Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    I think the family should spend more energy making the girl scouts
    more exciting for the girls.
    
    
    bonnie

I heard about this a few days ago.....it would seem to me that Girl 
Scouting can/should be/must be about giving girls a wide variety of 
experiances that they need to assist them with living and doing whatever 
they choose. Whether that is learning camping skills, crafts and hobbies as 
traditionally taught in the scouting groups, or expanding now to include 
anything else that leaders may feel comfortable doing with them. The 
interaction of just a group of girls and adult leaders that they can look 
up to is just as important as boys having a similar interaction with other 
boys and leaders. Kids need not be in mixed settings all the time to learn 
how to get along and live successfully.

Personal opinion only....the last reply about her parents working to make 
the Girl Scout program better is a lot more useful than forcing their 
daughter into the Boy Scouts because the program is perceived to be more 
interesting. Of course, that might involve the parents with having to 
actually *DO SOMETHING* with the local Girl Scout group to make it better.

The unfortunate problem is, many parents do not want to be an active 
participant with the child's organization, only criticize those who run the 
program. They prefer a babysitting service for their child rather than an 
opportunity to work with their kid and other kids and help them grow. Talk 
to any scout leader, or other youth leader; they will tell you that getting 
parents to work in the program is extremely difficult until you force them 
into helping out.

    Vic H

    I'm with point .1
    
    As far as .2 is concerned:  SHE may want to join the boyscouts. Meaning
    her parents aren't necesarily forcing her to join.
    
    And I believe the parents do have the time to help with the girl scouts
    if for no other reason than legal battles require a lot of personal
    time regardless of how good your lawyer is.
    
    
    
                                  L.J.

Unfortunately, there is no equivalent for boy scouts for girls, and girl
scouts has a lot of inertia - a LOT of parents working for a LONG time
might be able to make girl scouts more of a parallel for boy scouts, but
by that time, the girl will be too old to take advantage of it.

Frankly, I'm not real impressed with the boy scouts these days - they
recently kicked out on of their members (an Eagle scout - you have to
be a boy scout for a long time to make it to that level) for being
gay.

D!

    The point of the girl wanting to join the boy scouts was that the
    boy scouts went away to camp and the local girl scouts didn't....
    She tried to get a court order so she could go and was turned down.
    I beleive that her family (Father and brothers) went to this camp
    and she wanted to go also but was told she couldn't....
    
    REK

    actually I think scouting varies widely in quality, and in challenge
    level, and in the amount of "regulations" applied. 
    
    In Mass, I called them (tongue firmly in cheek) the Girl Scout Gestapo. 
    You MUST do things the RIGHT way.  To be allowed to drive brownies from
    Westford to the apple juice plant in Littleton I would have had to take
    the all-day 8-hour how-to-be-a-helper-to-the-troop-leader course.  Give
    me a break.
    
    In Vt, they said, "can you help with driving?"
    
    I agree, let the parents get involved.  Start their own troop, and do
    what they want with it.
    
    Heck, they might even start a whole new club, boys and girls invited!

    Heck, they might even start a whole new club, boys and girls invited!

You don't even need to do that - such clubs already exist.  "Boys Clubs"
exist in most cities and admit both girls and boys, and I believe that
the "campfire girls" is now co-ed???  And there is always the YMCA...

D!

	The Boy Scouts are a private organization, and as such, should
	be allowed to make whatever rules they choose. Those who do not
	wish to abide by those rules are free to start a private
	organization with whatever rules suit them.

	re "How to be a helper course". Sadly, in this day and age,
	youth organizations often cannot obtain liability insurance 
	against lawsuits arising from physical and/or sexual abuse 
	by leaders. Because of this many youth organizations have had to 
	impose some rather strict procedures, including leader training,
	if the organization wishes to continue to exist at all. Some
	of these are certainly beneficial, certainly any program that reduces
	abuse is to be applauded, regardless of the reason the program 
	was brought into being. But some things will be lost - for example,
	when I was a scout, one of the last things that was done prior to
	achieving a new rank was a conference with the Scoutmaster. Now,
	my Scoutmaster was a wonderful person, and those talks were very
	valuable experiences for me. However, it is my understanding that
	the scouts have changed the rules to prevent any possibility of
	such a private one-on-one meeting, because of the obvious opportunity
	for an unscrupulous leader to use such a situation for abuse. I think
	it sad that others will be deprived of a situation that I found 
	valuable.

						Tom_K

Yes, they're a private org, and their rights to freely associate let them
legally discriminate against gays, and not permit girls to join, etc.  But
that has recently cost them a $9,000 grant from the Bay Area United Way,
which has explicit policies against discrimination due to gender or sexual
orientation.  In light of the previously mentioned lawsuit which the BSA
won, which let stand their refusal to allow gay scouts, United Way organizations
across the country are re-examining their policies with regard to supporting
the BSA.  In the Bay Area, United Way in the past has paid some 20% of BSA
costs, and figures are comparable nationwide.  If UW nationwide does decide
to stop supporting this discriminatory organization, it will cost the BSA
tens of millions of dollars.

DougO

I think the tendency to separate and harden gender roles starting at
any early age is very unfortunate.  I don't understand why girls
shouldn't be allowed to join especially if the boy scouts have
activities not available elsewhere.  I was also very dismayed that a
gay man was kicked out of the Scouts for being gay.

I know the scouts have a lot of great activities for boys but I also
find all the emphasis on acheivement, uniforms, rank, and hierarhcy to be very
oppressive to boys (and to them as men when they grow older).

    
    
    RE:   .10
    
    I big problem with girls in Boy Scouts is that there just are not the
    facilities for girls in place.
    
    And, FWIW, the uniforms, rank, and hierarchy of Boy Scouts has been one
    of the best things to make to me an organized college student and
    a leader.
    
    N
    

    Things very from place to place and from leader to leader.  My wife is
    a fantastic leader.  The girls in her troop are receiving one heck of
    a supplemental education.  As a troop they've travelled to New York
    City, to Montreal for the ice carnival, camped with Canadian Girl Scouts 
    (most of whom spoke no English) in Quebec, watched Halley's comet, etc., 
    etc, etc.  I'm a Girl Scout myself, and just received my 5 year pin.  
    
    	- Vick

Vick,

there is only so much a leader can do.

The Girl scouts of America decide on, for instance, badge subjects.  I don't
know about now, but when I was a girl scout 11 years ago, boys had badges
for things like 'auto repair', 'fire making', 'wood carving', and girl
scouts had badges for things like 'housekeeping', 'cooking', 'languages'
and 'music.'

