I'm a Girl Scout leader in the Midwest. Most of the leadership in this area (adult & youth) is at best skeptical about this initiative, and at worst openly hostile. Girls do not come to Scouting to learn about financial literacy and cybersecurity. They come to spend time with their friends, to be outdoors, to have parties, to do craft-y things. The cost of some of the new badges is also a great concern.
I'm a Girl Scout leader in the Midwest. Most of the leadership in this area (adult & youth) is at best skeptical about this initiative, and at worst openly hostile.
Young ladies face a cultural up-hill challenge with STEM expectations. Girls are told, for example, that they shouldn't bother with video game construction, but instead should learn knitting. As a parent, I have first hand experience with well-meaning social institutions that actively discourage science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Girls do not come to Scouting to learn about financial literacy and cybersecurity. They come to spend time with their friends, to be outdoors, to have parties, to do craft-y things.
In an enthusiastic environment, my 7 year old daughter and her friends enjoy MIT Scratch just as much as the boys. She's very into her transaction journal where she records her allowance income and outgoing expenses, adding up the numbers weekly with a new account balance. She likes to take her microscope outside to look at bug wings, etc.
I don't think ffmike was trying to denigrate, discourage or otherwise be negative about STEM. Rather, the suggestion is that there might be other, better places for STEM than Girl Scouts.
Not really as a boy in the UK I got a programming badge in Cub Scouts in the 80s. Which was about the only venue I could have got some recognition for that ability at that age. I think it's a great idea to recognise STEM skills in venues that are socially important to children at that age.
Recognition is not something I want my son to learn to crave. I got into computers in the '80s of my own volition, in an environment where I was ridiculed for my interest (being a nerd/geek in the 80's was ensuring you had no friends).
If my kid shows an interest in a thing I will support him in that, but I will never push him. Recognition comes from being exceptional, not for being able to open a command prompt or writing a Hello World app.
I think you're putting way more meaning into the word recognition than I am there. It's far more about acknowledging work and effort than turning a child into some sort of egomaniac.
Earning badges for your achievements is socially important if you take part in Scouts. Having badges for STEM subjects helps with the sort of stigma you are talking about by normalising them alongside less stigmatised activities.
You and Spearchucker are using different semantics of "push":
It's a difference between "pushing unwanted interests on a child" vs "pushing the child's effort for interests he already desires".
The result of the first type of push is the child resenting her parents' forced violin lessons that she hated. (E.g. Tiger Mother's youngest daughter rebels.)
The result of the second type of push is the child's gratitude for his parents because they pushed him out of bed to make swim practice because he wanted to compete in the Olympics. The parents didn't push the love of competitive swimming on the child but they once that desire was identified, they helped maintain the child's discipline for training.
If I push my kid, even just a little with kindly parental suggestions, I fear...
Hey who knows. You're probably right. I'm probably right. That's parenting. I try to facilitate his learning by letting him play. It's how I grew up. And yes, I'm not that naïve that I think I can give my child my childhood.
He's a human being, and a human beginning. As such he must (and will) find and tread his own path. My job is to show him how exceptional his path might become. His job is to choose the degree of exceptionalism he desires.
Yeah, I think a parent's responsibility is to expose your kid to things they might like or find fulfilling, but it's up to the young individual to pursue it.
The tricky part is that sometimes you have to push a bit to expose them to something out of their comfort zone. Take learning a musical instrument, as an example.
The first couple of months of learning an instrument aren't a huge amount of fun (for most people). It's legitimately frustrating. IMO, it's okay to push your kid a little bit. For example, make the child take at least 3 months of lessons with two different instruments, of their choosing, and if at the end of that, they still have no interest in learning an instrument, okay, that's fine. We can move on to sculpting or painting or programming or origami or gardening or dance or whatever.
The point is that kids are discovering the world and to a large degree, don't really know what they like or don't like yet. You have to expose them to a lot of things to find something that resonates with them, and at times, you may have to push them a bit, to get past the initial hump of awkwardness or frustration. I think that's healthy and responsible.
That doesn't mean you should force your child to take 10 years of violin when they hate it. I think a lot of parents fall into the trap of trying to force their kid to enjoy hobbies the parents enjoy or hobbies they think their child should enjoy. It's fine to start with those (hey, why not), but ultimately you have to listen to the child and understand the difference between temporary frustration and permanent personality incompatibility with some activity.
At the same time though, as a parent you have the long term outlook that is largely impossible for a child to develop on their own (before adulthood, at least). The vast majority of people have regrets about things they didn't do as a kid and while pushing their offspring to make up for their own childhood is dangerous, you have to strike a balance. Soft skills like being able to devote time to practice and doing something that you're not quite into are valuable on their own, even if interest in the actual field never develops.
