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?

This is not aimed at any one particular poster...

Why do they need to change with the times though? Not all girls want the same thing. Not all boys want the same thing. Some children will want to be in single sex activities. Some will want to be in activities for both sexes. Some boys will want to join a competitive, selective football club for boys with real talent, some boys will want to join a football club that is for a bit of fun. Some boys will want to join a religious youth group, some will want to join a secular one. Some boys will want to do street dance, some will want to do ballet. Do we need to change some of these clubs because they don't offer exactly what your sons want? If your son is an atheist, should we shut down church youth groups, or should he simply go elsewhere?

It seems to me that a lot of people on here want to force other people's children into having to do what their kids want to do and make that the only option available. There is a variety of groups for children to join. If what is currently on offer is not what you want for your children then you should offer something else.

All the talk of boys are like this and girls are like that is ridiculous. Some boys are a particular way and some aren't. Why do people have to make out that all boys are the same in order to validate their child's character or the way they have brought their child up? I am sure how your sons act is fine; it doesn't require my son to want to spend his time rolling around wrestling on the floor simply to validate some other boys' behaviour. And if the Scouts or the Boys Brigade or the Woodcraft Folk had too much or too little wrestling on the floor, or too many or too few girls for my son's preferences, I would send him elsewhere

How about...

Lots of jobs exist for people. Some of them are just for men, some of them are just for women, and some of them are for both.

Is this OK?

No. So why would I want my son to believe that is the way of the world?

Because that that is the way of the world?

I think it is okay anyway. Certain jobs are only available to men or women with very good reason. It is right that employers can make some jobs exempt from the sex discrimination act.

Kal, as someone who has worked alongside this age group as well as having dts at this age then I'm afraid it isn't so much sexist but just the stage they are at. No matter how careful the parent they go through the phase of "ewww" to the other sex. Most of my post was made up of things I've heard children I know say.

Calling it sexist and that it must be the fault of some naughty adult is perhaps looking a little too close at it. As I said, for the tomboy girls out there - I was one - they should be able to find fun things to do at Brownies.

To be honest this is the refreshing break before they actually start noticing girls are quite nice really!

if you want to know why girls themselves and Girlguiding UK think that a girls' only space is important, start here on the GGUK website

Guiding isn't just about middle class after school clubs. As founders of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts www.wagggsworld.org/en/homeWAGGGS they carry out amazing and diverse projects throughout the world, for example delivering sex education to women in third world countries who may otherwise be denied it, teaching about HIV and domestic violence and so on.
There are many places in the UK that Guiding provides a vital safe space for girls who would otherwise not have one, because they are victims of poverty or violence, or part of a culture that still segregates women or denies them opportunity. If the organisation was mixed this space would be lost.
Girlguiding is about giving girls the chance to do things that they wouldn't normally do. For those quick to judge on a sexism card, please take a bit of time to look at the bigger picture.

TwoIf - my girls have been on cub and scout camps and have had a wonderful time. They are not bossy and if they were they'd be pulled up on it pretty quickly. The boys (and girls) all muck in and are allowed to be who they want to be.

Dh goes on all camps hail rain or shine as well and gives up tons of his time, so I think many other children benefit from his input too.

I just don't buy into the idea that boys are being horribly curtailed by girls being there. They know boys can be boisterous and that's fine. My girls don't mind it or expect it any other way, nor do any of other girls there afaik.

How much more boisterous would they be without the girls there? Not any more than they are now. Or do people want 'boisterous' to be taken to such a level that their boys are permitted to run riot and hurt themselves and each other in the process and no-one says anything or stops it because 'that's how boys are..'

There has to be a point at which boisterous goes too far and spoils it for eveyone, even with between just boys. That fact has to be observed in any group. Blaming girls for being there and spoiling all the fun is not the case.

Btw I also have a son, so I know what makes boys tick too. I have never heard him or any boys complain about the girls presence there. It's a place where everyone has the chance to try all sorts of great activities, take a few (monitored) risks, learn to get along and have fun. If it helps boys and girls see each other as people rather than defined only by their sex then that's a good thing surely.

Twoif said 'Kal, as someone who has worked alongside this age group as well as having dts at this age then I'm afraid it isn't so much sexist but just the stage they are at. No matter how careful the parent they go through the phase of "ewww" to the other sex. Most of my post was made up of things I've heard children I know say.'

Umm, I have 4 children. 2 girls and 2 boys. 2 of them are adults. I do know a teensy bit. None of my kids did an 'ewwww' phase however, cos they all played together in big groups without segregation.

my youngest dd is also the only girl in her beavers group. And she is in a wheelchair. Her presence does not affect the boys at al and she plays dodgeball with the rest of them.
Luckily there arent the sort of parents there who would object.

