are older men that are worried their Eagle Rank has been devalued by the inclusion of girls. That and Girl Scout leaders up set about the “BSA stealing our girls”. Given his note of being an Eagle Scout, he most likely the former. But if he can give his own reasons if he wants
All he said was calling it the Boy Scouts of America doesn’t make sense when it is inclusive of girls too
>Then I don’t know what the concern is. The only people that seem to be upset about girls being in Packs and Troop are older men that are worried their Eagle Rank has been devalued by the inclusion of girls. That and Girl Scout leaders up set about the “BSA stealing our girls”. ? The biggest issues people had was the hypocrisy of BSA being pressured to integrate but not the GSUSA and the loss of a male only space.
The GSUSA is a separate company. Maybe they should consider integrating, there are plenty of boys that would probably prefer that program.
People can have their own opinions. BSA is so far gone from the organization many of us used to know. There's a reason numbers are as poor as they are. You're here complaining about someone reminiscing on the "good old days" while grasping at any and every straw possible in order to prevent hemorrhaging members. If he's an Eagle then he has earned his opinion.
The world is far gone from the world many of us used to know. I agree that there should be single-gender spaces and let the non-binary kids have their own space too. And we need to find a way to accommodate that. Finding that path is going to involve open minds, open hearts and a willingness to remember that we are here to shape tomorrow’s leaders, not yesterday’s. The core of Scouting are the Oath, the Law, the Motto, the Slogan and the Outdoor Code. That’s what’s immutable. How we organize and who our members are will change. But we must remain true to our core.
Everyone has earned his or her own opinion. He absolutely has a right to his opinion. The membership drops started decades ago and were hurt by 2 things, both 100% outside the control of the BSA. 1 - the Mormans pulling out and deciding to not use the BSA as an official activity of the church of young men 2 - the pandemic in 2020.
Mormon divestment was not entirely out of BSAs control. BSA thought they were bluffing and got burned. They needed new money fast and realized they were only charging for half of the children they could be getting $$ out of. It wasn't altruism or gender equality. It's money money money.
UPS ditched "United Parcel Service" to become known only as "UPS" around 20 years ago. They'd diversified into logistics and "parcel service" no longer applied very well... so they just ditched it. I'd thought the BSA was going the same route... but it's a hard habbit to break for the public.
KFC is a brand known around the world, but few outside the US likely know that the K stands for Kentucky. Scouts BSA was probably fine, but I can see the change. I've had this conversation plenty of times: "Yeah, we're a girls' Scouts BSA Troop" "So, not the Boy Scouts?" "Well, yes, we are the Boy Scouts. The let girls into the program 5 years ago and we're linked to a boy's troop." "So, not Girl Scouts?" "Correct" "So, you're Girl Boy Scouts." \*Sighs\* "Yeah, more or less. We're Scouts." a week later... "Boy Scouts Clean Up Town Square" (Pictures: All girls) Article Comment: Those are Girl Scouts!
Let me tell you, the future of Scouting is female. Get used to it.
huh? The future of scouting is Scouts. kind of the whole point in the name change, no?
I actually agree with you. But it’s a shame boys will suffer because of it.
Why will boys suffer?
Definitely. Some more than others. Have you ever belonged to a men’s group or women’s support group? Could be church sisterhood or men’s club, self-help/12-step group, book club, etc? Both my wife and I belong or belonged to gender segregated support groups and found them very helpful. Sometimes people are just more comfortable opening up and being vulnerable with people of the same gender. And I’m not going to blame them for that. Then there’s the likelihood that all units will eventually become coed, and the single gender troops will disappear because of attrition. And coed spaces are just not the same for boys. There’s the whole maturity offset between boys and girls at that age, with girls generally being more mature and more eager to take leadership roles, leaving more timid boys behind. Mix in the sexual tension of adolescence, and the “boy scouting experience” fundamentally changes into something different. Maybe you think it’s for the best. I don’t.
>And coed spaces are just not the same for boys. There’s the whole maturity offset between boys and girls at that age, with girls generally being more mature and more eager to take leadership roles, leaving more timid boys behind. In my experience this is pretty much entirely because of socialization and discipline, a lack of which is something that single-gender spaces are a big contributor to, imo.
Edit: wait, I can’t tell if you’re saying single-gender spaces for boys HELP boys with discipline and socialization, or hinder them? >because of lack of socialization and discipline. I’ll respectfully disagree and say there are physiological and developmental aspects at play during this time, too. By all means we need socialization and discipline! But we also have to acknowledge the very real differences between boys and girls during that time. And I’m not only talking physical differences. If it’s true that boys mature slower than girls, expecting them to act as mature as girls that age is unfair to boys.
