https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/boy-scouts-welcome-first-girls-joining-troop-brand-new-uniforms-181104154.html

https://www.delcotimes.com/news/first-girls-accepted-as-boy-scouts-in-delco/article_d64dd8d4-45b2-11e9-8571-efc5ae4118a2.html

Six girls stepped out of the dressing rooms at a local shop in Pennsylvania with a twirl, showing off their brand new tan and green ensembles: Scout BSA uniforms.

The girls were making history as some of the first to join a local Scouts BSA troop — while proudly wearing the signature uniforms that were gifted to them by the boys of Troop 339, in Ridley Park.

The boys of the troop used their own money to buy the uniforms, valued at approximately $100 each, as welcome gifts for the girls. The cash came from an investment account typically used to fund camping trips or buy camping gear, and according to Scoutmasters Jim Walls and Barbara Steinmetz, the boys made the decision to dip into it for the uniforms — khaki shirts emblazoned with the Boy Scouts of America emblem, and striped sashes.

“The stuff is not cheap. So we get to start out not having to worry about that also,” Danielle Scott, one of the newest members of Troop 339, told Fox29.

As scout Vaughn Ritter, 13, told Fox29, “We normally go off of, ‘You do a good turn daily and not get any big return.’ So if you help someone out, you don’t expect to get paid or anything. It’s just like a simple thing.”

Walls said that the uniforms were a great way to get the girls started in the BSA program. “It’s not giving them the shirts off their back, but it’s giving them the resources so they show up ready for the first meetings [and feel] that they’re part of the organization."

Co-ed camping trips? THAT'S what was missing from my boy scout days!

Kids need places to go where they can learn good values and skills - both practical and social.

Scouting is an excellent program when it's overseen properly.

Girls in the boys club? No wonder TSCC pulled out of BSA.

Insane sexual repression doesn’t mix with coed scouting.

I hated the church using Boy Scouts as part of their Aaronic priesthood program. It made scouting part of the church. I always felt the Boy Scouts needed to tell the church you can sponsor a troop but we don't want it to become part of your religion.

I loved Cub Scouts which my Den mother had nothing to do with the church. She was Eastern Orthodox and kept her religion out of scouting. Had lots of fun meeting over at her house once a week because she always had lots of cool activities planned.

Boy Scouts was part of our ward's Aaronic priesthood program. We did have some fun campouts but instead of really being fun there was all this pressure to excel in scouting and be the eagle scout and all that. I didn't like it.

my First skinny-dipping experience was with a Boy Scout overnight camping spot in the Cascades just east of Skykomish... while swimming, we noticed some other hikers approaching, so that pretty much ended that;

Yes the scout leaders went skinny-dipping too,

NO! the troop wasn't sponsored by ChurchCo!!

How kind and nice that the Boy Scouts used their own Troop funding to pay for all the girls uniforms. They are truly the embodiment of good values, I think.

I hope the girls can somehow bring in some funds so the Boys won't have lost all their funding for camping trips.

This sounds like a really cool Troop. Thanks for posting, Anybody!

As a former Camp Fire Girl who enthusiastically acknowledges all that Camp Fire gave (and is still giving) to me, I am so happy for the Scouts of both genders who will, together, be able to share the lifetime memorable good times, the increasing responsibilities, and the leadership opportunities of Scouting.

In many ways local, national, and international, this new Scouting generation will make its mark when these Scouts evolve into the leaders of tomorrow.

Tevai Wrote:

> In many ways local, national, and international, this new Scouting generation will make its mark when these Scouts evolve into the leaders of tomorrow.

Agreed! Inclusion is ALWAYS better than exclusion!

I'm wondering what the difference is between camp fire & girl scouts;


Have they ever talked/considered combining?

And the girls are pawns in the never ending quest for feminists to try to get what men have. They hate men, they're jealous of some idea they don't really understand, but they don't know what it is, just that they hate something they can't reach. Feminism is never satisfied until they take apart anyone in their way. Sad sad day.... Oh well?

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the girls are pawns in the never ending quest
> for feminists to try to get what men have. They
> hate men, they're jealous of some idea they don't
> really understand, but they don't know what it is,
> just that they hate something they can't reach.
> Feminism is never satisfied until they take apart
> anyone in their way. Sad sad day.... Oh well?

Question: If you time-travelled back to the United States as it existed in the decades of the mid-1800s, wouldn't you have been, back then, of the "same" (or similar) opinion, only back then the subject of your distaste would have been Americans of color, rather than (as you wrote above) Americans today who are of the female gender?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2019 07:56PM by Tevai.

