Boy Scouts of America agree 'inclusive' name change

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So are the girl scouts going to change their name?

Scouts honor, my son will not join now. This is absurd and I do not support it.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Just be "The Scouts" like in the UK...what is so troublesome about that?

It's been the Boy Scouts for over 100 years.
What's wrong with just leaving that alone?

why does it have to be the same for longer than it already has?
lots of things change over 100 years. kind of how it works.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Just be "The Scouts" like in the UK...what is so troublesome about that?

It's been the Boy Scouts for over 100 years.
What's wrong with just leaving that alone?

why does it have to be the same for longer than it already has?
lots of things change over 100 years. kind of how it works.

Hey, can we change it back to when it was fun and not someones political fodder?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Why can´t the Girl Scout team come up with the same stuff the Boy scout teams does, if girls like it that much? Seems to be a problem on their side if girls don´t want to do the things they are supposed to do by the imagination of the Girl Scout leaders?

Instead of fixing something, let´s smash another thing, that´s how it sounds. Again I can see both sides but nowadays, why does everything needs to be "one-size fits them all".

Maybe boys like to stay with boys exclusive sometimes, just like girls want to, too.

Next thing is, men´s club will be sued because they won´t take womens as members? Exchange men´s club with anything that is exclusive to women (like women´s shelter for example).

Oh and before someone says "well a women´s shelter is not the same as a men´s club". No it is not. I took this as an example because it shows that women are not 100% equal to men, regardless what others might dream up.

Thousands of years the roles were (except for that example, someone will bring up, Amazones or whatever) fixed for natural reasons. It just had to go wrong with our technological advancement and pushing women into workplaces that fast.

That threw everything heal over heads, it produced an artifical loan dumping and now we´re stuck with both men and women who need to work fultime to survive with extra expenses on child care. That directly reflects onto our youth.

And today we have mid 30 year old carreer women who suddenly realize their biologic clock is ticking away. They realize that that train has left and they are not happy. Women have much more pressure growing up than men have. They have to get their life in order quick and maybe squeeze a career in between and then have kids if they want.

As tragic as this example is, it´s the truth. Not so long ago, the women was basically the boss at home when it came to food handling, cooking and house-hold related stuff. That´s a real fultimejob keeping a huge family together.

But today, 1-2 kids is barely affordable even if both parents work fulltime.

Disclaimer: I´m not saying women stay behind the stove, I´m just narrating the history of the last decades that I noticed.

a reply to: eNumbra

Organizations are constantly calling for the pulling of public funds/governmental support against one another when they see practices as discriminatory or going against their own political leanings. They can choose to take path A or B, it’s still their choice. I’ll grant a quarter, maybe a third of a truth here:

My point was that activists groups were pressuring the BSA to accept girls long before it had chosen to do so, even calling on the feds to prohibit support, which is a point that is suspiciously missing any of these trite "it's their choice" arguments.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Just be "The Scouts" like in the UK...what is so troublesome about that?

It's been the Boy Scouts for over 100 years.
What's wrong with just leaving that alone?

why does it have to be the same for longer than it already has?
lots of things change over 100 years. kind of how it works.

Fair enough.
The Democratic party has been the same too long, let's force conservatives to integrate.
The Congressional Black caucus has been around 100 years, how about we throw in some Asians?
Olympic runners have been the same for 2,000 years - we need people on crutches in the race too.
I could go on but you get the point.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: eNumbra

Organizations are constantly calling for the pulling of public funds/governmental support against one another when they see practices as discriminatory or going against their own political leanings. They can choose to take path A or B, it’s still their choice. I’ll grant a quarter, maybe a third of a truth here:

My point was that activists groups were pressuring the BSA to accept girls long before it had chosen to do so, even calling on the feds to prohibit support, which is a point that is suspiciously missing any of these trite "it's their choice" arguments.

I’m unaware of how long NOW has been calling for girls on Boy Scouts, but the co-ed venture has existed since the 90s, an expansion of that program only made sense after that point.

Edit: was jumping in the car and didn’t get to finish, even if you see it as caving to social pressure you still have the choice of not caving to social pressure.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now the girl scouts should change their name! Otherwise this is male discrimination.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I see what you're trying to do and it's lame.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I see what you're trying to do and it's lame.

I used to like your hat, now I think it sucks.

Sorry.

a reply to: verschickter

The boy scouts were just smashed???

Haha

Load of #.
Lot of drama

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Why not?
We got dudes running on weird ass metal ski legs

a reply to: TinySickTears

Please do tell in the open if you´re so sure and already labeling it as lame. Please enlighten us/me.

a reply to: TinySickTears
Ah I knew you were only getting a few lines and then get distracted by the first thing you think you could say something against.

Perhaps this has been mentioned, but it is entirely possible the BSA decided to open it's membership standards because they were seeing a continued decline in it's membership.

That means a drop in revenue. At it's heart, the BSA is a money-making venture.

a reply to: verschickter

I don't know mate, I thought scouts was gay when I was that age, I went for cadets.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
It tells volumes about one´s mindset if one thinks a group can be "gay" or "act-gay"....

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
It tells volumes about one´s mindset if one thinks a group can be "gay" or "act-gay"....

Oh behave,, I said when I was that age, 11-12 whatever.
#ing drama queen.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There already is an organisation for coed groups it is called 4h you only have to by a t-shirt and show up you don,t have to buy expensive boy scout certified equipment and you don't have to sell no hard as rock cookies. I was a member in my youth played a lot of 4h softball my cousins raised heifers for the fair through 4h and it was a good place to hook up with girls when you a young teen good clean fun never heard of 4h leader abusing kids like you used to with scout masters.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
It still tells volumes

@ATS

Am I a drama queen for my above posts? Do tell, please.