Field trips to ice carnivals are all well and good, but I always wanted
to be in boy scouts because they did things like camping, learning how to
shoot and make fires and whittle, they went fishing and stuff like that.
We went on balloon rides and made dolls.  

D!

I just read where the BS just won a court case allowing them to keep an atheist
child out. Seems they are being "challenged" on all fronts. liesl

    re: .11 What do you mean by "facilities"?  I can't imagine what that
    might mean besides "bathrooms" but that one doesn't count in my book.

    re: .14 How bizarre.  How tragic.  I really find it impossible to 
    comprehend _how_ they might have done that.
    
    CQ

    
    re:  .12    It's great to hear that your wife takes the initiative to
    do some interesting things.
    
    This topic brings back memories for me of all the things I couldn't do
    growing up because I was a girl.  My father was a Boy Scout leader so I
    saw the inequities first hand.  Yes - I was a Girl Scout for awhile.
    My brother and father got to go to camp every year - no one else did.
    
    I really think it would help if Girl Scouts could offer a better
    alternative.  I never really cared if it was a chance to go camping
    with the boys, but rather that I got to do the things they did.  Does
    it have something to do with the stereotypical roles of men and women
    and that most women leaders are not comfortable with some of these
    activities, having not done them themselves?
    
    Maybe it would be better to have co-ed leaders instead of pushing for
    co-ed scouts.  Then the children will get an influence from both.
    
    Mary

    As a girl, who's had 3 brother go through scouting, I can understand 
    this little girl.  I attended all the den & pack meetings, got to
    do all the activities (because I was there) but couldn't get any
    recognition for my accomplishments.
    
    According to the little girl (I saw her on one of the talk shows), her
    mother is a den leader, father is heavily involved & she's been doing
    all the activities all along. But when she wanted recognition it was
    denied.  She's a girl.
    
    Scouting claims to be a family activity.  Families do include girls
    too.

    re: .11 What do you mean by "facilities"?  I can't imagine what that
    might mean besides "bathrooms" but that one doesn't count in my book.

    
    Bathrooms, showers, swimming changing areas, tents, feminine first aid,
    birth control, 
    
    
    
    Nick
    

    I think things have changed somewhat.  Girl Scouts certainly go
    camping.  My wife takes them on at least two campouts a year.  They
    learn things like making fires, cooking and baking at a campfire,
    they take nature hikes, learn to tie knots, sing songs around the
    campfire and perform skits, canoe, swim, orienteer, learn first aid.  I 
    don't know if they ever whittle, and I don't think they ever learn how
    to shoot, though at camp they may do archery.  Frankly, though I
    enjoyed being in Boy Scouts, I later came to realize what a
    para-military experience it had been.  It was really deja vu when I
    went through boot camp.  I like the spirit of the Girl Scouts much
    better.  It breeds cooperation, self-love, and care for the earth.
    I never felt that in the Boy Scouts.
    						- Vick
    
    P.S.  As for facilities.  I agree that I can't imagine what you mean.
    I go along on most of the campouts and there is never a problem.  An
    out-house is an out-house.  They are unisex.

>>    P.S.  As for facilities.  I agree that I can't imagine what you mean.
>>    I go along on most of the campouts and there is never a problem.  An
>>    out-house is an out-house.  They are unisex.
    
    
    An outhouse is not Unisex when the only one for miles is being used by
    20 males.
    

    It's true that there are discriminatory public and private
    organizations, and that that is deplorable (in my book, anyway).  Such
    discriminatory practices are to be mandated away (where legal to do so)
    and worked against (action ranges from education to pressure to
    boycotting to ignoring) where the orgainzation is within their
    constitutional rights.
    
    But let us not forget that we also have our own lives, and can do
    things in our own lives to get what we need.
    
    I learned to fish, make safe fires, use a knife, make rafts from logs
    and rope, swim, cook in the open, find wild foods, lash, find my way in
    the woods, not be found in the woods -- all that "scout" stuff -- in
    the woods with my brothers.  I learned the basics of archery and shooting
    at camp.  I learned about unselfish devotion from my mother.  I learned
    about rigorous honesty from my father.
    
    I figure I had a pretty good start, without extensive help from
    scouting, which I got bored with quick and quit.
    
    sara
    

    p.s., Nick, if an outhouse has a door it is unisex.  The issue is not
    about facilities, it really is only this:
    
    are the boy scouts within their rights to exclude girls?
    
    If yes (as a private org), then there's no problem with facilities.
    If no, then the problem with facilities is just a straw, um, man.
    
    I personally think that the boy scouts are discriminatory, but are a
    private club with little impact on rights, access to jobs and public
    benefits etc, and so there's not much to be done about it.  But I do
    think they should ban den mothers, if they are going to deny girls
    entrance.
    
    sara
    

re: .19

    Tents?   Girls don't need special tents, only at most separate tents.
    For that matter, so do boys.  So if the Boy Scouts "don't have the
    facilities", that should apply equally to both, right?

    Showers?  How many camps have these anyway?  How often did you take
    a shower at a den meeting?  And how many people were in there at once
    anyway?

    Feminine first aid?  What the heck is *this*?  A couple of sanitary
    napkins?  Available at your local supermarket for a few dollars.

    Birth control?  Yeah *right*.  Supplied by the scout troop?  (I can't
    help wondering here how the Boy Scouts define "always", as in "always
    be prepared".  If troop-supplied birth control is part of this boy scout
    credo, how come they don't have it already?)

    "Don't have the facilities" is an EXCUSE.  There are coed scout troops
    around (the Explorers), and I'm not aware that their "facilities" are
    any more extensive than those of the Boy or Girl Scouts.

        Sharon

    
    
    RE: .23
    
    
    Let me paint you a mental picture of an outhouse at Philmont, a Scout
    camp in New Mexico:
    
    "Two holes in the ground with seats on them."  No walls, no doors.
    
    
    Let me paint you a mental picture of facilities at more "modern" camps:
    
    "4 walls.  No doors.  2 toilets, 1 urinal, 1 shower head, 1 sink"
    
    To answer your, um, question, um, woman,
    
    Yes, the Boy Scouts are within their rights.
    
    nick
    
    

    
    
    RE:  Den mothers, Den meetings
    
    That's Cub Scouts, not Boy Scouts
    
    
    (Big difference)
    

    I can't help thinking that the problem in this particular case isn't
    that the girl can't join the boy scouts, but that the girl's parents
    are so heavily involved in her brother's (I'm assuming that's why
    they're involved, anyway) activities and not in "hers".