I was one of those kids who hated guitar and piano lessons for years as my parents pushed me into them. I was never very good and hated practicing but nowadays, I really wish that I had taken it more seriously. There are so many uses for my time now that I can't bring myself to commit to learning a musical instrument from scratch but I crave the creative outlet of playing music. My parents' approach to many such subjects was the complete opposite to their approach to programming, which started with the guidance and material help of an IT admin from my mother's university even before the first music lessons. They were completely hands off and I was all the better for it, but I can't help but think that if maybe they had combined the two approaches to music, like they did by hiring a really good teacher for painting & drawing, I wouldn't be lamenting the way the chips fell.
I'm a Girl Scout leader in the Midwest. Most of the leadership in this area (adult & youth) is at best skeptical about this initiative, and at worst openly hostile. Girls do not come to Scouting to learn about financial literacy and cybersecurity. They come to spend time with their friends, to be outdoors, to have parties, to do craft-y things. The cost of some of the new badges is also a great concern.
The company http://playhorrorgames.com is doing everything they can to bring this story to life, and make sure that if you're playing the game, you become part of the game.
> My job is to show him how exceptional his path might become
See, there you have provided a push :) For anyone else reading, it doesn't need to be complicated or overbearing to still be a push. Think of it like mass-ejecting material from an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. It's a slow process, but the asteroid is still an asteroid, and it doesn't explode and destroy life on the planet.
Edit: It might crash into something else though...Good luck!
> Rather, the suggestion is that there might be other, better places for STEM than Girl Scouts.
That's true—like in the schools! But, since girls aren't getting the support and the role models that they need there, it's good if they're at least getting them somewhere.
> If you're talking about the US, no kids are getting the support and role models they need in the schools.
While I can't argue with the sentiment, I think that this is unnecessarily dismissive of the efforts of teachers (as opposed to administrators or politicians), most of whom do not bear the blame for the current de-prioritisation of education. Certainly I got both support and role models in school, and it was from excellent teachers; and I can't believe that there are no such teachers left.
There are some such teachers, but it's a totally mixed bag and for every good teacher, there's a couple of lousy ones. This comes down to the administration, since they control hiring and firing, the work environment, etc.
But - as hard as I suppose it may be for Hackernews to imagine, there are both girls and boys who would rather not go to space camp. Even if space camp has the best career prospects.
If I sent my child to a coding camp, and found out they were only taught crafts and camped outdoors, i'd be pretty upset.
Maybe the solutions is to send your daughter to a school/organization that teaches programming, not an organization that has always taught children crafts and outdoorsy things.
>I'm a Girl Scout leader in the Midwest. Most of the leadership in this area (adult & youth) is at best skeptical about this initiative, and at worst openly hostile. Girls do not come to Scouting to learn about financial literacy and cybersecurity. They come to spend time with their friends, to be outdoors, to have parties, to do craft-y things.
That is such a strange thought to me. I joined boy scouts for camping, but I also went to special events where I earned merit badges in stem topics. It probably occupied less than 10% of the time of my total scouting experience, but it was great in that it exposed me to topics and career paths that I may not have found otherwise. It would be wrong to completely replace campouts with lan parties, but that isn't what this sounds like.
That's very well put. I forget sometimes that as a parent my job is not to teach my child/ren, but to provide an environment in which my child/ren can learn.
It's true, but if you look at the list of badges, the point above some of them being, in a way, "out of context", makes sense (I don't say it's right in a strict sense; just that it makes sense).
I don't have knowledge of the existing badges though. Certainly, Financial Literacy doesn't sound very outdoors-y :-)
How is it possible to do anything outdoorsy without a budget? Even getting there takes transport money. When I was in Boy Scouts, budgeting for and buying supplies for even a weekend trip was a task the adults did not shelter us from. We also had to do fundraising and keep track of available funds.
This. A long-weekend backpacking trip can easily cost between $20 and $100 per person, depending on: distance traveled and size of cars, tolls, number of days on the trail, whether you need perishables such as fuel for cooking and water filters (often weather and trail dependent), meals eaten on the road, trail passes or campground fees, rental fees if you're planning on floating a portion of the trip, etc. Up-front purchases (e.g., backpack, boots) need to be accounted for as well. Also really basic stuff like "do we have enough cash to pay for campsites along the way".
It's a great opportunity to teach basic accounting skills. Simple stuff: summing costs, figuring out which costs are shared by the group and which ones individuals should be responsible for, planning ahead for forms of payment. More advanced: amortization of big expenses across N years of trips (and related cash flow issues), parameterizing cost calculations over weather conditions and terrain, doing all of this in a spreadsheet so that when we do the trip next year we can change some values and know immediately how much it'll cost, etc.
