Poll of the Day > Boy Scouts to lose the 'Boy' in its Title...

(+) Yeah! (+)

What I mean is...

Girl Scouts are proven to be very effective with leadership training and helping with STEM.

Also girls work best in rooms of only girls, so having us away from guys makes the most sense for those kinds of programs. (Boys are trained to be loud and girls to be quiet and polite. So girls dont get effective teaching around males)
---

LittleRoyal posted...

Also girls work best in rooms of only girls, so having us away from guys makes the most sense for those kinds of programs. (Boys are trained to be loud and girls to be quiet and polite. So girls dont get effective teaching around males)

What the literal f***ing mysoginistic crap are you talking about?
---

shadowsword87 posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

Also girls work best in rooms of only girls, so having us away from guys makes the most sense for those kinds of programs. (Boys are trained to be loud and girls to be quiet and polite. So girls dont get effective teaching around males)

What the literal f***ing mysoginistic crap are you talking about?

Hes making shit up

Ya know, for lies
---

About girl only classrooms: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/mar/18/secondary-schools-girls-gcse-results

About women being taught to be quiet and polite:
Youre calling me names because you dont like me. Most people know it to be true
And as a women, with a brother, who was raised to be shy and quiet and polite, and to value those things (irl, I still follow them and am hurt when people see me as headstrong or outspoken; as a kid Id get in trouble for it)

(Obviously my brother was encouraged more to be a fighter, as many men are from young ages. Gender roles happen and exist)

Women being around other women encourages us to speak up and ask questions and have education more tailored to us

Now mix that with Girl Scouts having many female role models, thats complete good! Boy scours has NONE of those things for young women

It is true that most women in congress have been in Girl Scouts ^^
---

LittleRoyal posted...

And as a women, with a brother, who was raised to be shy and quiet and polite, and to value those things (irl, I still follow them and am hurt when people see me as headstrong or outspoken; as a kid Id get in trouble for it)

(Obviously my brother was encouraged more to be a fighter, as many men are from young ages. Gender roles happen and exist)

And that's sexist.

LittleRoyal posted...

Now mix that with Girl Scouts having many female role models, thats complete good! Boy scours has NONE of those things for young women

Every level of Scouts for me had at least one female leader. That's what happens when the organization isn't gender-segregated.
---

I don't see what the problem is.
---

Do you think boys/males should be allowed to join the 'Girl Scouts' and sell them tasty cookies?

Truth be told, I see no issue teaching girls how to survive outdoors and be self-reliant, well-prepared, and other skills taught by the Boy Scouts but never seemed to make the crossover to the Girl Scouts. There's a ton of cool things that the Boy Scouts do that should really be for everyone.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

All this whining about gender identity, oppression, fairness, exclusion, hurt feelings, and victimhood.....

And yet I don't hear a single person talking about the fact that 16 year old BOYS have higher car insurance rates than 16 year olds girls....simply due to the fact that they were born with certain genitalia between their legs.

I was a responsible, calm, collected, and intelligent 16 year old. Why did I have to pay higher insurance premiums than the stupid, careless, irresponsible 16 year old girls who loved to speed in their little Dodge Neons to school?

Sexist.

But no one likes to talk about that.

Instead, they'd rather talk about The Boyscouts. The military paying for transition surgery. Who can use which restroom. Using gender-neutral pronouns on college campuses so the kids don't get offended.

Sheesh.

Young male drivers are more likely to crash and more likely to get speeding tickets.

It's all based on numbers, not ovaries and testicles.

Keep trying though.
---

I suspect that this will end badly.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

I suspect that this will end badly.

Everything does if you wait long enough.
---

Well, by that I mean, while I was not a scout myself, I'm aware a lot of people used it as a way to help their boys grow as men. It was kind of the whole point; that it was a space for a young boy to grow with other men helping to guide them. Having girls involved, be it as straight or whatever else, kind of ruins the whole point of that. I suspect we're going to see a mass withdrawal of scouts by angry/fed-up parents who will attempt to place them in other groups or form their own as a result.
---

The only people who don't think this is dumb are beta males and feminists

Unbridled9 posted...

