@Eaglebauer Said
Okay...I said it
was that important to them. Which is a fact.
Yes, it was that important to them that they be separate. Regardless of changes being made today, it's not really an opinion that it was important to a great many of the people in those organizations to remain the way they were for quite a long time until, under pretty assiduous social pressure, they finally relented. It's a fact. You can disagree if you want, but you're wrong if you do.
There are two contingents here. A camp that wishes they be separate and a camp that wishes they be joined. If it is being changed then obviously it wasn't that important to the leadership, regardless of what the other members thought about it.
Quote:
For one of them anyway.
The other actually isn't really all that keen on buckling and in fact is pretty adamant about disagreeing with the other for allowing girls in.
Is that from an official statement? Because as I stated earlier, I saw plenty of messages and talk on the internet from members, but nothing official.
Quote:
Why avoid that as an explanation for their separation? It is the explanation. It's why they were separate to begin with (which you've said you understand already) and why they also remained that way for so long. Why avoid acknowledging that? I'm not saying anyone has to agree with it...I haven't even said that I do...I'm saying it's the reason why.
I was wondering if there was another reason. I know that some people prefer this outdated puritanical thinking. I was wondering if there was anything more to it then that. People are free to like or dislike whatever they wish and it doesn't have to make sense, but I prefer a fuller picture. This conversation has shown me that there isn't any deeper reasoning here though. Just preference.
Quote:
You can say that it would make more fiscal sense for one organization to exist that could pool resources and divide gender within its walls, but there would really be the same amount of intake and the same amount of funding being used on the same amount of people either way. Let alone that a lot of the people who run those organizations may well have the attitude that boys and girls need to have separate organizations to themselves to better identify with others of their own gender...a lot people believe that is actually much more healthy for a child than making every aspect of his or her life integrated. A lot of people believe boys need organizations for boys and girls need organizations for girls. Whether they are correct or not is another issue, but it's probable that scouting was kept separate based on that belief.
Mergers would not be that appealing if that were at all true. Redundancy is a major issue when mergers happen and that's because of what I just stated. It's not going to be the same amount of income with the same amount of costs because redundancy would see at least some of those costs eliminated. Carpooling is cheaper than driving. We can argue over preference all we like but one thing that can't be argued is cost.
Quote:
The Boy Scouts are not committed to merging with the Girl Scouts. The Boy Scouts have said they are willing to allow girls to join the Boy Scouts and let the Girl Scouts go on being the Girl Scouts. That's not the same thing as merging with the Girl Scouts, which is what you're suggesting.
And yes, as I said above, the Girl Scouts has come out quite clearly against the Boy Scouts lowering the gender ban.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/how-will-the-boy-scouts-decision-affect-the-girl-scouts/543204/
Yeah they came out specifically because they talked about how it would introduce competition into it's rather dominating position. GSUSA actually threw quite a bit of aspersions onto the Boy Scouts, but I saw nothing in their response that stated they were opposed to making their organization co-ed, just that they did not want to do it with a 'dumpster fire' of an organization as the Boy Scouts.
Quote:
As far as "further splitting the money even more..." you're not splitting anything up. If it was one body funding both (or all three) organizations, you'd be splitting the money. It's not. The money is never "together" in the first place to be split up. They are entirely separate entities with their own funds and whether you, I, or anyone else thinks some kind of synergistic "greater than the sum of its parts" result would come of combining them or not, it's not up to anyone but the governing bodies who obviously don't want to merge.
And I'm not saying that they should, simply that it was nonsensical to keep them separate. Preference is not a counter to that. It is still nonsensical.
Quote:
Imagine two restaurants. One serves Italian food and the other Chinese food. They are owned by two different families. Someone comes along and says it doesn't make sense for them to be separate because they could merge and both serve both kinds of food and the cost and resources wouldn't be so split up.
It doesn't make much sense that way because they are two completely different organizations with their own funding and legal ownership.
Which, as has been demonstrated time and again in the world, can change at the drop of a hat. The Boy Scouts were all about having a boy's only program, until they weren't, after all.
Quote:
In the end...you said you couldn't understand why they are still separate entities, or at least why they remained so for so long.
All I've done is give you an answer to that.
That's really all...so. Okay.
And all I was looking for was a different explanation. What I've gleaned from this conversation is that there wasn't, in which case I guess that's it then.