It's not hard to work finance into all sorts of interactions. Take making cardboard sandals on a blanket outside. You can bring out all of the raw materials: cardboard, string, tape, paint, etc. List the prices for each. Then, figure out how many sandals were made. Add up the costs, and compute the average material cost for each pair of sandals they make. Girls get into it. One might even say: "yea, but we worked on this too; doesn't that count?" You can then factor in labour cost. Then, comes a few eyes that get big: "wow, $2.45 in materials and $5 in labour" (they debated and agreed it'd be great if someone paid them $5 for the hour they spent). Lots of lessons emerged: labor can be the dominant factor in product construction; and noone was really going to pay $7.45 for the cardboard sandals.
"Financial literacy" is a category - not a badge. The badges in that category for 2nd and 3rd graders were Money Management (maybe all those cookie sales?) and Philanthropy... which are things most troops do anyway.
It's worth noting that BSA has STEM programs / badges, as do other national Scouting organizations elsewhere (e.g. Scouts Canada). So if it helps motivate this, it's really just extending availability of an existing program. (Also, STEM activities are largely craft-y, just not in the traditional "arts and crafts" sense).
As a Scout up in Canada, I vastly prefer the non-gender-segregated approach Scouts Canada takes. They've even openly welcomed LGBTQ members for some time now [1].
They have, however, been openly hostile to GBTQ scout leaders by allowing religious chartered organizations to revoke scout leadership on the grounds of sexuality.
...and completely forget anything BSA if you don't believe in some sort of religion-based supreme being, and are open about it (at minimum at the national level - local level varies, but in general is pretty hostile to the idea of atheism as well).
Thanks. Lost interest because she didn't want to make crafts and cookies. And it was a bit surprising, since we live in a neighborhood where there are plenty of girls, and moms, who are interested in STEM.
And I'm not sure it's a bad thing to have activities for kids that are not 100% STEM focused. I think you don't push STEM by pushing STEM at a young age, but by encouraging curiosity, exploration, reasoning, etc.
Hm, but the Boy Scouts long had Personal Finance merit badge (since changed to Personal Management) as an Eagle Scout prerequisite, which covers the same things though, right?
I can't tell if this comment is meant as an insult. Anyway I think too many potential teachers have passed the buck on teaching financial literacy to young people, and I'm glad to see someone make an effort.
I'm a math educator. Although of course I want to see more women in STEM, I've never been directly involved in the appropriate outreach. With that lack of qualification firmly established, I hope I may say that this is a wonderful thing.
Anything that successfully shows STEM can be a "girlish" activity (literally in the sense of something girls do) is to be applauded; and hopefully this effort, in a pre-existing mentorship structure, will have a knock-on effect wherein older mentors (I don't know what they're called in the Girl Scouts) can serve as direct examples (of women in STEM) and as positive role models.
> Interestingly, only the US and Japan have gendered scouting organizations.
> (Might be wrong on this, it's been at least a decade since I learned that)
And Canada. UK has partially-gendered scouting, but the boyscout organization becomes co-ed after a certain age, the girl side can remain separate indefinitely. I think it's somewhat separated in México as well, they have more different associations though, AFAIK.
I think most countries which have scouting organizations have a gender separation.
No, you can't.
Because girls need a safe space to be girls (without any boys around) a lot more than boys need any more spaces where they can be boys without any girls around (there's enough of those).
> No, you can't. Because girls need a safe space to be girls (without any boys around) a lot more than boys need any more spaces where they can be boys without any girls around.
It is not true that the Scouts in Canada are male-only. I have nieces who are proud and enthusiastic Scouts in Canada. (No idea about the Girl Guides.)
Ahh, looks like you're right. Seems nobody ever tries to get boys into the girl guides, frankly it seems a bit unfair that there is basically nowhere boys can be boys.
The individual scout groups and leaders have plenty of opportunity for making gender separation in tasks, patrols or troops. I don't really see that enforcing separation from the organisation level is very useful.
Noticeably, neither organization mentions "outdoorsy skills" in its vision. Both discuss good citizenship, but exactly what that means is only stated in very subjective terms. And once you go past the platitudes, all the subjective details start dominating.
If you read through the BSA oath and law, you'll find a lot of subjective words. "Loyal" (to who?). Friendly (to who?).
Obedient (to what law/rules?). Brave (in the face of which adversities?). Clean (holy shit is this a loaded word in Christendom... official BSA position as recent as 2012 was that homosexuality is "unclean" -- a position that IMO completely undermines the entire oath by opening every entirely subjective word up to politically motivated interpretation). "mentally awake and morally straight" are obviously totally subjective.
GSA uses similar words, but do they mean the same thing? I don't think so. As national organizations, I think the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are trying to support/develop/foster fundamentally different types of people. These national politics are often, but not always, mirrored in local troops.
