No sooner had I posted about the DEI scam trying to hide its spots sufficiently to keep on inflicting discrimination and bias —but good discrimination and bias, of course!—on the American workplace and society in general than news of a sadder and more futile re-branding exercise was announced.
After 114 years of teaching boys ethical values, self-reliance, and life skills, the Boy Scouts of America is abandoning its storied name to escape its sordid recent past, its mismanagement, and its betrayal of its mission and legacy. That’s not the spin, though. The newly named “Scouting America” is being promoted as signaling a more “welcoming” organization. “Though our name will be new, our mission remains unchanged: we are committed to teaching young people to be Prepared. For Life,” Roger A. Krone, president and chief executive of Scouting America, said in a statement today. “This will be a simple but very important evolution as we seek to ensure that everyone feels welcome in Scouting.”
Sure. The reason for the change is the same reason Air Florida changed its name to Midway Express after the horrific crash in Washington, D.C. in 1982, and it’s likely to be just as successful. The Boy Scouts crashed after the revelation of a massive sexual abuse scandal reminiscent of the Catholic Church, its subsequent declaration of bankruptcy, and its capitulation to political correctness by accepting girls into its ranks at all levels. The Boy Scouts had already ceased to exist in any recognizable form, having lost its reputation for advancing an ethical culture and for being skilled at guiding boys through adolescence into manhood. The desperate name change will become official on February 8, 2025, the organization’s 115th anniversary, if the organization lasts that long.
I regard name-changes—rebranding— like this one the equivalents of a notorious embezzler, rapist or murderer getting plastic surgery and a new name after being released from prison. On one side of the ethics divide, this is a a lie, deliberately deceiving people into thinking you are something that you are not as you hide your identity. On the other side, it allows a sincerely remorseful and reformed individual (or organization) to clear the slate, turn the page, start anew. Shouldn’t everyone be able to do that? Even organizations and companies that wrecked themselves and wounded those who trusted them by mismanagement or worse?
I’m not sure. I do know that the Boy Scouts falling so far that they had to adopt a new name would have hurt my father deeply, for in a very real sense, he was raised by the Scouts when he was a lonely young boy in Kentucky whose father had abandoned him and his mother in the middle of the Depression. Dad met his four, lifetime friends in scouting, and the skills and values he learned from the organizationsent my father into the military to fight for those values in World War II. The Boy Scouts of America thrived long enough to save my father’s life while making him into the admirable and heroic human being he was, and I am grateful to it.
Changing its name, however, can’t fix what decades of rot destroyed.
Ethics Alarms 
organizational self immolation at its finest. Aunt Jemina is gone, uncle Ben is buried, animal crackers are out of their cages! Has the world fundamentally changed? I wonder what their financials show? Bud, I read, is still in the red.
Abyse scandal?
When was the most recent incident of abuse?
The decline and decay of the Boy Scouts has always been troubling to me. Although I was never a Scout, I grew up with admiration for the organization and what it stood for. A few of my “city friends “ were scouts, but no groups were on my end of the county. My elementary school’s library had a subscription to “Boy’s Life” magazine, and My friends and I eagerly awaited each month’s issue and read it cover to cover. When I was nine, I got my first (out of date) copy of the Boy Scout Handbook, and pored over it like it was the Dead Sea Scrolls. I passed it around among several of my friends and before long we were all well-versed in Boy Scout lore. We began to plan our own hikes and camping trips -first with with our dads and later on our own- in the local hills and woodlands of family and neighbors. We called our hikes “patrols” and took turns being Patrol Leader. We had a blast, and learned a lot more from our dads who were motivated to teach us bushcraft -and hunting- skills well beyond those taught in the scout handbook. So, even indirectly, Scouting had a positive influence on my friends and me. All of us grew up to be productive members of society and good citizens, and remain lifelong friends.
I hope some group will fill the niche that scouting once occupied. It would be so good for many of today’s young people.
Former Cub Scout and Boy Scout here. Only made it to Life. My late, older brother was an Eagle Scout. There were a few great neighborhood fathers who served as our scout leaders. But there were some pretty sketchy ones, my brother’s Scout leader in particular. A goofy former Marine cook. I just don’t know what to think of the demise of the BSA.
But I will say I learned a lot of basic life skills getting merit badges. How to fix an electric lamp being one. It just created a “you can fix it yourself” mentality, which is really healthy, particularly when you’re younger and can’t afford to hire professional experts at every turn.
