For example, the British Boy Scouts organization is simply the "Scout Association" and has admitted girls under that name since the 1970s, though the British Girl Scouts organization is "Girlguiding" and is still for girls only.
Perhaps we Americans could rename the Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts to have a similar distinction as a way to smooth over this dispute.
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Guides )
In fact, this copyright law is so powerful, during the court case Wrenn v. BSA from 2008, in which the court flat out said:
"BSA need not demonstrate the likelihood of confusion because it has been granted special protection by Congressional charter"
(link to law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/30905)
The Boy Scouts of America has allowed girls in their other programs since the 1970s.
Only one (Exploring, which became Venturing), really. BSA has four youth programs:
Cub Scouts - for boys and girls from kindergarten through fifth grade. Girls were allowed to join the Cut Scouts program as of October 2017.
Scouting (formerly Boy Scouts) for young men 11 to 18. Young women will be able to join in February 2019.
Venturing - for young men and women ages 14 to 21. Young women were allowed to join starting in 1969. (Venturing was "Exploring" then, and Exploring / "Senior Scouts" started in the 1930s for boys 15 and older.
Sea Scouting - for young men and women ages 14 to 21. Previous to 2016, Sea Scouting was part of Venturing, and previous to that, part of Exploring.
IMO the BSA has scared off competent leadership from the local troops, digging the graves of the plethora of troops that have folded. There are a handful of high caliber troops out there today, but most do not have the organizational capability to do the best job possible for our youth.
I speak from the perspective of a gay former patrol leader and life scout, my troop was great and gave me skills I couldn't get anywhere else at that age.
I was (apparently) a positive influence on many of the kids that were in my patrol, but none of the troops in my region besides the one I spent half a decade in has been able to field a coherent presence at Camporee or any of the summer camps. These kids are missing out on opportunities to learn valuble life skills that the local troops used to readily teach.
Also it came up in discussion frequently that the Guides were rubbish, lol.
Scouts treated her like an equal and she went camping and adventuring. And we always had girls in our troops. We were just Scouts.. the silly 'Boy' bit the Americans use was never there.
These are not linked, they are independent and orthogonal. The first is a matter of legal ability, the latter is a moral issue (that may under some circumstances also be illegal). There are many, many instances in life where you have the legal right to do something that is nonetheless despicable, and it is social consequences that moderate it (or not). russellbeattie did not say the Boy Scouts were criminals or should be banned, merely that they are discriminatory. And they are. They apparently have the freedom to be discriminatory, but private citizens may still judge them for that choice. Refusing to have one's child be involved which an organization that does that is a completely legitimate social and moral judgement as a parent. Debating and socially pushing back against evil is a critical part of society and reason free speech and association.
That is sufficient demonstration, to me, that they derive value from their federal charter above and beyond it simply being an honorific.
If they're going to use the imprimatur of the United States Congress to their advantage then it follows, to me, that they aren't a run-of-the-mill private organization and should be bound by the Constitution in the same way as other public entities. (Their discrimination against atheists, for example, is directly in conflict with the first amendment and, to my mind, unconscionable.)
I'm glad to see the Girl Scouts (also federally chartered) going after them. The Girl Scouts have a much better track record of being a good actor when it comes to discrimination and acting like the public entity that they are.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America
 - https://web.archive.org/web/20130821172216/http://hacker-sco...
By all means try to distinguish between them. You haven't yet done so.
Your definition of discrimination in the second sense (which is actually listed first in the dictionary) is off. Let's consult that:
"The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
It goes a lot further than merely making disagreeable choices or being unfair.
Where I am, in semi-rural Ohio, I think an openly atheist person would have a very tough time being accepted.
Parts of the boy scouts may have moved on, but it is by no means an official change
They don't "welcome" heterosexual scouts, it's a children's organization... sex and sexual orientation have nothing to do with it and should never have anything to do with it given we are talking about MINORS, a good chunk of which are pre-pubescent.
Adults should have nothing to do with sexuality then, but it's definitely there for the scouts. The discussions in my troop were very much "keep that away from here" which is a correct attitude coming from 40+ year olds who aren't family.
Why should they welcome anyone? I was permitted to join, onboarded, etc. Anyone else who joined was given the same treatment. The red carpet wasn't rolled out for anyone.
It's religious only in a vague way. There was a religious requirement to get Eagle, but aside from that, my troop wasn't religious.
