The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
News & Current Events

Scouts BSA

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...6 7 8
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#106New Post! May 11, 2018 @ 17:38:16
@nooneinparticular Said

The thing is it kinda was about my answer, because the comment about knowing why in the past was part of it. Yes, I know that certain sects of people view these things as important, but from an organizational standpoint it made little sense. It costs more to run two organizations rather than one, and you could even offer all male and all female units if you really wanted to under the same organizational structure if it was that important to your clientele. To specifically make the entire organization all male or all female seemed an odd choice that just divides resources. Was it really that important that every single troop be all male or all female and not just specific ones?



Obviously for a lot of people, especially within those organizations, yes. It was that important.

Is cost and dividing resources really the issue you have? Your first few posts were about gender roles...

I mean...it's two entirely separate entities with two entirely separate governing bodies, most of which are paid for by the members of those entities...so the cost would actually be pretty much identical either way, it's just that if they merged it would be one organization operating on the same amount of money as both of them combined. The operating budgets of them are generated by dues paid in by members along with fundraisers and the organizational staff is for the most part made up of volunteers. It's not like there's one body wasting money by having two organizations under the same budget. I don't really see how that's an issue...but...okay.

It actually seems quite a bit more odd to me to force two organizations together who don't want to combine, and then tell them they can still segregate their members by gender if they want to. I'm not sure how that solves anything.

It would make more sense to establish a third organization that includes both genders and let people choose which one they want to participate in.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#107New Post! May 11, 2018 @ 23:00:51
@Eaglebauer Said

Obviously for a lot of people, especially within those organizations, yes. It was that important.


Can't have been that important if the leadership is just going to change it.

Quote:

Is cost and dividing resources really the issue you have? Your first few posts were about gender roles...


Was it? If that's how it came across then I must have wrote those wrong because my intention was to avoid that train of thought as much as possible. I only originally brought up their founding time to specifically avoid that as an explanation for their separation.

Quote:

it's just that if they merged it would be one organization operating on the same amount of money as both of them combined.


And that's kind of the point. The budget would be the amount of both of them combined. As in greater than each of them separately. Also I'd have to imagine that there would be at least a little administrative redundancy between the two of them.

Quote:

It actually seems quite a bit more odd to me to force two organizations together who don't want to combine, and then tell them they can still segregate their members by gender if they want to. I'm not sure how that solves anything.


Do they not want to combine? The Boy Scouts at the very least seem very much committed to this move. At least the leadership anyway, the clientele seem more divided on it. I don't even know if the Girl Scouts came out with an official response, but the general mood I got from reading commentary is that their clientele seems about as divided on the subject.

Quote:

It would make more sense to establish a third organization that includes both genders and let people choose which one they want to participate in.


Which would further split money even more. Also I would imagine it would be several times simpler to piggyback onto an existing national organization then attempting to build one from the ground up. You'd forgo a lot of logistical and material costs just joining an already established national organization rather than attempting to build it yourself. Would probably take less time to set up as well.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#108New Post! May 14, 2018 @ 15:13:24
@nooneinparticular Said

Can't have been that important if the leadership is just going to change it.


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.

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.

Quote:
Was it? If that's how it came across then I must have wrote those wrong because my intention was to avoid that train of thought as much as possible. I only originally brought up their founding time to specifically avoid that as an explanation for their separation.


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.

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.

Quote:
Do they not want to combine? The Boy Scouts at the very least seem very much committed to this move. At least the leadership anyway, the clientele seem more divided on it. I don't even know if the Girl Scouts came out with an official response, but the general mood I got from reading commentary is that their clientele seems about as divided on the subject.


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/

Quote:
Which would further split money even more. Also I would imagine it would be several times simpler to piggyback onto an existing national organization then attempting to build one from the ground up. You'd forgo a lot of logistical and material costs just joining an already established national organization rather than attempting to build it yourself. Would probably take less time to set up as well.


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.

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.

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.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#109New Post! May 19, 2018 @ 08:19:13
@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.
Erimitus On July 01, 2021




The mind of God, Antarctica
#110New Post! May 19, 2018 @ 09:38:47
If they let girls into the (boy) scouts next thing you know the ladies will want to be in the military. No wait... Never mind.

Teaching the genders how to live, work and play together while they are young Would, I believe, be beneficial,
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#111New Post! May 21, 2018 @ 11:53:03
@nooneinparticular Said

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



Peace.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...6 7 8

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Tue Sep 25, 2007 @ 13:37
7 756
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Sun May 02, 2010 @ 22:01
3 759
New posts   Random
Tue May 22, 2007 @ 13:12
4 483
New posts   Random
Tue May 22, 2007 @ 18:09
141 4822
New posts   Teens
Wed Jan 31, 2018 @ 03:41
59 9184