It was the result of a grave injustice.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2020/01/21/ruby-tuesday-ethics-round-up-1-21-2020-the-boy-scouts-are-going-down-curtis-flowers-is-getting-out-and-david-hogg-is-still-an-ignorant-yutz/
The crisis is greatly aggravated by the loosening statutes of limitations across the country.
The statutes ewere loosened retroactively.
It was wrong, it was immoral, it was unethical.
If the Boy Scouts were such a hotbed of sexual abuse, why do this? Why not rely on more recent incidents, instead of allowing people to make accusations of events that happened in the 1960’s?
I experienced a brutal exposure to today’s scouting about a decade ago. My church was hosting a Boy Scout troop and one of the boy had set fire to the bathroom. They were told to supervise the boys better and REALLY supervise that one. Well, he set the bathroom on fire a second time. The second time, there were a lot of witnesses because there were several other church functions going on at the same time. I was on the trustees and in the meeting investigating this.
What struck me the most was the fact that they had an EXTREMELY dishonest female scoutmaster. None of the three male scoutmasters would talk, she would silence them if they tried. She tried to deny there was a fire. She denied that she physically prevented church members, including members of the church council from entering the bathroom during and after the fire. When they read a written, signed statement from one of the witnesses, the scoutmaster said that the woman was hysterical and crazy (it was the minister’s wife she was talking about). She also disparaged the head of the church council. She denied the extent of the damage, suggesting is was ‘already like that’. Other wrongdoing by the scouts were also brought up. One member, testified that he came in one Saturday morning to mow and when he entered the garage to get the mowers, observed 2 teenage boys and a teenage girl in the loft. He called and reported it. He then mowed the 5 acre property and observed no cars but his in the parking lot and no adults on the property. He assumed they were teenagers doing what teenagers would do in a loft on Friday night. The scoutmaster accused him of being a pervert for thinking that because the three were scouts. She claimed that the three were being supervised by the scoutmasters the entire time. She was defiant the entire time, claiming the church was the one with a problem, and claiming we were evil, dirty minded people for not taking her word for everything. I knew one of the cowering, male scoutmasters. He said that the female scoutmaster accuses anyone who tries to stand up to her with sexual harassment or assault.
The scout troop in my town has been thrown out of at least 4 churches to my knowledge. AA has been thrown out of none. Alcoholics appear to be better behaved and more honest than the Boy Scouts. When I hear ‘Boy Scouts’, this is what I think of.
It’s easy to say it’s a Scouting problem here – but is it? I’ve noticed in all institutions involving children there is far less willingness to discipline kids in general.
This is a parent’s problem. Scouts (along with a wide array of children-oriented institutions) don’t exist to teach basic discipline. They exist to teach advanced skills to children who should be arriving with a modicum of self-reliance and self-control.
This is a parent problem and as far as I can tell, given it’s ubiquity, a societal disease.
Somewhere in the near past (1970s – 1990s) parents gave up.
Why?
(I can’t prove any of this, but: I feel like western civilization is still suffering from the wounds of the 1914-1945 cataclysm. And part of why we suck at raising kids is because the Greatest Generation – after suffering the Depression and being immersed in the battle against Totalitarianism – came home and vowed their own children would never suffer. Somehow down the line, that “never suffer” also came to include “never expected to do a thing as part of a household in terms of contributing or behaving” which simultaneously also so a drop in active disciplining of children for failure to behave or disciplining with an aim of teaching behavior.
Of course this doesn’t manifest widely for decades – because diseases spread slowly before they spread quickly.
Great thesis topic!
Can something like that be statistically demonstrated?
Or is it all the realm of reasonably believable conjecture, worldview and philosophy?
You’d always run into the correlation/causation problem even if statistics supported your thesis.
Although I agree to an extent, I think there’s much more at play. Your hypothesis would, in my opinion, express itself generationally–the greatest generation and some of the boomers would have swung hard toward giving their children a carefree life but then we would be in the middle of a hard swing back to the other side as Gen X and Millennials saw what an extreme lack of discipline will do.
But the trend continues and worsens. Kids in school can be as horrible as they want and many parents blame the school for any negative results their kid suffers because of misbehavior.
I think this speaks to a different culprit: technology and ease of life. A large percentage (majority?) of people today can live incredible lives with a minimum of effort. Most of us go from a comfortable 70 degree home to a comfortable car to a comfortable desk, put in a good 4 hours worth of solid brain effort (even if we’re there for 9 hours) and then go veg in front of a television until bedtime. We’re soft, physically, mentally, and emotionally, and it shows in what we expect of our children. A society that lacked discipline 300 years ago wouldn’t have survived the first famine or a very cold winter; today, if someone’s A/C breaks down during the summer, their lives are turned upside down. If someone says “illegal alien” then it makes the news. My kids start complaining if they have to walk more than 1 mile or do homework for more than an hour.