    There's nothing to prevent them being involved in Girl Scouts, or to
    prevent the Girl Scout troop from being similar to the Boy Scout troop.
    Leaders *do* have a lot of leeway... my troops did a lot of camping
    and traveling (and fundraising to support those activities!).

    In the Boy Scouts, a girl is highly unlikely to get much in the way
    of leadership experience, and less, I think, out of scouting.  
    Here, I feel her parents are failing her, wanting her to join not so 
    much for the sake of equality as for the sake of convenience.  If she 
    were able to experience that level of parental involvement elsewhere 
    *and* get recognition, joining the Boy Scouts probably wouldn't be an
    issue.  I feel sorry for this girl - her parents seem to feel that 
    second-best is good enough for her, but are willing to give their all
    for the boys.

        Sharon

    >An outhouse is not Unisex when the only one for miles is being used by
    >20 males.
    
    Now wait.  The long lines are always at the outhouse marked "W"
    
    :^)
    - Vick
    
    P.S.  Most outhouses I've encountered would not hold 20 boys.  Not
    unless it was some kind of a contest.
    
    P.P.S.  As has been pointed out, the issue of facilities is just an
    excuse.  It is simple and cheap to make facilities coed.  Of course,
    if the BSA gets all its funding cut off because of its discriminatory
    practices, then they might not be able to afford more than a hole in
    the ground.

    And...
    
    When parents come along to help with my wife's troop's activities, they
    bring their sons if they want to.
    
    						- Vick

    
    re Nick:
    
    Baloney!  I hike/camp in the woods in mixed-gender groups, with
    friends and acquaintances.  I go to the outhouse (never marked
    for a certain gender) or take a leak in the woods.
    Is it a BFD? No!
    
    Go over to Hiking Notes and suggest that you need separate outhouses
    and trees for girls/boys when out camping.  You'll get laughed outta
    there faster than it takes to take a leak in the woods!
    

    
    The quality of activities available for girl scouts is very
    dependent on the quality of leaders a troop is able to get.
    I hate to spout off a stereotype (but it really fit in the town
    in which I grew up), but it seems/seemed to me that most women
    (and those are the ones that volunteer as leaders) despise
    camping out (or at least more women than men).
    
    That said, I remember in 4th grade having a wonderful girl
    scout leader.  She took us camping.  It was the only time I
    got to go camping in scouts, because she retired from leading
    the next year.  The only women who would take over the troop
    said they would absolutely *refuse* if they ("....oooh!! yucky
    poo-poo! my *hair* might get messed up and there's no place to
    plug in my hairdryer") had to ....GO CAMPING!  The worst
    punishment!!
    
    We girls knew this up front but stayed in the scouts - because
    of the friendships and because it was still the only thing in
    town to do for girls that age.  BUT!  We spent the entire year
    pissing and moaning about not being able to go camping.  We
    WANTED to camp!
    

    
>>    re Nick:
    
>>    Baloney!  I hike/camp in the woods in mixed-gender groups, with
>>    friends and acquaintances.  I go to the outhouse (never marked
>>    for a certain gender) or take a leak in the woods.
>>    Is it a BFD? No!
    
    
    I'm sure that you and your mature friends are VERY considerate of the
    opposite gender.  I'm sure you and your camping pals are very
    responsible people.
    
    
    But, you should realize that we are talking about 14-18 year old boys.
    Out in the woods, away from their parents.
    
    
    Try not to be so condensending towards me.  I have been there; you have
    no idea about the way we acted.
    
    Nick
        

    
    re .32:
    
    Every Scout troup I'm aware of has adult chaperones.
    

    
    
    RE:  .33
    
    
    Again, you are talking about something of which you know nothing about.
    
    We had one, maybe two adult leaders.  30 boys.  200 acres.
    

    Connecticut College has coed bathrooms!
    
    An idea that would have been OUTRAGEOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE a generation (or
    more ago)
    
    The only problem my daughter finds with coed terlits is that male
    teenagers are slobs. The terlit is always dirty!
    

    
    
    RE:  .35
    
    
    Uhm, was that supposed to go in another topic?
    

    re <was that supposed to...
    
    no
    just an example of how traditional ideas can be overcome.

    well I thought .35 was relevant.  In college, I was one of the women
    who lived in a coed dorm the first semester it went coed, after having
    been a small and close-knit men's dorm.  Not every one of the men liked
    the idea of going coed, but something like 90% had approved it. 
    Bathrooms were a sticky point; we managed it, with a mixture of common
    sense and consideration.
    
    who'd'a thunk it.
    
    Nick, all anybody is saying is that bathrooms are an issue raised only
    to forestall the real issue.  If the real issue was agreed upon, there
    would be no problem solving the bathroom issue.
    
    There are mixed-gender camping groups, even for kids, that work.  The
    CCC in Vt, for ex, is a mixed-gender group of teens that camp in
    various parts of the state and work as volunteers on conservation
    projects.  They are supervised in their work and accomodations as a
    mixed group.  The biggest issue I've ever heard of for them was last
    week when the swimmers from the nude beach on (lake X) came on over to
    the teen-CCC'ers beach to swim, but didn't bring their suits.
    
    sara
    

    The Supreme Court recently decided that even if a "club" is private it
    may not discriminate on gender if there is a demonstable advantage to
    being a member of that club (business contacts for instance)
    
    If the Girl Scouts organization *consistently* offer fewer leadership
    and scouting opportunities to their participants, there is a solid
    legal precedent for making scouting a coed activity.
    
    -daniel

    > But, you should realize that we are talking about 14-18 year old boys.
    > Out in the woods, away from their parents.
    
    Nick, my son has hiked/camped for weeks at a time in co-ed groups for
    the last three summers.  I haven't been along with him/them on any of
    these outings.  He's now 17.  That means he started these
    experiences when he was 14.  He has one more year to go to span the age
    grouping you've mentioned.  These back-woods experiences have taught
    him, and the others along with him, how to live in the woods without
    impacting nature.  That means using leaves as toilet paper and burying
    one's own waste when outhouses were unavailable.  Girls and boys alike.
    From what I hear, there have been no complaints from campers, leaders,
    or parents about these arrangements.  I know I don't have any problem
    with them.
    
    In fact, the only complaint I've heard about any of his experiences
    were about the food!
    