My father wasn't religious and he was a scoutmaster.
You sound like someone who has made a judgement based on what some people have chosen to highlight. With the same kind of attitude you might think you are in grave danger of getting killed at any moment in America (if you base your opinion on the US on naysayers).
Certainly if what some higher ups decide about an org matters to you the most, you shouldn't join. Trump was elected president and lots of liberals found enough reason to still love America.
In all seriousness, I learned a lot there. There are other orgs that can accomplish the same. You wouldn't believe how many people I run into today who can't even tie a couple of knots.
And the religious component is contained in "adherence to spiritual principles, loyalty to the religion that expresses them and acceptance of the duties resulting therefrom"
Its about teaching young people to respect spirituality, to accept loyalty in Scouts to their own faith. I can't see harm in this. Perhaps an Atheist, dogmatically demanding that we all give up faith, could see harm?
There‘s simply no logic in these sentences, which points back again to the boy scouts being a de facto religious organization.
 - https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/05/31/bsa-reaffirms-d...
Same. Aside from having a Jehova's Witness as a scoutmaster (that never once brought up religion, in fact my family and that family were the only non-holiday church-going families in my dens and packs), there was absolutely nothing religious about my time from tiger cubs up to my father dying just shy of my 13th birthday and me leaving scouts.
I call straw man - what specific problem is being referred to? An imaginary youth raised in a cave?
Stating that "most young people" grow up in a spiritual environment means that a kid who isn't spiritual must have been raised in a cave is disengenous
...which goes to show that you can run a chartered organization, even one otherwise substantially similar in content and procedure to BSA, without being discriminatory about it.
Same goes for religious organizations: several Christian denominations allow openly gay ministers. There's nothing about spirituality that requires we discriminate against or hate each other.
IMHO, we can and should expect better of organizations than to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, especially those organizations that purport to model good behavior for youth.
You've confused atheist with antitheist. The former is a personal lens on the world. The latter is an ideology. I look up at the stars and see balls of incandescent gas and an indifferent cosmos, but that doesn't mean I berate the witches I know for finding significance in their alignment.
Teaching kids to blindly accept matters that are unfalsifiable, doesn't seem like a positive thing. Acting as an example to kids by being discriminatory toward those who do not blindly accept the unfalsifiable doesn't seem like a positive thing either.
Edit: minor phrasing
This information is outdated.
They had "don't ask, don't tell" for a very long time.
But they've had openly gay Scouts since 2014 and openly gay leaders since 2015.
Many troops and councils have openly bucked National's policies for a while now    with varying repercussions. Like any large bureaucratic group of people, change takes time. But I think you can see that change is happening within the BSA. I think that you would be surprised at the inclusiveness of some troops (not all, by any means). Importantly, if you want the scouts to change, doing so from inside the organization is the most expedient way to do so (frustrations are bound to occur though).
Please, give Scouts a try! Interview local scoutmasters and attend some troop meetings. I promise that they will be happy to talk with you. If you are in the Bay Area I know of a few troops that may fit your family well. I think you will find a troop that aligns fairly well with your priorities (nothing is ever 100%). If that fails, please consider starting your own troop! .
Scouting is a great opportunity for young people. It's a fantastic 'grit' builder, leadership trainer, and social experience. It teaches uncountable lessons to your children and helps them prepare for later life like no other thing . Many people  cite their one-of-a-kind scouting experiences as the nucleus of their future careers and passions. Personally, I cannot wait to see what becomes of the first female Eagle. Whomever that young woman will be, I am certain that she will have a unique place in her community and world.
The lessons of Scouts are uncountable, the friends are innumerable, and the food is, well, usually inedible.
I totally understand why Girl Scouts doesn't want to allow Boy Scouts to drop "Boy" because it feels unfair (neither should get to claim a more "universal" scouting trademark)... but I also don't understand why Girl Scouts were allowed to have the name in the first place in 1913 (Boy Scouts started in 1910, and Girl Scouts were originally Girl Guides).
We have s friend who worked with GSA for a couple years and came away utterly disgusted with the amount of pressure that’s applied on all the local chapters and how much of the proceeds is extracted back to the mothership while providing essentially no services in return. Where is all the money going?
She seemed to think it was ripe to be the next big scandal - similar to the RedCtoss.