Pointing out as someone else did earlier, they are 2 separate organisations. I know this doesn't address all the issues, but it explains why the decision wasn't made with both organisations.

Scouts needed more members, they were facing a massive decline in the organisation. Admitting girls was a solution to this.

The Guiding Associaton did not have this problem and decided that they would continue as they were.

There is no ultimate power over both organisations, they are entirely separate, albeit with a common history.

EDUSTUDENT

Cubs and beavers has a huge waiting list where I live. Not sure about Scouts though.

That probably wasn't the case about 10 years ago, though, when the decision was made.

And the issue is as much availability of leaders as children wanting to join. You can't have an "all male" organisation which is in many cases run by women. If all the groups who have female leaders were to close (because there was no-one to run them) I suspect there would be VERY few groups left.

Yes, like Oakmaiden says, the situation has swung back the other way and waiting lists are as much to do with a lack of leaders as anything else.

They can't exactly turn round and say 'Oh, we've got enough boys now, off you pop girls', can they?

Returning to the OPs original point, yes I do think it's unfortunate that we have ended up with an all girls organisation (for the very good reasons stated) and lost the all boys one for much weaker practical ones.

I enjoyed running a Brownie pack and I think the girls enjoyed the sort of extended craft activities that I suspect boys generally don't. I know some defiantly appreciated time out from noisy younger brothers.
I think boys deserve the same space and, given modern primary teaching, may even need it more.
I am, therefore, a total hypocrite as DD2 is a Scout and I know she and her friend joining was not appreciated by the boys.
Her friend was already a Beaver and DD2 didn't want to join the Guides. (They are dull. The girls are expected to plan too much themselves. This leads to too much talk and not enough games and activities
She loves Scouts, they know boys tend to be restless and keep them busy. Given she does gym and ballet too, not keeping still is exactly her style.

Yes Scouts may now have waiting lists, but 30 years ago, my school had girls who went to 3 or 4 different guide companies. There were a few cadets, air and army, but no Scouts.

I'm trying to think which jobs are only available to women and am struggling - help me out here? Men still get some military roles all to themselves - infantry soldier, are fighter pilots still all male? And the priesthood in the less enlightened churches, and bishop and above in the CofE. Isn't that about it?

edam - I don't think men can be nuns...

I suspect there are a few jobs in women's aid/rape support etc that are women only...

Can't think of anything else though.

In lots of jobs that involve working with the public - the police, health, support work, housing, counselling, drug related work and so on there will be jobs that only women can apply for. I don't think this extends to applying it to an entire profession.

I'm not sure why it is even used as a comparison though. There are different services and groups for different kinds of adults and the same applies to children.

I think it is a good point about all the female leaders in cubs and beavers. If there is a great need to have additional boys only organisations, I would think adult men would be complaining more about it and volunteering to run such organisations.

There are many male youth workers, but I suppose that is a paid position so is a bit different.

It is rather interesting though that most "women only" jobs are those working with vulnerable women....

Probably right too - I can't think of many justifications for making jobs available to women and not to men.

There are similar jobs that are only available to men, such as a care assistant for a male client.

And that is another thing I have been thinking about today, CoS. Why do women seem more inclined to volunteer for this sort of role than men? Is it something to do with men still being expected to work longer hours (as a wildly sweeping statement) than women? Or that women are closer to their communities? Or that women are more involved in their children's extra-curricula lives and thus more likely to notice that things like this need to be done? Are men more likely to be worried about taking responsibility for other people's children? Or enjoy spending time with children less? Or treasure their out of work time more?

I don't know. I think it is an interesting question, though.

Clothes - yes, I was thinking more of entire professions being closed to one gender or another rather than very specific roles. Clearly a rape counsellor who will be counselling women needs to be a woman - but the profession of counselling is not closed to men, far from it. And presumably counsellors who deal with male rape tend to be men?

I don't think it is all about vulnerable women but about women who are in a position of vulnerability, and the same for men.

I know that sounds a bit hairsplitting, but there are laws about having a right to privacy and single sex environments when undressing etc. So I might be in some health situation where the fact that I am naked makes me vulnerable; that doesn't make me a vulnerable person in everyday life, if that makes sense.

I don't think that taking girls has curtailed anything for the boys. The type of girl who wants to be a cub or scout is the type who wants what is on offer.

I can't see why brownies, guides etc can't take boys-if there was a call for it.I don't think there has been; but there was definitely a call for Scouting to take girls-which they did.

Oakmaiden, I read (although I have no link to hand!) that women are more likely to volunteer in general. I think there is then the issue of what they volunteer to do, and perhaps men are more likely to volunteer with teenagers and adults than volunteer with children. There certainly seem to be more men leading Scouts than leading Cubs.