    Karen 
    
    P.S.  My daughter also took part in this type of experience, though in
    different groups than my son.  Everything I've said above applies just
    as readily to her, including the complaints about the food.

    re .36
    
    News flash! Scouting *IS* coed.
    
    If the Girl Scouts aren't serving their purpose then change the
    Girl Scouts.
    
                                       L.J.

    
    
    Karen, I'm sure your son and daughter are excellent campers and fine
    young adults.  And thank you for sharing with me the fact that there
    are outdoor groups that have co-ed interaction in-place and working
    well. 
    
    I do not believe that can be the case with Boy Scouts.  I think it can
    be in the distant future, but what happens to the people affected by
    the transition?   ie a troop with 30 Boy Scouts and 1 Girl Scout.
    
    Nick
    

    Back when I was a Girl Scout, didn't so much want to be a Boy Scout as
    I wanted to be an Eagle Scout.
    
    I couldn't be an Eagle Scout, because it was/is a 'boy thing.'
    
    Nothing prevented me from doing the things a young man would do in
    order to attain this level of scout-hood; and the Girl Scouts provided
    the opportunity to rise to a similar girl-level [I assume that GSA
    still does] -- although GSA was slim on resources and I had to find my
    own, but then Eagle-Scout-Hood requires a good deal of resourcing for
    oneself as well so that's not a problem.
    
    Well I did it and I'm mighty proud of myself. I done good and I know
    it.  Yes, that's the _most_ important part.
    
    But Eagle Scout sure has a lot more PR bennies, than what I have. 
    
    I'm still a bit bitter that my Eagle Scout friends can reap the public
    benefits of their acheivement; whilst I my acheivement would be
    dismissed as a 'girl-thing' -- I mean _hell_ we did the _same_stuff_;
    some of us even went through the same 5 survival/environmental
    encounters/courses together.
    
      Annie

    
    One thing that ALOT of people always like to forget. 
    There IS a differance between boys and girls. 
    There is 'something' that happens when you get boys and girls
    together. I find that when my son and his friends are around girls,
    they stop acting like boys and start acting like love struck little
    puppies. 
    And the girls do the same thing...
    
    I see nothing wrong with an organization where ME teach boys what it
    means to be a BOY.  
    
    This isn't a new concept. It has been going on since the beginning
    of time. Indians. There was always a male influence in a young boys
    life.....someone to help him grow into a man.  His mentor.
    
    I see that the problem is with the girl scouts who try to teach the
    girls things like knitting and square dancing. They are the
    organization who should move forward and teach the girls to be
    women of the 90s!
    
    One side point, it seems that we do talk out the sides of our mouths
    when the opportunity arises. 
    We want all the freedoms of private individuals, we want to be able to
    say what we want without being censored, we want to be able to go
    anywhere and do anything that we deem morally correct, because we are
    private individuals with our own rights. 
    But is a private organization any differant??
    Really. I mean, if I want to start up my OWN private club for
    short 157lb. blonds ONLY, and I am not receiving money from the tax
    payers, then I should have the right to decide WHO and WHAT I want to
    associate with. It is my RIGHT as a private citizen of this FREE
    country.  What's the differance? If they do not abide by rules set
    forth by the United Way for a grant, then it is up to the UW to stop
    giving them money. 
    
    As a mom, I wouldn't be pleased to find out that the LAW made it OK for
    17 year old boys to be going to Girl Scout Camp with my daughter.
    
    cathy
    

While it's true that in general, boys and girls are different in many
ways, this leaves the important questions (in my view) left
unanswered.

Namely, why this difference and is a good or bad (or neither) thing?

In my view, there is not a whole lot of gender difference based on
biology (some studies with babies point to some differences), there is
certainly tons of gender-based conditioning that boys and girls get
starting at birth (if not before these days).  Doesn't saying what
girls should be and what boys should be limit the freedom and
potential of both boys and girls?  When kids get older, the separation
starts in earnest with separate boys and girls lines in school and
discouragement of mixed groups and so forth and groups like the boy
scouts and girl scout.  Then we wonder when we grow up why we can't
communicate and understand each other.  Could it be that we have been
separate for a long time and that we have been conditioned in very
different ways so that we seem sometimes like aliens to each other?

I strongly support mixed-gender groups and activities and also having
"role models" of both sexes around for kids.  Let's start getting
along earlier.  Maybe it won't be such a problem later.
I found myself that male-only groups when I was younger were a
breeding grounds of macho-posturing, misogyny, sexism, and brutality.

While it's true that many aboriginal societies had gender specific
conditioning, it's also true that many of these societies had more
equal power among the sexes.  In many cases too, there were outlets
(iem the Berdeche) for those who choose to live the role of the
opposite sex.  Also, difference in physical strength and child-bearing
made this necessary.  It is not clear to me whether that is the case
in today's world.  

I find many of the paramilitiary aspects of the boy scouts disturbing.
There's such an emphasis on rank, achievement, and hierarchy.  I think
it's very artificial and oppressive.  It really starts the whole
competition, and emphasis on acheievement and success and power that
in my view is at the root of a lot of the problems that we men are
having these days.  Is all that stuff really needed for boys to learn,
have fun, and be together.  I can't see why.

Nick, you said that you felt that all that stuff helped you become a
leader.  That's fine but different kinds of leadership are possible.
The traditional male model of leadership is based on power, rank,
competition, and authority.  It's a very top-down model based on
power.  I think it's very destructive to people and to what has been
happening to our earth.  Other models are based on consensus, respect,
and honoring each other and our earth.  A true leader does not rely on
authority, rank, and position in my view but in personal integrity,
respect, and being the facilitor and voice for the group.  There is an
analogy I heard from a tribal leader one time.  He said I am not the
top block on the pyramid like you have in the dominant culture.  My
people are in a circle, one people and I am their cane leading them
where we want to go.

john

    
    
    In my opinion, a true leader has to have rank and authority along with
    personal integrity.  Some people will only respect a leader that has
    personal integrity.  Other people respect their leader simply because
    he has authority.
    
    I'm not saying that people should just blindly follow someone with
    authority, but it seems like some do.
    
    N
    

    One of the major complaints about Girl Scouts that I have heard and
    am still hearing is the way the troops are run/organized.   If there
    is a troop at School A and you attend School A, you can only join
    the troop from School A, whether or not the Troop from School B is
    better or more interesting.  The only choice is join Troop A or 
    don't belong at all.
    
