I've seen a lot of complaints lately about how Boy Scouts have rebranded themselves as just Scouts and are allowing people of all genders to join.

I haven't seen a single complaint that is reasonable.

The most common criticism I've seen is that it has something to do with gender, or transgender folx, or "damn liberals" or whatever.

First of all, Boy Scouts has always been a traditionally conservative organization, so it's definitely not "damn liberals".

What it really is, is capitalism doing what capitalism does in the way it was designed to do it.

Anyone who champions capitalism should be looking at this with at most complete support, and at least a level of apathy because it actually doesn't affect them in any way.

There was a hole in the market.

A majority of the women I know who were in Girl Scouts say that they would have rather been in Boy Scouts because it looked more fun.

These women are straight and not transgender.

The organization they were in was not catering to their wants. The Boy Scouts would have.

This means there was a hole in the market.

A free market fills that hole. That's why Boy Scouts/Scouts decided to fill it.

Girl Scouts had an opportunity to adapt to the market and change their offering. They chose not to.

Boy Scouts/Scouts saw the opportunity. They changed their offering. Now they are getting more members, which generates more revenue for them.

This is how capitalism was designed to work.

This is capitalism.

The Boy Scouts offered activities that were not offered in Girl Scouts, and many girls wanted to participate in those activities. It really is that simple.

Okay but what about teenagers and sex?

What about it?

Yeah, they're gonna have sex. They always have.

This isn't going to change.

Gender agnostic organizations aren't going to facilitate more teenage sex.

After all, there are plenty of other camps, summer camps, churches, etc, that put together lots of coed events.

If you're complaining about Scouts having coed camps but not churches, it's clear that your issues are related to your agenda.

In fact, the summer between 8th and 9th grade, I had a female friend who was molested by one of her male friends...on a church trip.

The failure was on the part of the chaperones. And, probably, whoever failed to raise the boy to teach him better.

Obviously this wouldn't have happened had they had a camp of only one gender.

That's kind of my point though...coed camps exist and things happen. Unless we stop all coed camps and not just pick and choose the ones we like or don't like, we're not being reasonable.

Or, and this is just my opinion here, we teach our children not to molest other people. And improve chaperoning.

But if you think that just because a camp is a church camp that the teenagers have a higher moral capacity...don't kid yourself.

What about Scout leaders molesting the girls?

This is an actual problem that already exists in Boy Scouts. Except, with the boys being molested.

But it's not exclusive to scouting, and it's not because of any specific gender segregation.

The LA Times found that between 1947 and 2005, over 5000 men, and a handful of women, had been expelled from Boy Scout leadership positions on suspicion of molesting the children [1].

That's pretty messed up.

What makes it worse is that the BSA didn't even start reporting allegations of sexual misconduct between leadership and scouts to the police until 2010.

I digress and point out that again, there are plenty of coed organizations (churches!!) who also have this problem.

Supporting one but not others, or not supporting one but not others, shows your true agenda.

What are your thoughts?

This blog doesn't have a comments option, but I'd love for you to write your own post, link to this one, and email me your post.


[1] http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/boyscouts-cases/