Confusion goes way, way back in the U.S. as far as scouting as there have been multiple organizations doing similar things, just between 1896 and the 1940's you had:
- Woodcraft Indians
- Sons of Daniel Boone
- Boy Scouts of the United States
- Peace Scouts of California, New England Boy Scouts, Rhode Island Boy Scouts, Michigan Forest Scouts
- Life Saving Scouts of the World
- American Boy Scouts
- YMMIA Scouts
- Colonel Cody’s Boy Scouts
- Lone Scouts of America
- Columbian Squires
- Boy's Works
- DeMolay International
And probably many other smaller ones.
Ultimately, I think the Girl Scouts are worried about their membership. If Scouts BSA accepts all applicants while they only accept girls, Scouts BSA is likely to carve out a bunch of their membership. When men's colleges went co-ed, it didn't really threaten women's colleges because the formerly men's colleges couldn't just grow their membership. They had limited classroom space, limited dorms, etc. However, with less fixed infrastructure, Scouts BSA could absorb a lot of the Girl Scouts membership.
Personally, I think there is room for multiple gender-neutral youth organizations with different ranges of activities. However, it will mean that organizations must provide a positive reason for people to want to join rather than the negative "you aren't allowed in the other club".
As an Eagle Scout who participated in a co-ed Venture Crew, I think it’s a good step forward for the BSA organization. People in the thread have mentioned some possible issues with co-Ed integration, and while it has its issues, I firmly believe on the whole that it’s a net good for the organization.
I won’t speak for the plight of the Girl Scouts organization, who undoubtedly has done a lot of good and has always been the more progressive of the two organizations, but I can at least say that the BSA has done decently well to adapt to the current times given the immense sort of political pressures they have been under over the past 50 years.
I have a lot of value and memories of my time in the Scouts and given the changes they have implemented after various scandals over the years I can confidently say that they are at least interested in fixing long running issues unlike other organizations such as the Catholic Church who are more willing to ostrich-head-in-the-sand away something when nastiness emerges.
More to the point, if they really want to embrace change, embrace their name. Don't dilute it to a generic one that also has reputation with another organisation.
I say that as someone that believes in redemption. Hiding behind another banner doesn't strike as redemptive behaviour. :(
Edit: similarly, deceptive tactics such as pretending this is about something other than the name dilution doesn't scream good faith.
The local troops can have very different attitudes about beliefs in god (or the lack of), sexual orientation, the environment, etc
And to a large extent, I agree with that. A problem, is this can essentially be seen as enabling the so called "fat cats" at the top to hide their hypocrisies behind the local orgs. That is, it is an incredibly enabling behavior. And I view it as basically equivalent between the two.
(Of course, there is also the direct comparison that many of the boy scout troops were directly working with and benefiting from the organization called out as "having their heads in the sand.")
Your history just adds to the feel that this is being done entirely as a somewhat "below the water" way to up the BSA membership. They got a tarnished name for a while, so now it looks like they are trying to wash some of their garbage with the reputation of the Girl Scouts.
How is the word scout not considered to be a generic trademark type word at this point and in this context?
Does anyone not see this as a silly, frivolous argument? I'd love to hear your take.
Are there any other organizations that use "Scout" in their name, besides BSA and GSUSA?
Remember that epic multi-decade Apple Corps vs. Apple Computer trademark battle?
This line didn't bode well:
> As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business
$500mm later, and they're best friends now.
Can't the Girl Scouts just change their name to Scouts GSA.
Girl scouting is indoors and out of sight, Boy scouting is outdoors and in view. Therefore you will see a lot more "boy activity". They spend a similar amount of time.
For whatever weird traditional reason its assumed the boys families will pay maybe a hundred per year for boy scouting stuff, and girls do not pay or only pay a symbolic tiny amount of money. WRT family budget, Girl scouting is like a tenth the cost of Boy scouting, maybe less.
Boys do indeed sell a heck of a lot of popcorn and holiday decor like wreaths, but mostly at special events or to family members, girl scouts seem to sell most of their cookies door to door or at the grocery store very much to the general un distracted public.
Boy scouting activities, well, bluntly sound cooler and more memorable. There's no reason a girl couldn't pick up a boys merit badge book for archery and have tons of fun, but girl scout activities just are not as cool, sorry but true. "Eco Friend" just doesn't excite the imagination like shot gun shooting merit badge or welding or car maintenance. Why aren't girl scout activities as cool as boy scout activities? I honestly do not know.