Well, by that I mean, while I was not a scout myself, I'm aware a lot of people used it as a way to help their boys grow as men. It was kind of the whole point; that it was a space for a young boy to grow with other men helping to guide them. Having girls involved, be it as straight or whatever else, kind of ruins the whole point of that. I suspect we're going to see a mass withdrawal of scouts by angry/fed-up parents who will attempt to place them in other groups or form their own as a result.

Is America seriously so fucking backwards that shit which works in every other country on Earth crashes and burns in the US of A
---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Is America seriously so fucking backwards that shit which works in every other country on Earth crashes and burns in the US of A

Boy Scouts of America exist in other countries?
---

No, fortunately most other countries don't have to deal with America's BS
---

Blightzkrieg posted...

No, fortunately most other countries don't have to deal with America's BS

So then how would they work in other countries if they don't exist in those countries?
---

Because having kids camp and earn badges in America and having kids camp and earn badges in France is actually quite similar except in one country the kids weigh less.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Blightzkrieg posted...

Is America seriously so fucking backwards that shit which works in every other country on Earth crashes and burns in the US of A

Boy Scouts of America exist in other countries?

No, but Scouts is an international organization with branches in many other countries, many of which dropped the segregation decades ago.

pionear posted...

Do you think boys/males should be allowed to join the 'Girl Scouts' and sell them tasty cookies?

I don't see why not, but because of societal attitudes toward masculinity, those boys will probably end up being mercilessly mocked for doing so. Which is dumb.

That does remind me that I need to get on trying to put together a recipe for knockoffs of the mint ones. I'm figuring that a chocolate sugar cookie, topped with a peppermint patty, then dipped or drizzled with a mix of chocolate and mint extract should do the job, but I haven't actually put that plan into action yet.
---

adjl posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

And as a women, with a brother, who was raised to be shy and quiet and polite, and to value those things (irl, I still follow them and am hurt when people see me as headstrong or outspoken; as a kid Id get in trouble for it)

(Obviously my brother was encouraged more to be a fighter, as many men are from young ages. Gender roles happen and exist)

And that's sexist.

LittleRoyal posted...

Now mix that with Girl Scouts having many female role models, thats complete good! Boy scours has NONE of those things for young women

Every level of Scouts for me had at least one female leader. That's what happens when the organization isn't gender-segregated.

You chose to completely ignore everything else I said so to reiterate: girls perform better in classrooms that dont included males
---

Sigh.
---

LittleRoyal posted...

You chose to completely ignore everything else I said so to reiterate: girls perform better in classrooms that dont included males

Yes, I addressed two points and opted to say nothing about the third, since I didn't feel like I had much to contribute to that particular discussion (at least, not at the level I feel like committing to it). Is this a problem?
---

LittleRoyal posted...

girls perform better in classrooms that dont included males

Citation needed.
---

Revelation34 posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

girls perform better in classrooms that dont included males

Citation needed.

LittleRoyal posted...

About girl only classrooms: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/mar/18/secondary-schools-girls-gcse-results

About women being taught to be quiet and polite:
Youre calling me names because you dont like me. Most people know it to be true
And as a women, with a brother, who was raised to be shy and quiet and polite, and to value those things (irl, I still follow them and am hurt when people see me as headstrong or outspoken; as a kid Id get in trouble for it)

(Obviously my brother was encouraged more to be a fighter, as many men are from young ages. Gender roles happen and exist)

Women being around other women encourages us to speak up and ask questions and have education more tailored to us

Now mix that with Girl Scouts having many female role models, thats complete good! Boy scours has NONE of those things for young women

It is true that most women in congress have been in Girl Scouts ^^

---

LittleRoyal posted...

Revelation34 posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

girls perform better in classrooms that dont included males

Citation needed.

LittleRoyal posted...

About girl only classrooms: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/mar/18/secondary-schools-girls-gcse-results

About women being taught to be quiet and polite:
Youre calling me names because you dont like me. Most people know it to be true
And as a women, with a brother, who was raised to be shy and quiet and polite, and to value those things (irl, I still follow them and am hurt when people see me as headstrong or outspoken; as a kid Id get in trouble for it)

(Obviously my brother was encouraged more to be a fighter, as many men are from young ages. Gender roles happen and exist)

Women being around other women encourages us to speak up and ask questions and have education more tailored to us

Now mix that with Girl Scouts having many female role models, thats complete good! Boy scours has NONE of those things for young women

It is true that most women in congress have been in Girl Scouts ^^

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/02/11/kids-dont-learn-better-in-single-sex-classes-meta-analysis/
---

Did you actually read your article because he basically writes yes there is proven short run benefits BUT thats just some kids.
---

LittleRoyal posted...