The problem is an IDEOLOGY not a specific group of people.

So the IDEOLOGY of equality is okay if applied to different races but not if applied to gender?

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> And the girls are pawns in the never ending quest for feminists to try to get what men have. They hate men, they're jealous of some idea they don't really understand, but they don't know what it is, just that they hate something they can't reach. Feminism is never satisfied until they take apart anyone in their way. Sad sad day.... Oh well?

I'm not aware that the women asked for this. The leadership of the former BSA is male, so perhaps you should take up your complaints with them. Girls have had Girl Scouts for many years which is a very empowering organization. Girls have also worked alongside boys for years now in BSA off-shoots such as Venturing Crew.

As for feminists trying "to get what men have," I have news for you. They already have what men have. Women are physicians, corporate lawyers, CEOS, military fighter pilots, astronauts, scientists, Senators and Congresswomen, and more. I'm sorry that those women might not necessarily be available to make a "sammich" for you. Perhaps you can find a way to cope.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the girls are pawns in the never ending quest
> for feminists to try to get what men have.

What exactly is the difference between "girls" and "feminists?" What evidence do you have that their goals and aspirations differ?


-----------
> They
> hate men, they're jealous of some idea they don't
> really understand, but they don't know what it is,
> just that they hate something they can't reach.

I'm curious where you derived your insights about what motivates women. If "they hate something," why do they want it? Or is your thinking on this point as muddled as your syntax?

And how do you know so much about what men possess? Have you ever met one?


----------------
> Feminism is never satisfied until they take apart
> anyone in their way.

That sounds like the whining of a person who finds himself having fallen apart and is looking for someone to blame.


---------------
Don't expect other posters to sit back and let you spew your ill-articulated hatred.

I just want to know why. Why do girls so badly need to be in Boy Scouts? Women have all kinds of groups that are theirs that men aren’t demanding to be in. Girl Scouts has existed for a long time, they could have just done more of what the boys do in Girl Scouts. What were they missing out on exactly? This is so obviously a feminist ploy to “empower” girls which actually means give more power and control to women which ultimately means we women are expected to do and be everything to prove men aren’t needed.

I’m saddened by this also. Is there any place left that boys learn how to be men? Learn respect and morals and honor and stewardship and survival skills? Now instead of getting to be gross and disgusting boys who can fart and eat boogers and proudly have BO and belch the loudest they are going to be repressed and self conscious because they want to impress the girls. Sooooo stupid. Just sad, takes away everything fun about Boy Scouts.

>>Girl Scouts has existed for a long time, they could have just done more of what the boys do in Girl Scouts.

They already do. At the Girl Scout camp at which I worked, young teenage girls were skippering 40 foot sailboats. Can you do that? I'm thinking not.

I can't answer as to why the (former) BSA made the decision that they did. Perhaps you should ask the leaders of that organization. But if girls are offered an option, there will be some that want to try it. Girls have already been active in (BSA-affiliated) organizations such as Venturing Crew. So this is not the new idea that you think it is.

Back in the early mid 70's my boy scout troop number was 339 ( not kidding) so was very strang reading that. This was in Columbia South Carolina.

Weird... and kinda spooky..

pathfinder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back in the early mid 70's my boy scout troop
> number was 339 ( not kidding) so was very strang
> reading that. This was in Columbia South Carolina.
>
> Weird... and kinda spooky..


Nevermo question (I have never heard of this before).

What is the significance of "339"?

The story in the OP is about troop 339.

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The story in the OP is about troop 339.

Thank you, [|].

I am obviously still waking up today!

IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR ME TO CARE LESS

Since they’re not called “ Boy Scouts “ anymore, I wonder if all the boys will suddenly drop out when the next, new boys club forms in its place.
Are the girls going to desert the mixed scout program ,when it becomes mainly girls and want to join the next boys club?

Men and women, boys and girls, no difference. Roles are interchangeable.

As we learn here, the latest push to have men breastfeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twELDlxViC8

I do not think I would trust my precious daughter to an institution that had made members pledge to be “morally straight“ and didn’t want to admit them till 2019. Seriously?

Thanks but I’d rather put my girls in the organization whose mission was turning girls into strong women, namely the girl scouts.

Why on earth is this news offensive? Somehow it has brought out RfM's misogynists in full, albeit inarticulate, force.