Girl scout activities are very risk adverse, worst case scenario is a paper cut. Boy scout activities (at the higher ages) involve firearms and fire and safety glasses and danger in general.
Gender integration is a weird topic because boy scouts has always involved over 18 women and preteen female siblings since the old days and no one really cares; however girl scouts is absolutely fanatic about no-males-allowed in any form. Its definitely like integrating the white schools only and not the black ones, or whatever historical analogy. Girl scouts absolutely forbids males and AFAIK they are not integrating like the boy scouts at all.
You're right. A Boy Scout camp I worked at was trying to get Girl Scout groups to come use the facilities, but parents resisted because the facility had a shooting range. They said that they didn't want the Girl Scouts involved in or exposed to "violent activities" and they wouldn't come unless the shooting range was removed. Other parents felt that the majority of the outdoor activities were too dangerous.
There was one group that wanted to use the shooting range, though, and despite freezing rainy weather, the girls (and parents) came out anyway. That was great to see.
There's not much stopping the Girl Scouts from adding the other activities except for the female leadership themselves.
I'd love to see more cross-organization Merit Badges.
Also if the Girl Scouts could see their way to making merit badges for “fighting the man”, “radical feminism” and “understanding white privilege”, I think their members would be better armed to understand the world in a useful manner. I’d be happy to sew on those to any piece of clothing.
Maybe some Boy Scout badges for “non fire related cooking”, “hanging pictures straight” and “basic household budgeting” would also improve the world and give their members useful skills.
Boy scouts origin is in veteran thinking boys are growing too meek to be good future soldiers and also lack adult guidance messing around aimlessly not getting themselves ready. They were trying to give them something fun and good to spend time with.
This lawsuit is but the latest in GSUSA's petty-ness. I don't want to harm local Girl Scout troops, so we've been laying low at recruiting girls at schools with GSUSA presence. But my patience with GSUSA is running thin.
I get that they likely mean well, but my kids are already quite happy in the girl scouts. No need to try and confuse things by trying to "turn a new leaf."
I confess I assumed you were both the same organization years ago. Found out you weren't, and largely didn't care. That it largely seems to be an image saving move by the boy scouts, though, does give a bad taste.
i hope this kind of behavior is not common.
If they just ask if they know the "scouts" allow girls, it just confuses them. Of course there girl scouts allow girls to join.
Yes, and before 1920, women were frequently allowed into statehouses. They just didn't get to vote. Turns out that was a pretty important distinction.
The OP was speaking in regards to how boys act around girls, not making a defense of any policy.
But there WAS an issue before. Despite the fact that Johnny's sister was allowed to watch the knot-tying lessons, refusing to give her a uniform and a badge was very much an issue to her, and saying it wasn't should be called out.
I don't get what is so wrong about having a few kids activities that are for just one of the genders. I think it's very healthy for kids to experience all the differences between boys and girls early on, to learn. But they should also be allowed to enjoy the company of just each other when they want to. It's an important process to understand how that part of reality functions. In sports this happens a lot and I think it's really healthy that girls aren't forced to play soccer with the boys all the time, but that there are girl teams and boys teams. Likewise for many sports.
Are we all becoming so politically correct that we effectively stop teaching our children the values of masculinity and femininity?
It's ridiculous that scouting isn't co-educational everywhere. The fact that Sweden didn't realize this until the 1960s is absurd, and the fact that there are people still resisting it today half a century later is downright shameful.
Op wasn't suggesting girls can't be scouts. You can still have unisex scouts.
He was merely asking if we have gone so far that a club which allows boys to play with boys and girls just with girls (in one activity) was such a terrible thing.
The fact that you dropped the equality hammer to counter him, kind of makes his point that it has.
I'm just saying that it makes absolutely zero sense to do it for scouting. Scouting is about teaching kids to be self-reliant, to be confident in nature, to work well with others, and to help with their physical and mental development. There's absolutely no reason to split this up by gender except antiquated and sexist beliefs about women. It makes just about as much sense as having different scouting organizations for people with blue eyes and brown eyes.
Boys are stronger than girls so having boys only or girls only makes it easier to organize physical exercises/tests/requirements. It's also likely boys are in general interested in other things than girls so having gender separation allows more kids doing what they enjoy.
One more reason could be that having genders separated removes the aspect of kids hitting puberty interacting with each other and additional burden it entails when organizing activities.