BUT thats just some kids.

---

But itd proven effectiveness ^^ he just spent his entire article saying nooo I dont like it :(!
---

I mean look at in here. Girls try to talk and boys interrupt, listen to only 5/100 words I put, quote only random sections of my comments, or completely ignore me~
---

LittleRoyal posted...

I mean look at in here. Girls try to talk and boys interrupt, listen to only 5/100 words I put, quote only random sections of my comments, or completely ignore me~

Well dont girls still have the option of joining the Girl Scouts?

Why do you want to limit their options?
---

LittleRoyal posted...

But itd proven effectiveness ^^

(pronounced stressing some) at least a small amount or number of.
he liked some music but generally wasn't musical
---

Mead posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

I mean look at in here. Girls try to talk and boys interrupt, listen to only 5/100 words I put, quote only random sections of my comments, or completely ignore me~

Well dont girls still have the option of joining the Girl Scouts?

Why do you want to limit their options?

Id rather young girls not go to Boy Scouts because:

They only take in girls because they are poor and desperate for members; not because they know how to teach or have any useful knowledge for women (compared to Girl Scouts having knowledge streamlined for young girls, and proven success rates)

They are incredibly rude (only make decisions based on bad PR, homophobic and transphobic group doesnt make for an amazing learning environment)

While they act like Girl Scouts is all selling cookies, most People know that isnt true (thats just done for funding and Boy Scouts does the same for popcorn) the girls actually accomplish much more and are making more progress with what theyre doing, such as being responsible for shortening the pay gap by getting more women into steam while women used to be shunned out of those things or we in general never learned the concepts.

If Boy Scouts was doing it because they believed it was whats best for young women, then I would be fine.
If they were doing it and actually researched how to make sure women are being empowered within the organization instead of just being another organization that will be terrible for their learning expirience that would be fine

But they just want money.
---

Here's a serious question.

Is it wrong to have an organization designed to cater only to a specific group? Is it wrong to have an all boys or all girls group? An all gay or all trans or all straight group?
---

Unbridled9 posted...

Here's a serious question.

Is it wrong to have an organization designed to cater only to a specific group? Is it wrong to have an all boys or all girls group? An all gay or all trans or all straight group?

Depends on the organization's function. If it's something that's only going to be beneficial for a specific group? There isn't much point in letting other people in. If it's something a broader population can enjoy taking advantage of, though, then discriminating is pointless and arbitrary, and that's not really a good thing.
---

LittleRoyal,

I understand your disapproval of young women entering BSoA, and I am in no way going to defend the organization at all. They are entirely reactionary to bad PR and have a track record of problematic behavior as you said. I whole heartily agree that they are doing this for self gain.

However, I do feel like integration of genders is an important issue. Having integrated spaces early on can start teaching children how to function together.
Teach boys about bodily autonomy and consensual touches, to stop sexualizing and respect women as people. To the girls, teach them to speak up when interrupted, to not allow boys to make them feel less. Having them learn these together would better benefit the parties into adulthood don't you think?

Again, I'm incredibly sceptical Boy Scouts is the organization to accomplish this. Girl Scouts does not seem to have integration on their priorities either.

LittleRoyal posted...

Mead posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

I mean look at in here. Girls try to talk and boys interrupt, listen to only 5/100 words I put, quote only random sections of my comments, or completely ignore me~

Well dont girls still have the option of joining the Girl Scouts?

Why do you want to limit their options?

Id rather young girls not go to Boy Scouts because:

They only take in girls because they are poor and desperate for members; not because they know how to teach or have any useful knowledge for women (compared to Girl Scouts having knowledge streamlined for young girls, and proven success rates)

They are incredibly rude (only make decisions based on bad PR, homophobic and transphobic group doesnt make for an amazing learning environment)

While they act like Girl Scouts is all selling cookies, most People know that isnt true (thats just done for funding and Boy Scouts does the same for popcorn) the girls actually accomplish much more and are making more progress with what theyre doing, such as being responsible for shortening the pay gap by getting more women into steam while women used to be shunned out of those things or we in general never learned the concepts.

