On the Boy Scout gender inclusion debate
First things first: Not my circus, not my monkeys. I am not, and never have been, a Boy Scout. Any opinions I offer are those of an outsider with no stake in the system. This is probably true of the most vocal tantrums online as well.
That said, there are some points to consider for any rational discussion of the gender inclusiveness policy to take place.
- Is the change motivated by internal or external pressure?
- Why is a gender-exclusive organization inherently wrong or right?
- What aspects of the scouting organization are most valuable, and is it the best way to provide the experience and knowledge to kids?
My issues with the Boy Scouts are a bit different than whether girls and their cooties should be allowed. My Quaker leanings make me opposed to the idea of oaths. My anarchist inclinations make me opposed to nationalism. On the other hand, preparedness and wilderness survival are valuable skills. Courtesy and virtue are valuable principles. I think the Boy Scouts and similar organizations have a worthwhile core purpose, and suffer from the prejudices of the past layered on top of that purpose.
I would suggest, then, that in addition to re-examining the points of contention in the public arguments about the Boy Scouts including girls in the system, we should re-examine the model of scouting in general and consider forming new organizations that teach the same skills and virtues if the BSA isn't doing it the way we like. We aren't shackled to the legacy of the past. We can build on it and improve it to fit the needs of our time.
Image credit: Wikipedia, Boy Scouts of America article
I like adventure clubs. the concept rings truer than "scouts". Our scouts are now drones, planes, and satellites so we don't have human scouts but for the rarity. I was in scouts but I see the very glaring problems with the structure of the system and change is the ONE thing people seem to fear most outside of death.
Search and Rescue clubs would make sense here where I live. Land navigation, shelter construction, wilderness survival, extra bodies to help build sandbag berms during spring floods, etc. are useful skills for the individual and the community alike. I'm just not sure the scouts are the best way to provide it. I know my Young Marines background was much less than ideal, and far too propagandistic and authoritarian.
In a way all of them seem just indoctrination. The concept and idea is generally good, but then humans get in the mix and seriously F**K it all up.
Competition and consumer choice would go a long way toward keeping everyone honest through more transparency.
I was a Girl Scout long, long ago. We enjoyed doing "girl things" without having any smelly little boys around. Girls need girl time, and boys need boy time. There are clubs already in existence that include boys, girls, and everyone else, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Let the politically-correct parents send their children to those clubs if they aren't comfortable with a one-sex-only club. But leave the Boy Scouts and the Girls Scouts alone so there's a cootie-less place for those who prefer it that way.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think the idea of getting boys, (or all kids, for that matter) together to learn skills is a great idea, but the Boyscouts has grow into something that I dont want my kids in, unfortunately. I wish there was an 'adventure club' or something like that in my area, they would love that!
In Davi Barker's Survivor Max books, he mentions the "Porcupine Freedom Scouts" as an organization he imagines might be developed by the Free State Project in New Hampshire: wilderness survival coupled with a libertarian philosophy.
Huh. That is interesting!
Fantastic post friend