We’re getting to the “weak men make hard times” part of the cycle. The question is how much technology will mitigate the weakness and make us even weaker because there are no hard times to strengthen us.
I don’t subscribe to the hard times – strong men – good times – weak men pendulum theory. Though I do enjoy the memes the theory produces.
Yes, these societal maladies will express themselves generationally, which I hoped my original comment conveyed. I just don’t believe there’s a natural pendulum effect here where a degrading society suddenly un-degrades because of circumstances.
I don’t think there’s any historical evidence that this naturally occurs either. I think most of history consists of decadent and weakened cultures being violently supplanted by hardier and aggressive cultures. Which in turn, once settled, may decay and weaken.
Societies CAN “un-degrade”, but not because of a *natural* and *predictable* reaction to conditions caused by decadence.
I certainly agree that modern technology (which *exponentially* ballooned in ability to make us work less and produce more comfort in essentially the last 200 years and especially so in the last 75 years contributes to decay and weakening.
But none of that had to predicate parents no longer actively raising their kids to be responsible. May have made it easier to justify quitting parenting.
I would say that the theory doesn’t necessarily mean a society would un-degrade itself, but that something would happen (like a famine or a war) that would force the weak ones in the society (or weak societies altogether) to adapt or die, which fits with your comment about stronger societies taking over. It may not always be natural, but it would be predictable in that eventually someone will covet what they have or the natural world will throw them something they can’t handle, and the more decadent they’ve become, the more likely that thing will happen as their ability to deal with difficulties decreases.
But technology throws a wrench in that society-level evolutionary trend, just as it has with the individual-level evolutionary trend (stupid, less successful people are more likely to breed now), but that’s a topic for another time.
My point is that we as a society are no longer getting hit with roadblocks that require discipline, hard work, and resilience to overcome because technology has all but eliminated them. This is, in my opinion, the root of the lack of discipline we see in more people. The Wall-E world of an entire population of immobile fat people will probably never come to pass because there will always be a subset of the population that chooses to be disciplined, but the trend is clear. The obesity rate is a good example of the physical ramifications of technology–a large percentage of the population will, absent the threat of death or severe suffering, live in ways that are counterproductive to success, health, and longevity.
There’s no question that a lack of discipline and responsibility in your children makes for a worse life for both you and your children, just as there’s no question that being 200 lbs overweight makes your life less enjoyable. Yet both still happen, and happen more and more, as the consequences are removed from the actions that cause them.
Kids in school can be as horrible as they want and many parents blame the school for any negative results their kid suffers because of misbehavior.
Part of that are the parents remembering how arbitrary and capricious school rules were when they went to school (regardless of how grounded in reality their memories are)
You missed the problem. The problem was the ‘wokeness’ of their organization. The three male scoutmasters were powerless to point out the poisonous leadership because there was a woman in the leadership group. Because women can’t be challenged under threat of being cancelled, this toxic leadership was dominant.
They had a scout with problems. That is fine, scouting is supposed to be there for kids like that. However, children with a pyromania problem also need more supervision and this scoutmaster didn’t want to supervise. As another example of this, all groups at the church had to pay a janitorial fee or agree to clean up after themselves so that the next group didn’t have a mess. The scouts were continually leaving a mess. When the church complained she said ‘this is a rich church an you can afford to pay a janitor’. She refused to tell the kids to pick up the mess and put it in the trash can and when the male scoutmasters tried, she accused them of trying to undermine her leadership.
The scouts wanted to be ‘woke’ before ‘woke’ was a word because people hostile to their organization criticized them. This is like vegetarians complaining to Arby’s. Arby’s needs to just ignore them and market a meat-based vegetable. Trying to accommodate people who want you destroyed will just result in your destruction. The Boy Scouts needed to keep the girls out and the women out of leadership roles. The feminists did not want to make the Boy Scouts better, they wanted to destroy them.
I didn’t miss anything.
I don’t disagree that bad leadership and certainly intentional efforts to sabotage Boy Scout discipline are actively present.
However, the complaint that a boy actively trying to set a fire in a bathroom is something the Boy Scouts can solve, is what I’m addressing.