I mean, there are surely reasons to have genders combined but it's very easy to imagine reasons to have it separated.
>>It makes just about as much sense as having different scouting organizations for people with blue eyes and brown eyes.
Oh c'mon, we can discuss how much different girls and boys are and what kind of structure is better for society but to claim relevant differences between boys and girls amount to differences between blue eyed and brown eyed people is just ignorant.
But there are girls with typically male interests and boys with typically female interests.
If a boy wants to do contemporary dance, give him an opportunity to do contemporary dance.
If a girl is into survival tests (making shelter, hunting food etc), give her the opportunity to test herself.
Why have one team made up of the fastest boys and another of the fastest girls, rather than one team made up of the fastest kids and another made up of the next fastest kids?
If Guides exist are they co-education also?
Just because it's been around before their lifetime and is a cultural institution doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Too many liberals get this wrong about conservatism; they think "old == bad", ergo it must be toppled/changed in some way. What is morally/ethically wrong with only young boys going away for a few weeks in the summer to a camp?
In my experience masculinity and femininity are a concept we largely teach kids. I've seen so many boys who love musicals, dolls, dressing up, crafting and all the other activities often associated as "girls things". Yet the moment they're spotted doing it by a group of their peers, they'll flip to "i hate dolls because they're girls toys" etc just to fit in.
And on the flip side, I've also seen plenty of girls who could be described as "tom boys" and really just love doing stuff that we often teach our kids to be a masculine property.
So I don't see it as being politically correct, I see it as humanity finally catching up that popular interests aren't so easily defined by boolean genders.
However as a former Scout I can testify that the actual reason Scouts have allowed girls into their groups was to compensate for dwindling membership. Some Scout groups resisted but many were forced to adopt mix gender simply to survive.
You also won't find a more exasperated set of parents who are blown away when most of their children seek out more common toys for their gender.
However I do take your point and I'm not suggesting there isn't a biological element at play as well. Just that the gender element is vastly overstated and in fact a great many girls do enjoy "boys stuff" and visa versa.
Kids notice so much detail that we often miss. And the absorb it all. Before my kids went to school they would still continually surprise me with little bits of information on topics that I have no idea how he learned it. Yet they did.
However I’m not in anyway implying that a child’s behaviour is 100% down to nurture. Clearly there is going to be a biological element as well. My point was what a child likes isn’t so Boolean as people often assume.
I think we're basically agreed here: yes, other influences exist, but there's a huge biological element. Even if you remove TV, other family, etc it wouldn't surprise me if there's similar results.
...and that's just measuring toys. Trying to measure behaviours is going to be an order of magnitude more complex.
So there's no real way to do this scientifically - at least not with the tools I'm familiar with. Observationally I've definitely seen the gender biases aren't as clear cut as some people describe. But that's just anecdotal and subject to pockets of localised anomalies. Plus I have seen behavioural differences between the genders with the way young kids have played with the same toys (eg a toy cars) even though there's been no definitive difference with the toys they chose to play.
It does help you appreciate why even the experts don't have a consensus on how much of a child's personality is learned and how much is biological...and that's without addressing the issue of how much of those biological effects are down to a persons sex (eg a person might be wired to be more caring but that might not be because they're female) - which is the question we're specifically asking.
Aren't they opening up their membership in this case to dominate the "scout" brand and capture a broader market?
"Are we all becoming so politically correct that we effectively stop teaching our children the values of masculinity and femininity?"
What are those values? Do they need to be taught? My son and daughter each demonstrate pretty typical gender traits, but not because of anything we've taught them. Each naturally gravitates to what they like most. We teach them general values and general skills. If there's something commonly considered gender-specific, usually they'll initiate/ask because they're interested.
I don't see that there's anything particularly particularly "politically" correct in this. Mind you, I've never particularly felt an overwhelming urge to "teach my children the value of femininity".
Do you think I'm failing as a parent?
In fact, the issues that my youngest's Scout pack are currently suffering from are pretty much all linked to the sort of crappy behaviour you get when boys are brought up the way you appear to be suggesting is a positive thing.
Or do you honestly believe that toxic masculine behaviour is correlated to staying married? I mean, I suppose that it's possible: certainly escaping an abusive relationship is documented to be harder than leaving one that's healthy, just not working, so you could be right ...