    A woman I know is still involved in Scouts.  She used to be a camp
    couselor in upstate New York near where she lived.  So there ARE
    camps.  Just depends on where you live.  Penny's mother was her
    scout leader and had the girls involved in everything possible,
    not just "normal girl stuff".  
    
    A lot depends on locality and the troop leaders, not Girl Scouts
    as a whole.
    
    linda
    who was not allowed to join because of cost. :-(
    
    

John, and Vic a litle earlier, mentioned some of the aspects of scouting that
eventually came to bother me, too.  I've mentioned quite a bit of it earlier
in mennotes, but I know many readers here don't read that conference, so I'll
recap, briefly.  The 'paramilitary' stuff doesn't quite start in scouting, as
John mentioned (which, by the way, is for boys between the ages of 11-17, not 
14-18 as Nick stated.)  It starts much earlier, in cub scouting, and in other
organizations, though not quite so obviously; I'm thinking of any youthful
activities which require uniformity, specifically in the wearing of uniforms
and in the fostering of competitive, "us vs them" mentalities in little kids.
Cub scouts (ages 8-10), YMCA Y-Indian Guides (younger), and even sports teams
like Little League and soccer, can be forums where adults will instill quite
negative as well as positive messages to the impressionable kids.  And some of
the results can be far-reaching; I never even thought that someone like Annie
would resent the fact that she isn't even able to attempt to achieve the rank
of Eagle Scout, though its obvious now that she says it.  Effects like that on
the growth of kids are insidously negative, and quite hidden.  I guess I'm not
100% down on scouting, but its got a lot more negative impacts on kids both in
and out of the program than its supporters usually care to admit.

Nick is speaking of some of these aspects of scouting as if they were 
uniformly positive, with words like "leadership" and "authority".  I'm not 
so enamoured of those two concepts any more, though I paid them quite a bit 
of homage throughout my formative years.  I did the scouting thing and made
high rank, and served as patrol leader and senior patrol leader and junior
assistant scoutmaster and worked in a camp as a full-time staff member for
three summers; I also did marching band and was a "leader" there, too (as a 
drum major); so I know of what I speak.  In some ways, when scouting was
about having fun and doing neat activities, then the whole structure and
'authority' and 'leadership' schticks seemed useful, in that through the
structure the activities could be more efficiently accomplished, giving us
as more fun and leading us to a sense of accomplishment.  But it was in
exactly the fact that the focus was NOT on the leadership, it was on the
activity, that I learned the best lessons about leadership.  When they tried
to explicitly teach us 'leadership' it was boring, it was pedantic, it was
(as often as not) wrong, in the sense that some idiot adult had read JFK's
book too recently and was spouting things he didn't know how to communicate,
or something equally ludicrous.  And in some very real senses, teaching boys
to respect authority is teaching them to be sheep, or good cannon fodder, or
unthinking acceptors of the status quo; and as a feminist I very much think
those are bad messages for us as a culture to be instilling in our youth.
I much prefer to imbue messages like "question authority" and "think for 
yourselves", and trust to a sense of justice that kids have, to help them
figure out what's right, and what needs to be changed, as they go on to 
take their places in our culture.  So while Nick thinks those attributes 
of scouting he calls 'leadership' and 'authority' are 'good' things, I have 
grave reservations about them.

DougO

    
    
    > based on rank, achievement and heirarchy. I find this very
    artificial.
    
    Do you really think that this is artificial? 
    
    If you look around you, you will find that MOST things in life are
    BASED on this structure. It's as simple as learning to take orders
    and instruction from authority and to respect that authority.
    
    I think that this is very
    natural. It is certainly relevant in every other species of animal
    on the planet that I can think of. The wolf pack is the perfect
    example. The strongest animals lead, and everyone on down has his place
    and role in the pack. 
    The idea of survival of the fittest has worked to keep most
    species strong throughout many disasters. Humanity doesn't suscribe
    to that theory (in most cases) and so the species is full of flaws
    and weakness. And it seems to be getting worse as we try to dilute our
    ability to develop our strengths to their fullest in hopes of the
    'uniEVERTHING world where everyone is EQUAL by default....
    
    well anyhow...sorry...rathole...
    
    but I do think it's interesting that you find it artificial!
    
    Cathy
    
     
     

    re.40 >using leaves for toilet paper
    
    WADR this is _not_ a good idea. The rise in Lyme disease from
    deer ticks, which live in leaves, makes this very unsafe. TP
    is biodegradable, just please bury it or burn it safely. 

    re 
    <the rise in Lyme disease...
    
    not to mention poison ivy

    um, a certain man of my acquaintance once used the leaves of the poison
    oak bush, which he did not recognize.
    
    be careful.

    re: .44
    
    are we really so satisfied with the effect of teaching boys to be boys?
    
    perhaps if boys and girls grew accustomed sooner to not doing things
    that could only be done with boys or only with girls, they wouldn't act
    like "love struck little puppies".
    
    perhaps if we could provide them with models of behaviour that didn't
    include male and female ways to act, we'd understand each other better. 
    
    i think there was a place in more primitive societies for teaching men
    to be men and women to be women, since survival depended on those
    roles.
    
    while i still think there's value to women-only or men-only activities,
    the traditional ones are not necessarily the best.
    
    just some food for thought.
    
    cheryl

Just to back up D!, 

yes, Campfire is for both girls and boys.  Has been for years.

*I* was a Campfire girl.  We went camping a lot, and learned to gather wood,
build fires, and cook over an open fire.  We didn't learn much about
putting up tents, as ours were permanent structures, but we learned about
plants and wildlife and did a lot of hiking.  I liked it a lot, and will
sooner put my son in Campfire than in Boy Scouts, because of all the
discrimination against Gays in Boy Scouts.

Can you imagine them turning *me* down as a Den Mother?!  (Oh, right, I'm
really going to molest those little boys, even if I were straight!)

         Carol

RE:  (Cathy)

My understanding is that some organizations in the animal world are
very co-operative and some are very hierarchical.  We as human being
have a choice.

My use of the word artifical comes from thrusting all this authority,
rank, and competition stuff onto young kids who I suspect are more
interesting in play, fun, and exploration that competition, rank, and
authority (which I believe is imposed from above from some adults who
live in that way and want their kids to live that way too.)

