to think Beaver's shouldn't allow girls, as Rainbows don't allow boys?

[CoralRose]

Can't see why it is this way? DS is asking... what's the answer? Why are girls allowed to join beavers, but boys not allowed to join rainbows?

Good question. DS asking the same thing since there is no nearby troop here but there is rainbows.

because girls always want to do what the boys do, boys rarely want to do what the girls do..

YABU to argue for less inclusiveness.

Why not say that Rainbows should allow boys, as Beavers does allow girls?

YANBU. It isn't a popular opinion but I think boys need their own time without girls around just as girls need time without boys. The two organisations should either be merged or separated. Anyone who doesn't agree should read about poor Bertie in the 44 Scotland Street series

In fact I'm starting to feel that boys get a rough deal when it comes to equality. DS has started dance lessons. He's surrounded by pink frilly girls, he's the only boy in the whole school and sticks out like a sore thumb in between all the glittery pink netting. We got some frosty glares the first time we took him, too.

Is it that if the only local group is beavers then both can join. Maybe the rainbows group started later. Scouting has always been a bit iffy about inclusion though.

Surely the question should be: shouldn't rainbows allow boys, as beavers allow girls?

I went to brownies and loathed it, then went on to scouts (after they decided to stop all this 'boys only' nonsense) and much preferred it. Except the itchy kilt. I wasn't too keen on that.

I think the inclusiveness argument is complete rubbish. The two organisations offer the same service.

but why is this squeaky toy? Is it because society tells them it's wrong for boys to like pink, or play with dolls?

Apparently it's all to do with girls needing their own space, away from boys Looks like boys don't get the same luxury though

The Guide movement was allowed to keep its single sex status because there are girls who would not be allowed, for cultural and religious reasons to join if it was not a girl only organisation. This is true in this country, but even more so in some other parts of the world.

For chrissake, cant there be a club where boys can be boys without always having to accommodate girls.

Boys need to wrestle, roll around, shoot guns, make dens, crawl through woods, get muddy etc. Not pander repeatedly to the likes of girls and downplay all the rough and tumble in case they have a hissy screaming fit.

Schools are totally biased towards girls, the whole daily set up is geared towards sitting nicely, paying attention, playing prissy games in PE instead of rugby, football or some other ball game in case god forbid some girl gets hit by a ball and goes wailing to mummy.

If Rainbows can be sexist (any why not) then surely Beavers can be too.

Boys need to wrestle, roll around, shoot guns, make dens, crawl through woods, get muddy etc. Not pander repeatedly to the likes of girls and downplay all the rough and tumble in case they have a hissy screaming fit.

Nice image of boys and girls you have there.

Coral* My Ds whos 9 started a dance class this week, he has been desperate for a while noe. There are 2 other boys there but they are both 5 - hes the only one in his group. Luckily hes been made to feel really welcome, I was worried about how he would get on in a sea of pink Hope your Ds enjoys himself!

Exactly what Damsel says.

I am a Beaver Leader and would much prefer it to be just boys. The problem is when Rainbows is full and you get the overflow wanting to come to Beavers and end up with them not enjoying it, as the rough and tumble is too much for some of them.

Mind, I've only had one girl in the last five years and she's much more a tomboy and gets stuck in no problem.

Because the Scouts as an organisation were struggling to recruite new members so they had to let girls in or fold.

I can't speak for every area but around here many parents are put off by the roughing it aspect and the fact that they, as parents, get asked to participate.

We have lots of girls in our pack. I think it appeals to the more robust girls who feel Brownies is a bit twee (not true I know).

But wasn't it the case the scouts used to be single sex ... and they started to allow girls due to numbers (of boys) in the organisation dropping? Basically more girls are interested in scouts/guides than boys.

You sound lovely Trifle

"For chrissake, cant there be a club where boys can be boys without always having to accommodate girls.

Boys need to wrestle, roll around, shoot guns, make dens, crawl through woods, get muddy etc. Not pander repeatedly to the likes of girls and downplay all the rough and tumble in case they have a hissy screaming fit."

Haven't seen much evidence that Beavers and Cubs have changed much because there rare girls there. The activities are different, so the mythical hussy fitting girls you describe are more likely to go to Rainbows, while the girls who like a more - active- lifestyle fit in perfectly at Beavers and Cubs.

"Boys need to wrestle, roll around, shoot guns, make dens, crawl through woods, get muddy etc."

Says who? And who says girls don't need to do those things as well? When we try to knit together divided communities one of the first recommendations is joint schooling. If we think co-edding Catholics and Protestants or indigenous people and immigrants together is a good idea, why separate out boys and girls on gender grounds?

FWIW the girls in my cub pack are all there because they enjoy the activities we do, none of them have a 'hissy screaming fit' and no-one panders to them in any respect. Have a for your sexist piggery.

I actually agree with trifle. Based on my boys they are more rough and tumble than my sister and I ever were an we were the most tomboyish girls ever!

Why shouldn't boys have a separate place to just be boys?

I think Rainbows should allow girls.

My son has just started at Cubs. There are girls there. He doesn't care one iota! He likes the girls there as they're in trousers (he's 8, meeting less frilly girls is lovely for him) and play the same way as the boys. There is a boy there who's mum said he wanted to join Brownies as he adores more traditionally female persuits. He should be allowed to join.

I'm not so sure about 'letting boys be boys' I prefer to think that its fairly to have a rough and tumble 'club' and a more gentle club that accomodates either gender. My boys are very typical of rough and tumble children, if they weren't I'd like to think that perhaps there would be room for them at a more gentle club?

The Scouting Association chose to include girls (wrongly I think). Long may Guiding continue to be a boy free zone! Girls do need space to try things on their own - they behave completely differently when boys are around (particularly when they get older) Guiding is a fantastic organisation offering opportunities that really benefit the girls which they may not be so keen to try if they felt they might make idiots of themselves infront of boys. Personally I think the arguement is just as valid for boys, and am really glad my DS goes to a unit which still is 'boys only'.

"The Guide movement was allowed to keep its single sex status because there are girls who would not be allowed, for cultural and religious reasons to join if it was not a girl only organisation. This is true in this country, but even more so in some other parts of the world."
Just in case the facts get submerged in the sexist twaddle!

Gender stereotyping is alive and well I see.