What does that even mean? There's about a 50:50 mix in the Scout Troop at the moment. When I went to Scouts as a kid, it was all male. From what I can tell, the activities haven't changed a bit. You just have two single-sex tents on camping trips. What is the biological imperative that's being indoctrinated here? They aren't being forced into doing needle-point badges (all though, I seem to remember 40 years ago doing a sewing badge, my chain-stitch is still a marvel).
I absolutely agree that there is a problem with boy's achievement and schooling (I was a school governor), but there are heroic attempts underway to try and adjust things to be boy friendly.
I think there is a lot of very confusing messaging nowadays, that says that "men are women are equal and identical and we shouldn't have anything just for men or just for women" while also saying "women/men bring unique things to the table so we should put more/less value on that". You can't have it both ways. We can(and should!) treat everyone equally, but denying that men and women are different is just wrong.
Where I am from(Poland) scouts(harcerze) were always inclusive of both genders except for troops which tried to be more military-oriented - then women were still allowed but the groups were separate.
What "Values" are these? That Boys are tough and shouldn't cry and girls are good at sitting quietly doing crafts?
There is no value in masculinity and femininity ... those are labels for a complex interaction of personality traits which a given person shows or doesn't. There is no reason to teach those concepts. They are simply present in a human being. Most people are combinations of masculine and feminine traits - it is a spectrum and not a binary concept.
I don't think there has to be a ban on gendered clubs, but historically, girls and women have seemed to get shortchanged in the activities society deemed appropriate for them, so I can understand that some want to err on the side of challenging and bucking traditional gender boundaries and norms.
And as others have said, sports are still gender-based. Even health clubs do this. Its not gone or banned, that's a straw man
On paper, the body is natural and it's a useless artificial separation. In practice, our society is imperfect, social norms and biological instincts don't align with moral and economy and logistic are important factors.
Besides, as you said, it's an interesting (and i believe benefecial) expefience to immerse one self in environnement with only your gender sometimes.
I'm glad I live in a country where opinions like yours are complete taboo as they should be.
And here's an issue I see. All of the scout camps I went to as a kid, yeah they didn't have two sets of showers or toilets...
So what, what are you going to do? March all the girls in and have them use the bathroom, shower etc. March them out, march the boys in and repeat? Oh, and you're going to have to go through them with a fine tooth comb between groups becuase we live in a smartphone world and I'll bet you all the money in my wallet boys are going to try and hide their phones to get video of girls and I imagine to a lesser extent it will happen in reverse too.
Hell, people still occasionally freak out about men being largely alone with young boys in group showers/open bathrooms... uh... you think there isn't going to be some disaster where Shady McGrady gets up in the middle of the night, slips off to the shower and sets up some sort of recording to get video young girls and the mothers/female staff? Because, I hate to burst bubbles but, scout camps aren't going to have funds to build brand new facilities to have gender-segregated facilities... I mean, most of those facilities weren't in the best condition when I was in scouts because they're operating on pretty thin budgets often paying camp staff barely better than minimum wage.
It's ok to have same-gender friends, it's ok to have same-gender activities. I hate that by taking this stance it's a guarantee that I'll get called a chauvinist, or sexist, or a pig. We have this same issue in Freemasonry, 'mainstream' Masonry is a MEN'S fraternity and with regularity, there's the occasional men and women that want it opened up to women. No. I'm surrounded by women all day at work, I come home to my retired mother that lives with me, I want some guy time. Kids need this too.
For parents with both boys and girls, the choice is now to join two organizations and deal with two sets of meetings, fundraisers, schedules, and activities, or join the (formerly Boy) scouts only and have half the headaches.
(Oh, and to complicate matters further, the YMCA/YWCA scouts and guides are not members of the national scout association; they have their own organization.)
On a domestic level, though, this works a charm.
Not knowing the first thing about international scout politics, I would think the time was ripe for merging WOSM and WAGGGS into one.
Say, organizing jamborees, helping nascent scout movements get going, providing training and educational material to national movements, liaising with other international NGOs &c, &c.
That being said, I doubt the WOSM/WAGGGS affiliation is at the front of many scouts/guides' minds during day-to-day-activities.
I don't get it 2 - 2018 USA still has separate "scouts" organizations for boys and girls?!