Perhaps it's the phase of the moon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2019 10:15PM by Lot's Wife.

"Guys" is a better word than "men."

They aren't men. If women said the same things about men, or people of color did about whites, they would be furious. But as long as the abuse is coming from them, they feel like it is legitimate discourse and that anyone calling them out is an unreasonable extremist.

On second thought, the word "guys" is too generous. They are just assholes.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2019 03:35AM by Lot's Wife.

I once worked with a group of guys like that.

They had their own little clique and kept me out of any major decisions.

Very infuriating.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2019 06:01AM by anybody.

Well here they get to hid behind anonymity. If they spoke like that to women IRL, they'd be slapped silly. Such BS isn't tolerated in the real world and shouldn't be here either.

I mean, "Pantylover?" I'll bet he wears them.

Did you even read my post? I’m a woman. My name is pantylover because I was so happy to be able to wear them again after 22 years in garments. These posts are not misogynistic.

I apologize for getting your gender wrong. As for the substance of your post. . .


Pantylover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Girl Scouts has existed for a long time,
> they could have just done more of what the boys do
> in Girl Scouts. What were they missing out on
> exactly?

If they are not missing out on anything, they don't have to join the boys. No one is forcing girls to do anything. Is there something wrong with offering girls the chance to make their own decisions?


--------------------
> This is so obviously a feminist ploy to
> “empower” girls which actually means give more
> power and control to women which ultimately means
> we women are expected to do and be everything to
> prove men aren’t needed.

When and how did the men who excluded girls for over a century suddenly become "feminists?" Has it occurred to you that their business model, their exclusivity, is failing because it is out of touch with society's values?

And perhaps you can explain how giving girls the chance to go on more camping trips renders men unnecessary? That seems a stretch to me.


----------------
> I’m saddened by this also. Is there any place
> left that boys learn how to be men? Learn respect
> and morals and honor and stewardship and survival
> skills?

Is there a reason boys can't learn those things in the company of girls?


----------------
> Now instead of getting to be gross and
> disgusting boys who can fart and eat boogers and
> proudly have BO and belch the loudest they are
> going to be repressed and self conscious because
> they want to impress the girls.

Do you seriously believe that being a man requires being disgusting and farting and eating boogers and belching?


-----------------
> Just sad, takes away everything fun about Boy
> Scouts.

I presume that as a woman you have not been a Boy Scout and hence don't know what makes scouting fun.


----------------
Again, I apologize for getting your gender wrong. MacaRomney, xxMoO and Free Man are absolutely misogynistic; they have long records of posting attacks on women. In this instance your views coincide with theirs, which is your right.

Funny, now women accused of hating women.

If lacking substance, just call them haters. That’s how it was done in church.

Girls join Boy Scouts, boys join Girl Scouts. Makes perfect sense.

Males excluding females is hate.

Females excluding males is justified because.......men bad, women good.

My heavens your ability to comprehend the written word is limited.


Free Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If lacking substance, just call them haters.
> That’s how it was done in church.

An ironic statement from someone who routinely fulminates against women and advocates MGTOW misogyny. If that is not a retreat into self-pity, I do not now what is.


--------------

> Girls join Boy Scouts, boys join Girl Scouts.
> Makes perfect sense.

Perhaps you can explain what is wrong with that scenario? Try to include some substance.


----------------

> Females excluding males is justified
> because.......men bad, women good.

Provide a single instance of any woman on this board saying that. Otherwise you are just erecting another straw man that you can use to justify your personal failures.


----------------
CZ has already said that you violate the board rules in your misogynistic screeds. He says he allows it because he hopes that people are capable of change.

That's fine. I hope it works. But you and your fellows continually say things that you would never tolerate coming from women or minorities and I, for one, am going to call you on your projection of responsibility for your own failures onto others.

You do a disservice to the many people on this site who are in loving relationships by suggesting that your disappointments have some general significance. They do not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2019 04:09PM by Lot's Wife.

But she wanted women to be subservient to men -- not co-equals.

Religion sure does mess up people.

She would have enjoyed far less publicity and income if she hadn't taken the stances she did.

Whatever sells.

One of the best outcomes of girls and boys both being in the same Scout troops, doing the same things, will be that they will all learn to work, together, towards positive and cooperative common ends and solutions.

I know from someone in my family (VERY committed family re: Boy Scouts in Alaska), that there are all kinds of situations where kids on camping trips, and in their own home towns, need to work through glitches and problems of many different kinds which arise.