I have absolutely no respect for authority based on the fact of
someone's position, rank, wealth, or anything else.  Why should I?  I
find this a very alien concept for me.  Who likes to take orders
anyways?  Not me...  Because someone is in a position of power, we
should follow them?  I prefer to be a free person.  I don't understand
why you feel that authority should be followed (if I understand you
correctly).

By the way, Darwin theories of evolution concerned the evolution of
species not internal inter-species social organization.  This was
corrupted by the Social Darwinists and Nazi's to justify all kinds of
brutality on the those weaker, less in power, flawed, or oppressed by
those in power.  In my view, if this ends justifies the means, follow
authority, those in power are always right stuff goes on, there may
not be any species left on earth to evolve.


john

This string has made me realize for the first time in years why I hated being
a boy scout so much.

I think it was the emphasis on competition and conformity that turned me off.
Activities that should have been fun became drudgery because of the competition.
Rank, getting merit badges, becoming the asst.patrol leader, the patrol leader,
the jr. asst.scout master, etc., were more important than the activity itself.

For example, hikes became races that had to be completed as fast as possible --
it turned me off from hiking for years. (I was not against competition per se. 
I competed successfully in AAU swim meets for years.)

So I quit the boy scouts.

Years later I became active in the girl scouts because my daughters were 
interested in it. Most activities were coed, and were carried out because 
the participants enjoyed doing them. It sure was more fun, both for adults and
children.

Bruce

    re: Doug a few back
    
          Yes, I think you are correct.  Isn't it amazing just how
    insidious chauvinism is?  Even several of the otherwise highly
    aware people in here fell into that with ease...and I say this
    not to put anyone down, but simply to point out that MOST, if
    not *all* of the systems with which humanity has borne itself
    out, eventually fail.  This is what I recently referred to 
    in HUMAN_RELATIONS and what I briefly hinted at in my note in
    here last evening.  Competition, comparativeness, seeking perfection...
    are all surefire means to less than fulfillment.  But even knowing
    this, how do we unravel it?  As I also pointed out (though in a 
    different context,) as greater truths are revealed, we discover
    that the previously held old system (which contained the previous
    held truth) no longer works or applies.  It then becomes a very
    real challenge to develop a new system.  It isn't just about 
    finding greater truths...it's also about finding new systems.
    Some of the examples in this string point out at least a willingness
    to discover new systems, which themselves may eventually be replaced.
        Incidentally, there is a book I read a couple of years ago
    which had some interesting concepts in it in regards to raising
    children (although this was not the main part of the book.)
    It is called "The Kin of Atta are waiting for You."  I believe
    the book was originally titled something else.  The author is a
    woman.  She had some really nifty ideas concerning different 
    systems.
    
    Frederick
     

>>I think it was the emphasis on competition and conformity that turned me off.
>>Activities that should have been fun became drudgery because of the competition.
>>Rank, getting merit badges, becoming the asst.patrol leader, the patrol leader,
>>the jr. asst.scout master, etc., were more important than the activity itself.

    I think the merit badges and competition for rank are important.
    If I wasn't going to get a merit badge, I probably wouldn't have
    memorized the Preamble or I wouldn't have learned to respect the flag 
    or I wouldn't have memorized the knots.  Just like in college, I would
    never study if I never had a test.  I would also never study if I
    didn't have to compete for this job!
    
    
    RE:  DougO
    
    My experience differs with Cub Scouts/Boy Scouts.  The Paramilitary
    began in Boy Scouts with my leadership positions.
    
    Cub Scouts was going to a den mother's house to make a birdhouse or
    something.  As an 11 year old Boy Scout, I didn't have to where the
    full uniform.
    
    As a 14 year old Boy Scout, I had to have an impeccable uniform, and I had
    to have a command voice ala AFR50-14.
    
    Nick
    
    

A meta-thought, as I read through this whole thread...

A lot of folks say that we should keep the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts
separate, and solve the frustration problem by encouraging the Girl Scouts
to do the "boy" things they think they're missing...

Why does the phrase "separate but equal" come to mind when I see this
argument?

--jim

Nick, your modes of expression are far more eloquent statements for the
reasons I feel as I do, than I could ever have hoped to inspire.

>    As a 14 year old Boy Scout, I had to have an impeccable uniform, and 
>    I had to have a command voice ala AFR50-14.

[for anyone who missed it, Nick is referring to Air Force Regulation 50-14.]

See, to me, learning the Preamble as you did is a good thing.  But wearing
an "impeccable" uniform is not.  I don't find training 14-year-old boys to
wear and be proud of such non-individualistic and regimented things is at
all, good.

DougO

    
    It seems like one way to get improvements made in a single-sex (or
    single-race) organization might be to sue for inclusion in the
    exclusive (but measurably better) organization.  i.e, instead
    of picketing for a bigger budget for women's athletics at the
    local state university, sue for inclusion in the men's program...
    Then out of court, you settle for money for women's athletics.
    Can't say I'm comfortable with using the courts for this purpose,
    but it seems to be effective in some cases.
    
    What about the YMCA/YWCA?  I've been to coed events at both, but
    they're still separate, right?  
    
    Justine

    the dismay I described in reference to becoming an Eagle Scout wasn't
    about limited choices, it was about inequality.
    
    my choices were never limited.  The Girl Scouts of America _actively_
    encouraged me to do and become an Eagle-Scout-like Girl Scout. The BSA
    Council in my area was _immensely_ helpful in helping me to resourcing.
    
    nobody _ever_ said or implied I was doing boy _stuff_.  I didn't miss
    out on any of the fun, the hard work, the challenge, or the
    acheivement.
    
    but my acheivement wasn't 'equal' in the eyes of my society: I was,
    after only a Girl Scout.
    
    nobody cared, but the Eagles got their pictures in the paper [and, yes,
    the GSA Council _did_ let the paper know -- they were wicked proud of
    me!]
    
      Annie

    I suppose boys need all male organizations for the same reason that
    many women believe that girls need all female organizations.  It gives 
    a chance for boys to learn about positive male values from male role
    models.  Argue about the way the BSA is run if you like, or argue with
    the sort of values and role models the BSA provides, if you think that
    will make a difference, but that still doesn't obviate the need for
    boys to have organizations that provide positive male role models.  And
    it's not as if boys don't have any contact with girls in their lives
    when they aren't involved with scouting.  I mean, most boys go to
    school with girls, have sisters or other female relatives, and
    they certainly play with girls in their neighborhoods, and so on.