Can the Boy Scouts address such an extreme problem child in its midst – possibly. Can the Boy Scouts address man many problem children in its midst? Doubtful.
But then again, that’s the not the Boy Scouts job. Is the Boy Scouts an organization available for wayward kids to go find inclusion and stability. Certainly.
But we’re talking about a matter of degree.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect even wayward kids needing group inclusion to not think it’s ok to start fires in buildings.
This is a parent problem – and one so wide spread that I’m not certain even properly running scout troops can or should be expected to solve – try as they might. And they have to try if the kid is part of the group. But man, it’s a bigger problem than that.
Why are there women scout masters? Boy Scouts used to be a chance for Boys to be around … wait for it … men and get a leg up on becoming … wait for it … a man. What the hell are women doing being involved in Boy Scouts? Can’t they just stick to Girl Scouts? Jesus H. Christ. It’s like having girls softball players providing color commentary on fast pitch hardball games. Or having Doris Burke doing color commentary on NBA games. Can’t guys have a girl free anywhere anymore?
I’ve never had a problem with Girls learning the same skills as the Boy Scouts – even longer ago the Girl Scouts quit teaching girls anything and just became a cookie selling marketing scheme for bored hyper competitive wine moms. But on the balance of that, I also understand the innate need for Boys to have their own space and for Girls to have their own space. This isn’t sexism – it’s plain and simple cultural/social truth.
Bingo.
“a cookie selling marketing scheme for bored hyper competitive wine moms”
[Chortle] and bingo.
R.I.P. BSA
The Boy Scouts lost half their members during the pandemic. 2 million down to 1 million. In 2019, I chaperoned almost 20 scouts in my old troop at summer camp. The troop had 30+ active scouts overall, a roughly 30 year record high during my association.
Then the ‘lockdown’ occured. There is nothing sadder to observe than a Boy Scout meeting on Zoom. The troop now has about 10 active scouts. I can’t help but assume the pandemic was intentionally designed to undermine bedrock institutions.
No, it was meant to take over. Look at Australia, where the whole country was locked in their homes and they needed permission to go to the store, as long as it wasn’t more than a mile or so from their house. The same was almost accomplished in states like Michigan. That is what they were trying to do in the whole world. It was an attempted takeover through use of ’emergency powers’. If it weren’t for the people who refused to ‘comply’, it would have worked and it would have been permanent.
It’s harder and harder to not be a tin foil hatter with regards to the ‘pandemic’.
The black plague at least killed 1/3 to 1/2 of the population and so can rightfully take credit for the dramatic societal changes that followed.
It’s increasingly apparent that the Wuhan ‘Plague’, which didn’t really kill all that many people at all, can’t take any credit for the devastating societal effects that followed.
Nah, all the crap that followed – inflation, anxiety, loneliness, depression, brokenness, non-participation in institutions, etc – fully blamed on the *arbitrary* (and increasingly obviously unnecessary) reaction by ne’er-do-well-politicians seeking power.
And what’s even more concerning the apparent obviousness that the reaction would wreak societal havoc (and was warned at the time) – makes it seem like the negative effects were actually desired by those aforementioned miscreant politicians.
They werent’ ‘arbitrary’. They were all diametrically opposed to the preplanned pandemic responses that the public health agencies had developed over decades. The responses were also identical in all countries.
Not sure what your disagreement is here.
The very concept of public health is a scam and a fraud,. like Lysenokoism, phrenology, and Nazi racial theory!
The Boy Scouts had already ceased to exist in any recognizable form, having lost its reputation for advancing an ethical culture and for being skilled at guiding boys through adolescence into manhood.
What’s the point of criticizing the name change then?
This is some sort of weird Theseus Ship Paradox derivative. In Theseus’ Ship – one plank is removed from the original ship and replaced with a new plank. Each day, another plank is removed and then replaced with a new plank. The catch is – all the old removed planks are simultaneously being assembled into another ship.
After a few years time – all the planks, beams, masts, keel and connections have been removed and replaced while the old boards have been slowly assembled.
Which of the two ships is Theseus’ original ship.
Only in our derivative paradox – where the planks of the Boy Scouts are being removed and replaced – the final plank or at least one of the final planks is the name of the Boy Scouts. When did the Boy Scouts stop being the Boy Scouts? And if they stopped being so 2 decades ago, then the complaint can’t be about rebranding – where in this case the rebranding is at least an honest effort to market whatever they are now.