I don't understand how "Scouts BSA" is a violation of any trademarks that the Girl Scouts might hold. Especially considering the Girl Scouts came after BSA had already been established. If anything I would say that Girl Scouts are encroaching on the BSA's brand identity by calling themselves "X Scouts". When someone talks about being in the Scouts, I tend to take it as the Boy Scouts already.
And there aren't to my knowledge a lot of boys upset that they can't become Gold Star Girl Scouts... There are on the other hand a lot of females that are upset about not being able to become Eagles. 
Reading the article it sounds like some evil cookie corporation is pissed that they're losing free child labor rather than genuine concern for the empowerment of young people.
Guys act differently when around girls. Girls act differently when around guys. This is doubly true for ages 12-17. Whether this is a change for the better or worse is subjective but there is no doubt it is a drastic change.
There is benefit to boys interacting with girls. There is benefit to boys having some time themselves as well.
Troops won't be co-ed.
In my troop, once a year we'd spend one weekend spreading flyers about our annual garage sale, over the following week we'd pick stuff up, then the next weekend we'd use the community clubhouse that was our home-base for meetings for a blow-out garage sale.
We'd clear $15-20k in a week, give everyone who donated a tax slip for their donation, and sit pretty for the rest of the year with regard to our outings. Plus we'd do a clearinghouse in the last few hours of the sale where you could fill a trashbag up with anything and pay $5 for it. (I got stuff like suits, laser prints and antique cameras for <$1)
These massive fund-raisers are why we could finance trips to places like Hawaii or Scotland every few years and had outings like going to Camp Pendleton for paintball wars, plus we were helping the community by moving their junk.
Here in CO, the Boy Scouts do the door-to-door sales thing with over-priced caramel corn and the like.
I'd rather just give the troop $20 than spend $10 on a little bag of popcorn. Maybe that's part of the GS issue, a lot of Boy Scout troops are basically just copying the Girl Scouts' business model.
But I guess what I'm saying is, there are a lot of factors that go into your fundamental scouting experience (I honestly give all credit to the crazy outdoor dads that were in my troop at the time), so I'm trying to observe this transition more than question/judge it.
I can't think of any good reason why the Scout Law shouldn't be ubiquitous in American society.
I foresee that changing or troops taking initiative and organizing differently unofficially, but that's the current plan.
Venturing Crews and Sea Scouts, both of which are part of BSA, have been co-ed for a long time. My initial research was not particularly fruitful, but I think that they've been that way since their respective inceptions. There's also no gender-specific leadership or structure.
My son just switched to Sea Scouts after attaining his Eagle Scout rank and my daughter just started Cub Scouts as a Tiger. We've been really impressed with how the Sea Scouts aren't making a big deal about the young women in the program. The only thing we run into is old men calling them "gals". I didn't know that was a pet peeve of mine, but you learn something new every day.
Comparatively, the Cub Scouts are constantly creating awkward situations in relation to the girl dens. Some of that is caused by BSA youth protection guidelines (girl dens must always have a female adult present), but other times it's about over-correcting little boys' behavior in front of little girls. It's still very new and I'm sure that everyone will adjust to something that doesn't require so much effort.
I very much hope that BSA can get out of its own way as more girls move into troops and just take notice of what's been accomplished by their existing co-ed programs.
Venturing Crews and Sea Scouts were both part of Exploring in 1969 when the program went co-ed.
> There's also no gender-specific leadership or structure.
There are, actually. Quoting the current edition of the Guide to Safe Scouting:
"Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. There must be a registered female adult leader over 21 in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader over 21 must be present for any activity involving female youth."
Alternatively they do have explorers scouts as a coed part, and those are often attached to a regular troop, so they already have this for older scouts.
In the era of #metoo, maybe we need to check "boys will be boys" earlier in the process...
Didn't say it was a bad thing.
>In the era of #metoo, maybe we need to check "boys will be boys" earlier in the process...
But as long as we're over reading things, are you implying boys spending time alone with other boys encourages rape, or that the BSA encourages rape?
Besides, these aren't publicly traded companies. They're not for sale; one cannot "buy" the other.
They could decide to merge, but it seems they don't want to.
Boy Scouts open membership to girls: they get sued and vilified.
As a man, I'd be a little uncomfortable to join Woman Gamers or whatever, even if activities perfectly matched my interests.
Blockchain Scouts of America
No Beavis and Butthead. A lot of humor is only funny if you are cool with being monstrously ugly about specific topics. That type humor tends to not fly here.
I'm okay with that.