    As far as the regimentation stuff goes, it's just a means to teach the
    value of teamwork, and the importance of working together in the
    community.  It also helps to inculcate a sense of self-discipline, and
    teaches them about self-esteem.  Those boys who don't like that are all
    free to leave the scouts whenever they want.  It not like they were
    drafted into the scouts, or something.

    Mike

    As far as the regimentation stuff goes, it's just a means to teach the
    value of teamwork, and the importance of working together in the
    community.

I haven't found that regimentation makes me value community more, and
I haven't found that strict hierarchies make me value cooperation more.

D!

    Annie -
    
    I'm curious (and I was a Girl Scout through grade school), what is the
    "Eagle Scout equivalent" rank that you obtained?
    
    It speaks volumes that I don't even know what it is, or that Girl
    Scouts has/had such a thing.
    
    I enjoyed Girl Scouts.  I wish my son had had an opportunity to
    participate in Boy Scouts.  (Since all troops in my town were sponsored
    by churches, and we weren't members of any sponsoring church, he didn't
    get that particular opportunity.  That's one of the down-side aspects
    to scouting.)  Boy Scouts seems to put more emphasis on camping and
    woodscraft than the Girl Scouts do, but certainly Girl Scouts have the
    option available to them to include those skills and experiences.
    
    I firmly believe that there are times and places when both sexes should
    have the option of interacting only with others of their own sex. 
    Chidlren need these opportunities as much as adults do.  When done in a
    context that doesn't lead to overt economic or social advantage for the
    participants, there isn't a legal basis to prevent it.  The unfortunate
    aspect of this is that there are some awards, like Eagle Scout, which
    are available only through Boy Scouts and which *do* lead to later
    economic/social advantage.  So I come away with a very mixed bag of
    feelings and no clear cut answers on the best way to deal with what
    are, for me, fuzzy problems.
    
    Alison

    re: .64
    
    Different strokes, and all that.  What works for some won't work for
    everyone.  It helped me out quite a bit, when I was a kid, until we got
    stuck with a certain Scout Master, that is.  But that's another story!
    8^)
    
    Point is, those that don't like it, aren't forced by anyone to belong. 
    I just don't see the value of tearing down an organization that has
    provided much good to many people, just because the rules under which
    the members agree to abide chafe someone a bit.  Especially if that
    someone is not even a member him/herself.  Not that the BSA couldn't
    use a bit of updating in some of it's attitudes.  I thought it was
    terrible that they bounced out the boy who was gay, for instance.  And
    some of the more militaristic practices, like the very strict forms of
    regimentation, which aren't universally practiced in the BSA by the
    way, have no place in the scouts either.  The idea is to encourage good
    personal habits and help shape the boys to become valued members of the
    community, not be a junior boot camp for future soldiers.
    
    Still, we aren't exactly talking about the Hitler Youth here, either.     
    
    Mike

    re.65 [Alison]
    
    The 'the Eagle Scout equivalent' as a girl scout wasn't precisely a
    rank. 
    
    I was a Senior Girl Scout [that's when the ages went Brownie,
    Junior, Cadet, Senior ... don't know if they still do] with a big bag
    full of accomplishments, but there was no special rank or name for what
    I'd attained.
    
    With the support and encouragement of the local Girl Scout Council, I
    went to the local Boy Scout Council petitioned to be allowed to qualify
    for Eagle Scout.  BSA basically said, no you can't be because you're a
    girl, but we'll help you put together a program that will do the same
    thing as a Girl Scout only you can't be an Eagle Scout.
    
    As a Cadet, I hade to earn all of the "Challenges" back when there were
    four [I know that this has changed].  These were larger and more time
    consuming than merit badges.  There was Community Service, Citizenship,
    Nature, and the Arts.  These were mostly learning-based with some but
    not extensive field requirements. That made me a First Class Girl Scout.
    
    Then when I was a Senior Scout, I completed 'Caps' in Wilderness
    Survival, Environmental Service, Community Service, and Social
    Sciences.  Earning these required an extensive amount of field
    activity.  And I was required to do a presentation of some sort on my
    activities and experiences in some public forum. These acheivements
    earned me no special rank, but I got a new cap and tie every time I
    completed a course.
    
    Granted I was not the only one to do all of this; but Girl Scouts who
    do all this poop are at least as rare as Eagle Scouts ...
    
      Annie

    
    Seems to me that the ones attacking the BS are those with the 
    biggest agendas..                                     
    
    Groups like BSA aren't trying to cater to fringes with permissive/
    liberal agendas and it seem as if these fringes are determined to destroy
    them because BSA represent a standard they find somehow uncomfortable
    with.
    

    Since you have brought up the motives of those who would
    like to see the BSA opened to girls, perhaps you would be willing to
    help us understand the motivation that many have for keeping BSA
    exclusionary.
    I believe that the arguments that BSA as a private club can specify its
    membership requirements are probably well founded.
    What is less clear to me, is _why_ it is important that BSA remain
    exclusionary.
    Can you tell me why _you_ would like to keep BSA membership restricted
    to boys?
    
    
    
    				herb

  Re: .14 (and .17)

  I remember that case too.  The 8-year-old kid said he didn't believe
  in God and the BSA said they had no use for the kid.

  I was in the Boy Sprouts for three days.  We had a Scoutmaster who
  was a former jarh...I mean Marine... and liked to show off his
  "command voice."

  JP

    re: Eagle equivalent
    
    The "equivalent" of an Eagle Scout in Girl Scouts is the Gold Award.
    I just attended a council-wide awards ceremony where six girls,
    including my daughter received their Silver Awards and one girl
    received her Gold Award.
    
    re: church sponsored BS troops
    
    I belonged to a church sponsored BS troop, but lots of the members did
    not belong to the church.  There was no religious intrusion beyond what
    you normally get in scouting (...for God and my country...).  Maybe you 
    didn't ask enough questions.
    
    re: the fringe
    
    If we could stop looking at gays and atheists and whatever as "fringe"
    groups (by which of course you mean valueless parts of the society that
    society would be better off without and thus should have their rights
    removed) and instead see them for the integral parts of our society
    that they are, then we would have made a major step toward improving
    the health of our society.
    
    re: separate but equal
    
    I think that analogy is nonsense.  The two groups are different and are
    not trying to be equal.  Both are very good (despite my reservations
    about the BSA).  I think GSA is better managed.  If we in society want
    to maintain the distinction between that which is feminine and that
    which is masculine (which is not to say that men don't have feminine
    qualities and women masculine qualities), and have both men and women 
    self-confident, well-motivated, and comfortable in their gender
    identity then I think we are better off with the organizations separate
    and for the most part gender exclusive.  It seems obvious to me that
    in the social turmoil in our society today, two things needed are
    strong male role models for boys, many of whom come from broken homes
    and homes with absent fathers, and strong female role models for girls,
    namely women displaying those leadership qualities that are altogether 
    too often assumed to be lacking in women.  If you put boys and girls
    together, then whoever you pick as leader (and I claim that men will
    try to muscle out the women for the leadership) half the group will
    miss out on something valuable.  
    
