U.S. Boy Scouts to change name in appeal to girls

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's pretty simple, actually. The Boy Scouts' membership is rapidly shrinking. To keep everyone working there employed, they need more revenue. Hence more members.

No, I meant how does it fix the problem of those who would abuse children. If I'm the parent of a girl I don't see a barrier broken I see an unnecessary introduction of risk. They've already got the YWCA to worry about. I haven't heard about any grooming being done in the Girl Scouts so that's where I'd send my child, so long as they kept boys out.

[Bluespunk]

12 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Bizarre attempt at deflection. But the fact of the matter is on gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, and religion, your side is losing all the battles. Big time.

Anyone using the phrase “you people” not only has lost the argument but the plot as well. 

[metisdead]

Off topic trolling posts and the replies have been removed. 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It is the nature of all organizations. Where once they were created to serve a constituency or membership, in the end it exists solely to propagate and serve itself.

A little thought on who the Scouts organizations were meant to serve when they were founded might be in order.

[lannarebirth]

57 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A little thought on who the Scouts organizations were meant to serve when they were founded might be in order.

Yes, boys; I agree. It says so in their Congressional Charter:

 

Quote

The purpose of the corporation shall be to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in Scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods which are now in common use by Boy Scouts.

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2016/06/15/june-15-1916-woodrow-wilson-made-bsa-official/

 

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by lannarebirth

[simon43]

... We'd all make pretend erection bulges in our sheets whenever someone shouted "Prepare to tent".... then pretend to jerk off...

 

Er, too much information there.......

[tifino]

22 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

His great grandson and here's  how..................https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9329469/Lord-Baden-Powells-great-grandson-charged-with-murder-of-wife.html

 

he blame a  MissGuided upbringing?

[Chomper Higgot]

25 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Yes, boys; I agree. It says so in their Congressional Charter:

 

 

The purpose was to produce usable recruits for the military and empire, that thing the rightwing hate most ‘social engineering,.

 

Well society has changed, the Scouts can change with it or disappear into irrelevance.

[lannarebirth]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The purpose was to produce usable recruits for the military and empire, that thing the rightwing hate most ‘social engineering,.

 

Well society has changed, the Scouts can change with it or disappear into irrelevance.

 

So, was it better to produce an impoverished rural population to serve as their cannon fodder? I don't think it was.

 

As I mentioned previously I participated in scouting to the level of Eagle Scout. I've never shot a gun or felt the need to own one except for a shotgun I purchased for a special purpose long ago. Nothing militant about scouting.

Edited May 5, 2018 by lannarebirth

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 4:00 PM, jak2002003 said:

They probably will be next changing their name too... so boys can join.  

 

Surely it's better to just merge to girls scouts and boy scouts together and just call the thing.. The Scouts?  Would be easier and stop all this PC stupidity.  After all, men and women are equal now.. same jobs, rights, etc.  So the boys should learn how to cook same as the girls, and the girls should learn survival in the wilderness stuff.  Easy!!

Really! Would you fancy being in charge on a camping trip when boys and girls will be in close proximity? No doubt, you'd be sued when the girls get pregnant.

Childhood is confusing enough, without introducing sex into it before it has to be.

 

I wouldn't really care, but when females are allowed to join any male institution, it always becomes about what they want and PC.

Boys should be allowed to be boys, without being told off for being so, just because girls don't want to be in the Girl Scouts any more.

All this is just feminising boys.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

So, was it better to produce an impoverished rural population to serve as their cannon fodder? I don't think it was.

 

As I mentioned previously I participated in scouting to the level of Eagle Scout. I've never shot a gun or felt the need to own one except for a shotgun I purchased for a special purpose long ago. Nothing militant about scouting.

I'm sure B P was dead before you were a scout, but his intention was to produce boys ready to join the military.

It may have changed since his time, but that was the motive. Everything about it was militant when I was a scout,  but without an actual rifle. We had staves that filled that role. We even learned stave fighting. Good for hand to hand fighting in the trenches.

[MajarTheLion]

 

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

So, was it better to produce an impoverished rural population to serve as their cannon fodder? I don't think it was.

 

As I mentioned previously I participated in scouting to the level of Eagle Scout. I've never shot a gun or felt the need to own one except for a shotgun I purchased for a special purpose long ago. Nothing militant about scouting.

I got a kick out of the post you replied to. It's all about perspective. I suppose to some, learning arts, crafts and skills, being prepared, being able to survive when things go bad isn't common sense. Somehow it's militant. I was in the Boy Scouts back when men were men. I never shot a gun, either. I did shoot a bow and arrow. But hey, didn't Rambo use a bow and arrow in some movies? I guess that makes it *militant*.