The positive experiences of Scouts of both genders working TOGETHER to bring about a common good will be paying practical dividends in their schools, in their careers, and in their later adult families, for the benefit of everyone in their communities and families, for all the rest of their lives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2019 03:50PM by Tevai.

My wife was a scout.

"Continuing surveys of teenage boys done by the BSA indicated that Explorer-age teenagers, including current Explorers, were interested in including young women in their group activities. The BSA made the first change in this direction in 1969 by opening special-interest posts to young women to be "associate members". After two years, the BSA decided to allow any Explorer post to accept young women and/or young men, based on the desires of the chartered organization, and many Explorer posts became co-educational. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Varsity_Scouts

You mean that the admission of girls to Boy Scouts was not a feminist plot?

I'm shocked.

No it was. They used teenage boys instead of men to do their dirty work!

Ah, yes. Proof positive that men are victims.

Thank you for straightening that out.

LOL! Can't trust women and their wily ways! ;)

On a different note, I spent a long period away from the church and then went back to see if I could make it work.

In that latter period of experimentation, I was struck by the church's habit of dividing men and women--RS versus Priesthood, different sides of the room in the temple, home teachers versus visiting teachers, etc. Having long been out in the drab and dreary world, that division seemed unnatural. It doesn't happen in school, in university, in the work force.

At first I found the pattern amusing, quaint, like the clothing worn by the Amish in Lancaster County. Over time, however, I realized that the church thought the division was socially and morally important. Gradually the separation grew invidious as well as antiquated. That realization, coinciding with some of the early policies against LGTB people, was one of the reasons we decided to sever our remaining ties to the church. It simply wasn't safe for our children.

It therefore seems strange to me that some of the posters here-- primarily men, men who feel that the world has let them down--still insist that there is utility in the division of the genders. What they advocate is a social pattern that the United States and the advanced world rejected decades ago because it harmed both genders and reduced social and economic efficiency.

We might as well be discussing horses and buggies. The world moved on from those long, long ago.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We might as well be discussing horses and buggies.
> The world moved on from those long, long ago.

The ultimate irony is that men have some "feminine" as well as "masculine" wiring of their brains. Brains don't know gender, only genetic makeup and all of us have a genetic disposition that is both rigid in some things and changeable in others.


Gender is a lens which culture uses to focus our brains in strange ways. We all share more in common generally than we do in sexually characteristic ways. But we focus on these differences yet they aren't simple and they are diffused through the human population regardless of actual sexual functions.


The individual's wiring varies and yet with cultural pressures people with one set of sexual function are pressured to mask their nature's expressions of what is traditionally allowed only one gender.

It is sad.

I know you have kids Elder Berry so I’m curious as to why you think children gravitate towards typical male and female behaviors even without societal influence to do so.

I very strongly believe that nature trumps nurture in about a 90/10 split. There’s little that nurture can fix or change that nature began by encoding into our genes.

Pantylover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know you have kids Elder Berry so I’m curious
> as to why you think children gravitate towards
> typical male and female behaviors even without
> societal influence to do so.

Do they? Gender defined roles have defined human history until only very recently.

https://www.joinonelove.org/learn/gender-stereotypes-impact-behavior/

How would we know if they were just a biproduct of agrarian and pastoral based ways of existing as humans? How would we know outside of our cultures? Animals have instincts. We have a huge frontal lobe. We are social creatures. We are designed to congregate and cultures evolved from this intrinsic part of being human. If we have an instinct it is a desire to contact other humans. How we interact with each other isn't governed by instinct.

> I very strongly believe that nature trumps nurture
> in about a 90/10 split. There’s little that
> nurture can fix or change that nature began by
> encoding into our genes.

Well, through our lifetimes the flexibility and influence of nature varies. Beat a child with a certain gene and you are almost guaranteed an anti-social adult as a result. That is heavy on the nurture side of our natures.

For a moment there I was wondering how someone could "beat a child with a certain gene" since a gene would be so very small and presumably fragile.'

LOL! I guess you could beat a child with a certain meme and there is nothing to them.

Here in Denmark scouts are coed and have been for ages. Nobody cares that they are coed. It works just fine.

Americans are just too uptight, and that has become far more clear in my decade away from the States.

alsd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Americans are just too uptight, and that has
> become far more clear in my decade away from the
> States.

I agree. I was abused as a scout. It might not have happened with allowing girls in my troop. People are more worried about mixing genders than the vigilance it takes to protect children.