    						- Vick

    In this string, many people have been discussing the need for positive
    male or female role models, and the need to keep those separate. 
    However, in much of this file, it seems that we talk about problems
    with socialization that lead to poor understanding between the sexes,
    lack of acceptance of minorities or other people that don't fit into
    the mainstream middle-class mold, what creates a rapist or other
    violent behaviour.  Since family systems are changing, and more often
    both parents need to work to support a family, institutions that can
    help inculcate values (not religious or similar values, but rather
    principles like equality, respect for others, etc) are valuable to
    society.  I'm not talking about tearing down these institutions, or
    turning them into political indoctrination sessions for liberal ideals,
    but rather modifying them in a way that better benefits society.  I'm 
    not saying I know exactly what they should look like, but opening the
    structure up to change and discussion might just improve it.
    
    Maybe instead of talking about working on separate male and female role
    models, we can talk about positive models for male-female interaction,
    and role models for *people*.  I think kids of both sexes need adults 
    of both sexes providing valuable role models.  Why can't kids learn the
    values of teamwork and leadership in mixed groups?  School is not a
    comparable environment; sadly, too often it does not require teamwork.
    
    I also don't agree that the regimentation leads to teamwork.  To me,
    that leads to hierarchical thinking and to valuing one type of
    contribution (that of the outgoing, charismatic, aggressive leader
    types) over all others.  To me, that only leads to self esteem for
    those who possess or can develop those traits.  And it may hurt self
    esteem for others who may make other types of contributions, still
    valuable, but not valued in this system.  Sure, those kids don't *have*
    to participate....but what if they want to?  As a kid, you don't
    necessarily think the institution is bad if it makes you feel bad, you
    think *you're* bad.  That's not good.  Why can't we be inclusive?  Why
    can't we change the institution to value different types of
    contributions?
    
    cheryl

    re: Vick
    
    "There are two kinds of people in the world: human beings and women. 
    And when women try to be human beings they are accused of acting like
    men."
    			- Simone DeBauvoir

Cheryl, I think have PEOPLE role models is a nice idea - assuming society
were already perfect.

But as long as society tells women they are inferior, can't amount to
anything, etc, we need positive *women* role models to counteract societal
pressure.

A male role model, while he might be helpful in teaching a girl character
traits she needs, will not teach her that despite societal teachings to
the opposite, it is *okay* to be a female, and she can still be smart and
successful.

Frankly, I can't imagine why a boy needs a MALE role model, since society
already tells men they are the upper class, but I definitely see a need
for female role models, and female-only space for girls, therefore I won't
object to boy-only space.

Boys and girls are socialized differently - I don't think that a girl's
presence would harm a boy's self-esteem, although it might inhibit boy-bonding;
a boy's presence has a good chance of harming a girl's self-esteem.

I do know that my women friends who attended girl-only schools are
more confident in their gender than those who didn't.  Again, since I see
a need for girls, I won't object to the same for boys.

I *do* object to the valuing of boy-space more than girl-space, and to letting
and teaching boys things that you don't teach girls. I can understand why a
girl would want to be in boy scouts - I did.

D!

    .74
    Daniel,  The quote seemed to be supporting what I was saying.  Was that
    your intent?  Otherwise we need to talk.  :^)  - Vick

    Annie -
    
    Thank you for the clarification.  In my mind, the reason that you (and
    other girls who have similar accomplishments) didn't get the
    recognition the work deserved was because the result didn't have a name. 
    Possibly, from the later note, that lack has been addressed with the
    "Gold Scout" appellation (and I'm pretty sure I have the appelation 
    wrong).
    
    Alison

    Thanks, D!
    
    I guess I was looking at it from primarily the boys viewpoint (not such
    a good idea), rather than from the girls viewpoint.  If girls didn't
    have those pressures you describe, the model I'm talking about might
    work  best, but there is so much to counteract, that girls might just
    end up being suppressed by such a group.
    
    I spent a year at a woman's college, and being in female space didn't
    work for me the way I had hoped it would ... I think that primarily the
    timing wasn't right.  I wasn't ready for that much focus on me.
    
    I think I'm mostly dissatisfied with male role models and the impact
    they have on boys.  I'd like to see a change from the macho
    para-military leadership-is-everything to a more human approach, and
    I'd especially like to see boys develop that approach toward girls.  I
    don't think we have that today.
    
    By the same token, I'm also dissatisfied that the role models we
    provide girls are not stronger, less passive.
    
    These problems are getting too complex for me on a friday and i think i
    had better close this one out before i ramble off and get lost in the
    woods!
    
    cheryl

Boys and girls both need men and women as role models in many different 
leadership and non-leadership roles. Making the boy/girl scouts open to both 
sexes will give everybody a much broader exposure to many different adult role 
models. (An aside -- the primary schools, in particular, need more male teachers
as role models.)   

The best experiences of my life have been when both sexes were involved 
(including sex and marriage in case you wanted to know).

Some of my institutional experiences:

Boy scouts - all male - lousy

YMCA - all male - the only exception. Pretty good, but I was only interested 
in swimming. We didn't wear bathing suits. Maybe they should do that now for
coed swims. 

Jr.high and high school - coed, great 

US Navy - all male, slightly better than the boy scouts. I doubt if it's much 
better today.

College - all male, fairly lousy - the place is now coed. Is it any better, Dan?

Grad school -- coed, great

Various jobs - varied from all male (mining) to coed. In retrospect, the more
enjoyable ones had essentially equal numbers of men and women. Digital is the 
best so far, and I work in a group with all female top management. 

Bruce

Not everyone has the same experiences...

Some of my institutional experiences:

Girl scouts - all female - sometimes fun, sometimes painful, averaged to bearable

Jr.high and high school - coed, miserable

College - coed, wonderful

Various jobs - coed, bearable

Social life - varied from all or mostly male (high school, college) to all or
mostly female (now) - mostly female overall much better than co-ed and mostly
male.

D!