I’ve been reading a lot about the Roman Republic from the time of the Gracchus brothers until the official establishment of Augustus as king in all but name only. People like to say “that was the end of the Republic”. But it’s really hard to say when the “end of the republic” actually was – because as you read through the tumultuous century prior to Augustus – there’s a whole lot of anti-republican conduct by all facets of the so-called republic. So much so that I don’t really know how republican the Roman Republic actually ever was.
There’s no point trying to save something that doesn’t actually exist if the efforts claiming to save it either do nothing or actually speeds its demise. Protesting the changing of the name of the Boy Scouts to something else isn’t going to help save the boy scouts if it isn’t the same organization at all anyway.
I’ve never had a problem with Girls learning the same skills as the Boy Scouts – even longer ago the Girl Scouts quit teaching girls anything and just became a cookie selling marketing scheme for bored hyper competitive wine moms. But on the balance of that, I also understand the innate need for Boys to have their own space and for Girls to have their own space. This isn’t sexism – it’s plain and simple cultural/social truth.
Now, have the formerly named Scouts actually given up teaching ethics and civics and practical skills? Have they actually changed out all their planks from their original ship and taken up planks forming a whole new unrecognizable ship?
Or are they attempting to offer to Boys and Girls what had been offered to Boys and Girls before when the Girl Scouts weren’t a financial grift and parents of girls who didn’t want to play the vicious street level hawking of wares with other vicariously living parents had nowhere else to go? Only, in so offering the Scouts can’t really call themselves “Boy” Scouts anymore – can they?
Have the Scouts quit teaching the old skills and ethics and civics?
From what I can tell, most of the packs and dens or whatever they’re called (we don’t do scouting so I don’t know) are free to choose to be gender exclusive – either Boys only or girls only – or they can choose to be co-ed – with no repercussions either way.
You will note that the criticism is equivocal. However any name, change or otherwise, that is misleading and designed to be misleading is unethical. But “Desperately Pandering Children’s Organization That Has a History of Enabling Child Molesters” is too long.
My comment is equivocal?
No, Jack is saying his criticism of the BSA name change is equivocal, as he’s not sure if it is an honest attempt to start over, or a cynical attempt to hide it’s past.
Ah
The most recent incidents I have heard of happened over half a century ago.
If there were incidents of covering up sexual abuse that happened in the 2010’s, there would have been no need to retroactively extend the statute of limitations.
Have you ever thought about that?
Cub packs can be co-ed; troops are still single-sex, though they can do some joint activities.
‘joint activities”! What’s THAT supposed to mean????
For older people it means taking advil and wiping liniment on knees. For younger people… well…
Community service, Memorial Day flag placements & such. Both types of troops can attend summer camp or go, same time and place, on an outing.
Thanks. So then Scouting is really taking on the role that Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts used to handle in tandem because the modern Girl Scouts are now just an expensive cookie hustle.
I am writing because I think you have made some claims about Scouting that are just that–claims, not based in reality. “Decades of ethical rot” is a claim, and I see no proof, other than you hate the name change.
I was a Cub Scout and then a Boy Scout (and then Scouts BSA) leader for 12 years, and have 2 sons who are Eagle Scouts. My daughter was in Girl Scouts, and I was a leader for that group as well but took a back seat to two women who really ran the group. My role was more of the “get ’em outdoors” role for the girls.
First, I am not sure what the “ethical rot” entails. Was it un-banning homosexual scoutmasters and scouts? Scouting is not the place for sexual education nor sexual encounters; we don’t care what you do outside of scouting, provided it is legal and has no influence on your scouting experience. This is the real world, scouting goes up to 18, and there are times when boys or adults get in legal trouble, and we had to make a judgement call–but again, if it involved sex, other than criminal sexual activity, none of it is our business. “Morally straight” gives us an opportunity to talk about personal relationships in general, but we are guys who take kids camping, not sexual educators.
Second, GSA and BSA are not related organizations. They actually compete, and from my point of view, don’t like each other. Scouting America (the new name) is part of an international scouting movement; it was not founded here in America, nor is it headquartered here. The global scout movement is overwhelmingly co-ed. We were one of the ONLY scouting organizations that had limits on female participation. We ended this in large part because, frankly, it’s hard for families to join and have the girls not involved. My daughter did a LOT of homework at scout meetings, and wished she could have gone camping instead of selling cookies.