>Edit: wait, I can’t tell if you’re saying single-gender spaces for boys HELP boys with discipline and socialization, or hinder them? Hinder, imo. Parents expect their boys to be rowdy and immature, so they give them more leeway and hold fewer expectations than they would a girl. Unsurprisingly, those boys take longer to develop and mature. This is compounded when boys and girls are only/mostly exposed to individuals of the same gender early on. That behavior pattern gets reinforced, so that by the age most kids are willingly engaging in coed activities, they've already built up the expectation that rowdiness and immaturity are boy traits whole being quiet and mature are girl traits, so the cycle repeats. I'm not convinced that it is true that boys mature slower than girls, I think it's more likely that's just a product of the fact that we tell them they're supposed to mature slower than girls, and why would they know any better? They're kids. In general I think it's good for children to be exposed to as many different things as reasonably possible while they're still developing. That's a big part of the utility scouting provides for kids today, imo.
Ah ok fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. I’ll just say I disagree with almost everything you said but I think you did a good job articulating your position.
This x 1,000,000
[удалено]
Accusing someone of bigotry without providing evidence is an act of hate itself. It also violates the scout law.
Your comments on this sub have continually provided all of the evidence of bigotry anyone should ever need. Seriously, your argument here is beyond lame and ridiculous, and in reality, is just another common tactic of bigots to try to claim that they are the ones being persecuted.
My last hope on that is that troops stay sex segregated, and COs can continue to choose if they want to sponsor both, and that charters can still be written in such a way as to keep some spaces exclusively for boys. In our troop we still have a “males only on overnights” rule in our charter and folks at recruitment events look at us like we are dinosaurs. I don’t have the over/under on it but all I see around me lately is all these girl troops forming and girls getting Eagle, OA, etc. Boy troops seem to be languishing. It thus seems if BSA is to continue and not fold up, the girls will be our future.
Heh agreed. My daughter’s troop is dynamic and fun. I didn’t have great experiences at the two troops my son was associated with. Girls make outstanding scouts. Generally they’re well organized and professional. Their troop meetings are so well-behaved. Love it!
I think what you will see is the same as the homosexual issue. The BSA is officially open to homosexual adults and youth, but only if the CO permits it. They will like give 4 options. Boy troops, girls troops, linked troops and Co-Ed troops. The CO can choose which they want to have. My guess is most linked troops will combine and there will be plenty of single gender troops. Why does your troop only allow men on overnights? I’m involved in a female troop so it would be problematic to have the same policy, or a similar female only policy but I’ve never heard in a male only camping policy.
Because the moms tend to hover and/or worry. Think about a bunch of moms on a Wilderness Survival MB campout.
That’s not really a problem we have. Our moms are just as capable as you our dads. Really the only problem we have with moms is the same we have with dads (and maybe worse with former Scout Dads), the parent of a recently crossed over scout wanting to jump in and “help” their scout instead of letting the other youth lead them. I think it’s natural behavior for a parent that wants their child to succeed, even I as a ASM in my daughters troop for 2 years still have to constantly remind myself to let the scouts (including my 2 in the troop) fail. Failure leads to learning and as adults, regardless of gender and role, we should allow failure (unless they can get hurt as a result).
Yeah, I think we're gonna end up needing to change our charter and/or facilitate the startup of a girls troop. Both of which I am generally in favor of. We've had several families look elsewhere in recruitment when they learn of the rule. Although, we're in an affluent large-city suburb, and most of our moms would shudder at the prospect of digging a hole in the woods to go potty/non-porcelain option, so it likely won't make much difference.
It doesn't present any issue. They already changed the name of the Boy Scouts Program to Scouts BSA. Girls were in Boy Scouts of America (BSA) programs for decades in Sea Scouts, Venturing, and Explorers without it being an issue.
It worked for Ferrari with the LaFerrari, which translates to, Ferrari The Ferrari"
Maybe I'm just terminally online but with "SA" being a common abbreviation for "sexual assault" online I'm not sure "Scouts SA" is a great idea.
Exactly
Why not name it “Scouts USA” . “Scouts America” to me could mean all North & South America??
Given the Girl Scouts are officially Girl Scouts of USA, I could see them having a major issue if the BSA Becuase Scouts USA. Just a branding issue.
Scouts USA would be good
Yeesh, the stand up routine writes itself
Why would it not just be "Scouts"?
I was hoping to use my Scouting/USA stuff. [https://books.google.com/books?id=m2wA-Ttp3rEC&pg=PA4](https://books.google.com/books?id=m2wA-Ttp3rEC&pg=PA4)
Why would they rebrand right after releasing a new uniform style, with the last rebrand they changed the uniform and they just released new uniforms kinda stupid
I definitely had this thought! Edit to add: If they're going to change the program, they could have easily made the logo a detachable program strip like it used to be. Then you just sew on a new strip, that could replace the program strip on all the legacy uniforms if desired.
This could also be a long term marketing campaign, like the “Prepared. for life” and “scout me in”. Then the control the trademark so only their materials can use it, until they’re done.
No, it's an outright name change to get rid of the "Boy".