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm sure B P was dead before you were a scout, but his intention was to produce boys ready to join the military.

It may have changed since his time, but that was the motive. Everything about it was militant when I was a scout,  but without an actual rifle. We had staves that filled that role. We even learned stave fighting. Good for hand to hand fighting in the trenches.

Now that I think about it, you have a point. Eagle Scouts get a higher rank if they enlist in the military. Or at least they used to. That said, it also comes down to each scouts', or their parents', specific intentions.

[MajarTheLion]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Really! Would you fancy being in charge on a camping trip when boys and girls will be in close proximity? No doubt, you'd be sued when the girls get pregnant.

Childhood is confusing enough, without introducing sex into it before it has to be.

 

I wouldn't really care, but when females are allowed to join any male institution, it always becomes about what they want and PC.

Boys should be allowed to be boys, without being told off for being so, just because girls don't want to be in the Girl Scouts any more.

All this is just feminising boys.

We must keep in mind we're dealing with the crowd that wants grown male sexual deviants in bathrooms with little girls and other vile perversions of decency.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, MajarTheLion said:

Now that I think about it, you have a point. Eagle Scouts get a higher rank if they enlist in the military. Or at least they used to. That said, it also comes down to each scouts', or their parents', specific intentions.

The clever thing about scouting was that they prepared boys for the military without being obvious. Had that been the stated motive, many parents would not have allowed their boys to join. However, all the skills learned were those in use in the military- first aid, stave fighting, camping, survival etc etc.

When I went to school, we all had to participate in school cadets, with real weapons, but all we did was drill. Very not exciting.

[jak2002003]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Really! Would you fancy being in charge on a camping trip when boys and girls will be in close proximity? No doubt, you'd be sued when the girls get pregnant.

Childhood is confusing enough, without introducing sex into it before it has to be.

 

I wouldn't really care, but when females are allowed to join any male institution, it always becomes about what they want and PC.

Boys should be allowed to be boys, without being told off for being so, just because girls don't want to be in the Girl Scouts any more.

All this is just feminising boys.

Seems to work fine in all the mixed sex schools.   They would also have enough staff to watch over them.

 

As for the 'childhood is confusing enough, without introducing sex into it'...  boy and girls mix together every day in the real world anyway, so no difference.  

 

If you are saying that on these camping trips the adults have no control over who goes into the children's tents at night.. they need to step up the security.. 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Seems to work fine in all the mixed sex schools.   They would also have enough staff to watch over them.

 

As for the 'childhood is confusing enough, without introducing sex into it'...  boy and girls mix together every day in the real world anyway, so no difference.  

 

If you are saying that on these camping trips the adults have no control over who goes into the children's tents at night.. they need to step up the security.. 

Joking, right?

Men won't become teachers anymore because of the risk attached to being around girls, and it's going to have the same effect on scout leaders. It's already hard to attract scout leaders, and going to be harder if it's unisex.

Why should they have to "step up security" just because the Girl Scouts can't attract girls any more?

 

boy and girls mix together every day in the real world anyway, so no difference.  

and there is a plague of unwanted pregnancies. 

[jak2002003]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Joking, right?

Men won't become teachers anymore because of the risk attached to being around girls, and it's going to have the same effect on scout leaders. It's already hard to attract scout leaders, and going to be harder if it's unisex.

Why should they have to "step up security" just because the Girl Scouts can't attract girls any more?

 

boy and girls mix together every day in the real world anyway, so no difference.  

and there is a plague of unwanted pregnancies. 

I don't know what country you are  from.. but that is not a problem in the UK or Europe.

 

 

 

 

[MajarTheLion]

13 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Seems to work fine in all the mixed sex schools.   They would also have enough staff to watch over them.

 

As for the 'childhood is confusing enough, without introducing sex into it'...  boy and girls mix together every day in the real world anyway, so no difference.  

 

If you are saying that on these camping trips the adults have no control over who goes into the children's tents at night.. they need to step up the security.. 

 

So why not do away with sexual segregation completely? No more boys' schools, no more girls' schools. Maybe we should demand the NFL hire women while we're at it. Hey, I think I'll apply to be an NFL cheerleader then sue for sexual discrimination if I'm not hired.

[Chomper Higgot]

These arguments being made by illiberals along the lines of segregation of boys and girls being necessary to protect the girls have a familiar ring to them.