If Boy Scouts was doing it because they believed it was whats best for young women, then I would be fine.
If they were doing it and actually researched how to make sure women are being empowered within the organization instead of just being another organization that will be terrible for their learning expirience that would be fine

But they just want money.

Why cant they want money AND be doing the right thing?

I dont know a lot of successful businesses that make big decisions based purely on their hearts
---

IronBornCorps posted...

LittleRoyal,

I understand your disapproval of young women entering BSoA, and I am in no way going to defend the organization at all. They are entirely reactionary to bad PR and have a track record of problematic behavior as you said. I whole heartily agree that they are doing this for self gain.

However, I do feel like integration of genders is an important issue. Having integrated spaces early on can start teaching children how to function together.
Teach boys about bodily autonomy and consensual touches, to stop sexualizing and respect women as people. To the girls, teach them to speak up when interrupted, to not allow boys to make them feel less. Having them learn these together would better benefit the parties into adulthood don't you think?

Again, I'm incredibly sceptical Boy Scouts is the organization to accomplish this. Girl Scouts does not seem to have integration on their priorities either.

I get that, however sexual assault is still very frequent and happens at schools so clearly that isnt working

At school, university, everywhere I spend lots of time sexualization is very common. So no integrated public school
Clearly isnt the answer
One of the only times Im not being bugged by that is at all or mostly girl places. Otherwise people will grope you if they want to or catcall or make sexist remarks (it happens everywhere, not saying it happens constantly)

Meanwhile girls who dont go to Girl Scouts arent in office, arent in stem jobs (as much)
And on average make less.
Girl Scouts being girl only helps get young women into power (office), be empowered to stand up for themselves, and get into stem jobs and work to closing the pay gap like many women cant do
---

adjl posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

Here's a serious question.

Is it wrong to have an organization designed to cater only to a specific group? Is it wrong to have an all boys or all girls group? An all gay or all trans or all straight group?

Depends on the organization's function. If it's something that's only going to be beneficial for a specific group? There isn't much point in letting other people in. If it's something a broader population can enjoy taking advantage of, though, then discriminating is pointless and arbitrary, and that's not really a good thing.

That's insanely vague though and basically allows a person to put down a border wherever they so feel.
---

Can a man who believes he's a boy, join?
---

ZackMorris posted...

Can a man who believes he's a boy, join?

We're working on that. Give it a few more years.
---

ernieforss posted...

I use to be in boy scouts. i would say they are christians. But i don't think they will turn down anybody to join. But i will say they believe in Abraham's God.

I got a Scout book from like 63 and it has badges for Buddhism.
---

adjl posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

The "Scouts" aren't dead. The Boyscouts are dead. Because they aren't exclusive to boys anymore.

Am I saying things that are difficult to understand or something?

They're pretty easy to understand, they've just so utterly devoid of semantic value that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and offering you a chance to add some meaning by elaborating.

LOL, they made perfect sense, but you require more because reasons.

Aren't you a fascinating little bastard? lol
---

kangolcone posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

All this whining about gender identity, oppression, fairness, exclusion, hurt feelings, and victimhood.....

And yet I don't hear a single person talking about the fact that 16 year old BOYS have higher car insurance rates than 16 year olds girls....simply due to the fact that they were born with certain genitalia between their legs.

I was a responsible, calm, collected, and intelligent 16 year old. Why did I have to pay higher insurance premiums than the stupid, careless, irresponsible 16 year old girls who loved to speed in their little Dodge Neons to school?

Sexist.

But no one likes to talk about that.

Instead, they'd rather talk about The Boyscouts. The military paying for transition surgery. Who can use which restroom. Using gender-neutral pronouns on college campuses so the kids don't get offended.

Sheesh.

Young male drivers are more likely to crash and more likely to get speeding tickets.

It's all based on numbers, not ovaries and testicles.

Keep trying though.

You sound like someone who thinks it's okay for police to stop and frisk all hispanics then, you know, because they are statistically more likely to be illegal immigrants with drugs on them.

Slippery slope, pal.
---

Does this mean we can get cookies and popcorn in one single order? That's all I care about

GreenKnight127 posted...

adjl posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

The "Scouts" aren't dead. The Boyscouts are dead. Because they aren't exclusive to boys anymore.

Am I saying things that are difficult to understand or something?