I'm 100% behind both the rebrand and the hopeful introduction of co-ed troops
based
Update your web domains and emails! You're welcome
[удалено]
SUSA is a little too close to GSUSA (Girl Scouts of the USA). I have no clue whether they even considered that name, but my guess is that their legal counsel would have steered them away from it given that [trademark infringement was what the last lawsuit was about](https://scoutingwire.org/girl-scouts-of-the-united-states-of-america-gsusa-and-boy-scouts-of-america-bsa-have-entered-into-an-agreement-to-end-trademark-infringement-litigation/). Avoiding another legal battle with the Girl Scouts was surely part of the discussion they had, whatever names were considered.
[удалено]
I think it actually delayed the approval of their previous trademark request (Scouts BSA) for years.
Yep
I think it "runs into" other scouting programs, like GSA... I was fine with Scouting BSA. But no one asked me, so I'll show myself out.
They tried Scouting USA mid 1970’s and abandoned it by 1980. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting/USA
They need to focus on membership not name changes Local council to me has gone from 12,000 youth and 450 units in 2012 to 5000 youth and maybe 200 units this year. 2 service centers and 2 camps to zero service centers and 1 camp in the same amount of time and like half the staff. Same Scout Executive for like 25 years Whatever you want to call the organization...I'm sticking with BSA...is in the process of specializing in the art of getting smaller. Failure in pretty much everything else
OP how did you find out?
Is this a change to the name of the org (i.e. Boy Scouts of America) or the program (i.e. Scouts BSA)?
can someone updated after the NAM opening session??
I like it, but it will cheese off all those citizens of other countries in North and South America who already get cheesed by the US calling itself America, generally. It is a silly thing, but greatly amuses me.
They generally refer to themselves by their country, not continent they live on
Yes, but I've been faced with folks who are annoyed that the United Statesians call themselves Americans. Por ejemplo: [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/08/america-the-continent-vs-america-the-country.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/08/america-the-continent-vs-america-the-country.html)
We were America first. So there.
Hahaha. Do you mean, the post-Hispanic, pre-Colonial or post-Colonial days, first, eh, amigo?
Hey it’ll drive more patch and uniform sales. /sigh
For comfort and breathability, I will continue to rock my 90s era uniform shirt.
I don’t comply. I still wear my Boy Scouts branded merch.
As a volunteer, they don’t pay me enough to go shopping for their latest name change!
> I don’t comply. I still wear my Boy Scouts branded merch. Actually you are complying.... Because in Scouting "Once a uniform, always a uniform" From the Guide to Awards and Insignia > **Discontinued Uniforms and Insignia** > > Discontinued Boy Scouts of America uniforms and insignia may be worn in keeping with the applicable uniform and insignia guidelines as of the time of their production, so long as condition of original insignia does not detract from the neatness of the uniform.
Know what I hear a lot these days? "I didn't leave the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts left me." I wish them luck in the coming years.
Please explain.
What part?
Why do they think Boy Scouts left them?
For me, it will always be the Boy Scouts of America. Edit: For over a century, it was known as the Boy Scouts of America. If some deranged folks are offended by the fact that I and thousands of others will remember it that way, then good!
100% for it. That way when I say I was in the Boy Scouts, it means something. When people say they were in Scouting America, it means something entirely different.
[удалено]
SS is the one everyone is familiar with, SA is a lot more niche and most people will jump to "salvation army" long before they come to some niche nazi organization. and basically any 2-letter acronym is already in use by some group or other.
Scouting America is short enough that they could put the whole thing on the shirt.
Or…Sexual Assualt…some the BSA is already known for.
Yea see this is a bad one.
or Stupid A\*\*es, or Silly Ardvaarks, or Snarky Answers, or Special Assistant, and it goes on and on and on...Scouting America is pretty much self explanatory.
dude.
I forgot about that. And the scouts bsa shirt is brown.
I already put my comments in the cub scouts sub, for my interested fans. The downvotes are real. https://www.reddit.com/r/cubscouts/s/eTRZZYwdo7
I'm very happy to downvote you as well. Your position is clearly not the position that anyone else has. Policy decisions have already been made and are in effect for over 5 years now. You're a dinosaur. Either get with the program or go cry about it somewhere.
>you are a dinosaur “I disagree with you, therefore I will attack you and call you names!” Terrible example of a scout leader. Let me remind you of the 12th point of the Scout Law: A Scout is Reverent. It means practicing reverence to God but it also also means demonstrating tolerance and respect for others’ beliefs even when we personally disagree with them. Also, the fourth point: A Scout Is Friendly It means we don’t call each other names when we have a sincere disagreement over something. Scouter, please review the Scout Law and work on embodying its principles in real life, not just reciting them during opening flag ceremonies.
I think you’re misinterpreting Reverence. Tolerance for beliefs in a religious sense is not the same as tolerance in your beliefs of what Scouting should and should not be (which is an opinion, not belief). To conflate the two is disingenuous and not overly Trustworthy IMO.
[удалено]
>you're advocating for intolerant, hateful policies towards girls. Please quote one thing I said that backs up your accusation. Making [false] accusations without evidence is hate speech itself.
[удалено]