 

They’re from the same basket of weak men’s arguments used by religious zealots in defence of locking women indoors, making them cover themselves head to foot and denying them the right to mix in society without a male relative to act as chaperone.

[MajarTheLion]

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

These arguments being made by illiberals along the lines of segregation of boys and girls being necessary to protect the girls have a familiar ring to them.

 

They’re from the same basket of weak men’s arguments used by religious zealots in defence of locking women indoors, making them cover themselves head to foot and denying them the right to mix in society without a male relative to act as chaperone.

I don't recall anyone saying segregation was necessary. I have yet to hear about groups of thugs forcing people to join the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, sororities or fraternities. These are choices some people make for themselves or their children as part of their life. Your attempt to equate these choices with mandates by religious extremists is beyond laughable.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I don't recall anyone saying segregation was necessary. I have yet to hear about groups of thugs forcing people to join the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, sororities or fraternities. These are choices some people make for themselves or their children as part of their life. Your attempt to equate these choices with mandates by religious extremists is beyond laughable.

I didn’t equate the choices... straw man!

[jak2002003]

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

So why not do away with sexual segregation completely? No more boys' schools, no more girls' schools. Maybe we should demand the NFL hire women while we're at it. Hey, I think I'll apply to be an NFL cheerleader then sue for sexual discrimination if I'm not hired.

Yes, do away with sexual segregation completely is a very good idea.

 

There should not be 'boys schools, girls school, etc' in this day and age.

 

If you wanted to be a cheerleader then you should be able to! 

 

 

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Really! Would you fancy being in charge on a camping trip when boys and girls will be in close proximity? No doubt, you'd be sued when the girls get pregnant.

Childhood is confusing enough, without introducing sex into it before it has to be.

 

I wouldn't really care, but when females are allowed to join any male institution, it always becomes about what they want and PC.

Boys should be allowed to be boys, without being told off for being so, just because girls don't want to be in the Girl Scouts any more.

All this is just feminising boys.

Been on plenty of camps, as an adult leader, where there were boys and girls of all ages.

 

Activities were differentiated according to age, not gender. 

 

No one got pregnant. 

 

All boys returned home as masculine as they left. 

 

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Now that I think about it, you have a point. Eagle Scouts get a higher rank if they enlist in the military. Or at least they used to. That said, it also comes down to each scouts', or their parents', specific intentions.

 

I received Eagle Scout at the age of 14. I was the youngest to have achieved that rank at the time. Didn't know about the military rank thing but I was recruited by all of the service academies and getting a congressman to sign off of was perfunctory so that makes sense. Getting accepted to the college of one's choice was also  pretty easy. Actually, putting it on my resume got me way more positive attention from employers than my college degree or work experience.

Edited May 5, 2018 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm sure B P was dead before you were a scout, but his intention was to produce boys ready to join the military.

It may have changed since his time, but that was the motive. Everything about it was militant when I was a scout,  but without an actual rifle. We had staves that filled that role. We even learned stave fighting. Good for hand to hand fighting in the trenches.

 

There is none of the militaristic anything in US scouting. None. It is apparently different overseas.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I received Eagle Scout at the age of 14. I was the youngest to have achieved that rank at the time. Didn't know about the military rank thing but I was recruited by all of the service academies and getting a congressman to sign off of was perfunctory so that makes sense. Getting accepted to the college of one's choice was also  pretty easy. Actually, putting it on my resume got me way more positive attention from employers than my college degree or work experience.

So why would you (or anyone else) deny any of those fine things to another young person just because they are female?

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

There is none of the militaristic anything in US scouting. None. It is apparently different overseas.

It’s very different in Thailand.

 

Many Thai parents choose to have their children enrol in first aid societies precisely because they do not like the militarism of the Scouts.

[lannarebirth]

6 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

I don't recall anyone saying segregation was necessary. I have yet to hear about groups of thugs forcing people to join the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, sororities or fraternities. These are choices some people make for themselves or their children as part of their life. Your attempt to equate these choices with mandates by religious extremists is beyond laughable.

Right. And when people are forced to make a choice to  do something that they'd rather not do they will self select away being included in that group. Then, of course, when the group loses it's natural constituency it morphs into something it was never intended to be.

[lannarebirth]

5 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Yes, do away with sexual segregation completely is a very good idea.

 

There should not be 'boys schools, girls school, etc' in this day and age.

 

If you wanted to be a cheerleader then you should be able to! 

 

 

Never have once heard of a school shooting in a sexually segregated high school.