They're pretty easy to understand, they've just so utterly devoid of semantic value that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and offering you a chance to add some meaning by elaborating.

LOL, they made perfect sense, but you require more because reasons.

Aren't you a fascinating little bastard? lol

Of course it made sense. Tautologies always do. Making sense and saying something meaningful, however, are two separate things.

_AdjI_ posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

adjl posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

The "Scouts" aren't dead. The Boyscouts are dead. Because they aren't exclusive to boys anymore.

Am I saying things that are difficult to understand or something?

They're pretty easy to understand, they've just so utterly devoid of semantic value that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and offering you a chance to add some meaning by elaborating.

LOL, they made perfect sense, but you require more because reasons.

Aren't you a fascinating little bastard? lol

Of course it made sense. Tautologies always do. Making sense and saying something meaningful, however, are two separate things.

You literally don't know what you want out of this conversation. But you are still here regardless. Are you okay, bro? Everything alright in your life? Just bored perhaps?
---

Well, considering a statistically-represented 1 in 5000 girls identifies as "not a girl", at the age of 20, I'm guessing it probably would have ticked far fewer people off to not change the name, and instead, just make an exception for the rare girl who doesn't feel like a girl, and would rather be in the boy scouts, than changing the name and forcing statistically-excessive, far-left viewpoints upon society at large.
---

The saddest part is, rather than virtue-signaling on the gender-nonconformity front, if they would do so on the racial-equity front, the Boy Scouts would probably make an actual, positive impact on society.
---

MICHALECOLE posted...

---

GanglyKhan posted...

Zeus posted...

Clearly they don't, because women aren't subject to the same rate, which was the basis for his complaint.

I was speaking large scale here, like, across an entire lifespan. At some point, you will be discriminated against, legally or no, and at some point, you will be given blatant advantages and be treated better due to circumstances you had no control over since birth. Is it fair? Not really. Is it reality? 100% yes. I'm all for figuring out new solutions, but when people just raise a counterpoint and argue something without providing any viable solutions, that's where it starts to get ugly. Speaking of solutions, let's check in on GreenKnight.

The solution is pretty simple: Either make all forms of gender-based insurance discrimination illegal or make them all legal. Otherwise using the idea of, "Well, they might be discriminated against illegally at some other point!" to ignore one group's legal protections that another group lacks is a complete cop-out and, by the way, not a viable solution -- in fact, it's no solution at all!

Yellow posted...

People are actually triggered that the Boy Scouts changed their name to appeal to a larger audience while trying to recoup lost popularity, because they don't like identity politics.

The hypocrisy is kind of unreal.

The name change is literally an act of identity politics, though. It's not that they're just including more people but they're changing their identity to virtue-signal this new inclusive attitude. They could have just kept calling it "boy scouts." And, broadly speaking, forcing changes to tradition is very identity politics.

adjl posted...

A number of reasons:

-That difference applies across an entire lifetime, whereas the gender-based difference in car insurance evens out as one accumulates a driving record
-People who are applying for health insurance have medical histories already, providing more salient variables that insurance companies can consider. New drivers don't yet have driving records to consider
-Not having health insurance kills people. Not having car insurance makes people take the bus.

-The difference in car insurance *still* applies over a lifetime, even if the gender gap is less pronounced. Likewise, there are points in men's and women's lives when the health care gap is less pronounced. Given that insurance works in pools and gender discrimination is viewed as wrong, it would make sense that men & women share the same pool. Women might incur more expense than normal on car insurance, but it evens out the fact that men incur more expense on health insurance to balance out women.

-Kind of an apples-to-oranges argument. Somebody who's never had health insurance before DOESN'T have a medical history any more than somebody who hasn't had car insurance has a record. They just automatically are able to go on their parents' plan.

-Not having health insurance presents the same financial issues as not having car insurance might. Rather than "kill you" (because hospitals are forced to treat patients in need of lifesaving care), it just means a far higher bill that can result in the loss of property -- same as would happen if you kill a pedestrian. Otherwise, access to a car is a necessity in many regions with poor public transit so, if you're mandating insurance coverage, there should be affordable options.

adjl posted...

Again, I wouldn't be opposed to giving car insurance the same treatment, but it's understandable that it hasn't happened.

"Understandable" in the sense that equality that would help out men tends to be ignored while "equality" benefiting women is rushed through.
---