Third, we are not idiots. The idea that camping with adolescents would be co-ed is patently insane. The number of mean-spirited and frankly disgusting comments about “pregnancy merit badges” that were provided by ex-scouts (or claimed ex-scouts) when girls were allowed into the “core” program was shocking, and reflected a desire (I believe) to find a “woke enemy” within scouting that would justify these ridiculous assumptions. We are not naive. We do not have co-ed scouts share tents, or even campouts. Also, the change is not at all as shocking as people make it out to be. Girls have been involved in aspects of Scouting for 50 years, nearly half the lifespan of scouting in America–Sea Scouts, Venture Crews, and cub scouts have been co-ed for a long time. The challenge is with adolescents, and there we still focus on single-sex groups and experiences, which are frankly better for the kids.
Fourth, I’m not sure how Scouting could have handled the sexual abuse scandals differently. They happened; they also were happening, at the same time (pre-1986), in literally every organization where youth were served. There isn’t a church, school, sport, or other large organization that wasn’t overmatched by what we understood abuse to be at the time. None of us knew how manipulative predators are, nor was the legal framework ready to deal with respected adults being accused of horrific acts. Scouting’s main sin, and it’s a big one, was not contacting authorities when abuse was found; they had a failure to protect, and they have owned it. In owning their culpability, which is ethical, they have given the impression they were uniquely horrible. Again, their crime was underestimating the manipulative long-game of predators, and believing, in their hubris, that they could handle these things internally. They couldn’t. They shouldn’t have.
What is interesting, however, is that since the mid-1980s Scouting has done exactly what every other organization should have done–they invited people who knew how to prevent predators from infiltrating an organization to tell them what to do, and we do it. Rule 1 is, never allow a child alone with an adult. If USA Swimming, USA Gymnastics, or the Catholic Church had followed a similar rule, we’d be in a much better place, and have spared a lot of youth a lot of pain. We can’t go back, but we can act in an ethical manner going forward. Protecting youth is a bare minimum standard. Again, not sure I see any “moral rot” there, I see bravery and accountability, and an institution that (correctly) believes that it is not more important than the people it serves.
The focus of scouting, still, is, as always, character, citizenship, and fitness. At a time when children live in social media bubbles, “no child left indoors” seems more importat than ever. If we are trying to widen the appeal so that more children can benefit from scouting, I make no apologies and am frankly amazed at the hostility. The fact that you find the name change to be emblematic of “decades of rot” is lazy and uninformed. There are 1.2 million adults serving 1 million youth today, and it’s nearly all volunteer time. America could use a lot more scouting and a lot less hand wringing.
What would you call the wave of child molesting predators that BSA didn’t vet or properly oversee before they harmed children? It’s the same ethical rot the Catholic Church allowed itself to be corrupted by. The organization betrayed its own values and the trust of parents who allowed their children to be under the power of these people. Baden-Powell was a likely victim of an unhealthy affection for young boys, even though he probably never acted on it. But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that such an organization would be magnet for pederasts. As I have written, scouting has done a lot of wonderful things for a lot of kids, notably my father. But like many other worthwhile organizations, it failed its own values. How can you deny that?
My daughter and I attended her twin brothers’ Cub Scout meetings, partly because one of my sons was autistic and needed parental supervision to participate in Cub Scouts, and partly because my daughter was too young to be left at home by herself, and so had to come to Cub Scouts as well. My daughter enjoyed participating in some of the Cub Scout activities (f.ex., play-acting an animal scavenging the Scouts’ camping food, using her brothers’ Pinewood Derby cars to have our Nativity figurines compete in drag races at home), but it was clear to everyone that she was NOT an official member of the Cub Scout pack. Once she was old enough for Daisy Scouts in kindergarten, she was happy to participate in Girl Scouts, at least until she reached middle-school age and there were a ton of other after-school activities competing for her time. She had no desire to join a Cub Scout pack or Boy Scout troop, and was pretty confident in the ‘Oughts (as I had been as a Girl Scout in the late 1960s) that “Boy Scouts were for boys and Girl Scouts were for girls.”Sincerely,Catherine McClarey(Tried logging in to comment with my Facebook credentials, but once again just got a repeat of the blog post, with no indication that I had successfully logged in.)
What would you call the wave of child molesting predators that BSA didn’t vet or properly oversee before they harmed children?
Something that happened in the 1980’s, at the latest.
I never heard of an abuse case that happened in the 2000’s, let alone the 2010’s.
Were there even any accusations of sexual abuse occurring in the Boy Scouts during the 2010’s?
If there are, not as much attention is being paid toward these accusations as conpared to the attention paid accusations dating back to the 1980’s, let alone the 1960’s.