FWIW, I do agree that scouting should primarily focus on outdoors activities and irrefutable moral goods mostly disconnected from the culture wars (don't lie/cheat/steal as a general rule; understand how your government works; be a helpful force in your community).
And it does seem like things are slowly moving that way, as national organizations realize it's not in their best interest to inject themselves into culture wars. And a lot of troops have always managed to do exactly that. But others (e.g., my bsa troop as a child) spend a lot of time on religious and social indoctrination.
So, BSA and GSA really are different organizations with different goals, because all the words their missions share are totally subjective, and each organization interprets those subjective words differently. At least at the national level. And those differences are mirrored in many localities.
They kind of do. They are very different organizations, they just happen (not by coincidence, of course) to serve different genders. But it's the organizational structure and goals that's of primary interest. That really can't be merged.
It is more likely that both would expand to include all kids rather than they merge.
This is amazing. I especially appreciate how broad and inclusive it is. I hate the idea that a bunch of girls are going to do 'girls who code' or similar things, not like it, and think STEM isn't for them. Coding sucks sometimes and it is so important that we include all of stem (personally I prefer STEAM, stem + art).
I don't like math, probably as a result of terrible scarring experiences in elementary school. But I still love technology and coding. We need to allow girls the flexibility to learn about all of stem and find out what will provide for 70+ years of happiness and productivity.
I don't understand the point of STEAM. From what I can tell, the use of STEM is to describe the math-y type pursuits. Art, etc.. doesn't fit at all. It's not a bad thing to not be a STEM field, just different. I absolutely think that we should emphasize art more than we are now, but that doesn't make it STEM.
You could make a good philosophical argument that a significant portion of the technology industry for most workers today is art. Code structuring and design is art. Becoming a good leader is an art. Scientific research is an art form. Teaching properly is art. We should not discount the creative aspect in what we do.
No, it's applied mathematics. You could argue that mathematics are "art" but then you would need a really wide and probably useless definition of "art" as almost everything would be art.
I see this a lot and never quite understand it. Code structuring to me seems more like a craft, something that is improved through experience and wisdom and not abstract rules.
> You could argue that mathematics are "art" but then you would need a really wide and probably useless definition of "art" as almost everything would be art.
I don't think that everyone (maybe not even every mathematician) would call math an art, but I think that it can be done without doing undue violence to the term. For me, what makes mathematics an art is its capability for creating and exploring unusual, surprising, sometimes delightful patterns, in visual and other senses of the term. I'm not sure I'd call that a definition of 'art', but I think that it's not so broad as to be meaningless.
So what? You could equally well observe that most great scientists were men, but that doesn't mean that STEM education for women can be improved by sex reassignment surgery.
My point is that a well rounded education probably makes for a smarter person. If all you do is code or solve calculus your world view might end up being rather narrow.
if it's so inclusive why can't boys join huh. jokes aside this is good. we need to provide all skills to both gender for them to make their career choices.
As a former Girl Scout I think this is excellent. I think it'll be much easier to get girls to explore STEM activities if it's associated with an organization they're already involved in.
It would depend on how they define development. The people who do the art and the people who do the code are rarely the same person, even in smaller indie games.
I think I agree than programming can be a craft - I think of myself as a craftsman, and usually use the term "artisanship" to describe the quality of code. I don't think that it's necessarily a craft, though. Most academic code that I've worked with is not written in a way that I would consider up to my standards, but it gets the job done and is often targeted at expanding human knowledge. In that way, programming can be seen as more like physics or other 'hard sciences'.
Come to think of it, Photoshop is the same way.
If I'm editing a headshot for a pageant contestant (which I've done quite a bit in the past), that's firmly in the "craft" side of things.
If I'm putting together a UX design for a webapp, what's a bit ambiguous - there are design elements that are "craft-like" and there are usability considerations that are "science-like".
If I'm writing a droplet to do batch processing of a whole series of photos I've take on a shoot and have to test that it's doing what I need it to do over a wide variety of inputs... well, we're back in the "science-like" side of things again.
In fact, I would argue that the toolset and even the discipline are almost irrelevant in this discussion. "Craft" versus "science" is a matter of process and mindset more than anything.
I'm a software engineer with a degree in neurophysiology (partial phd), though no degree in physics (just an interest). Would you care to actually back up your appeal-to-authority there with some actual commentary? Or are we just going to compare dick sizes?
A craft is something you get better at by improving the constituent skills that are required in that craft. For instance, in woodworking, it takes some level of skill to work with hammer and nails, or to sand a board, etc. etc.
So programming is not a craft.
Programming, at its core, is problem solving, and getting better at programming requires improving one's problem solving ability. Physics is also about problem solving, and is likewise improved by improving one's PS ability.
However, having heavily experienced both, I would say that they are very different types of problem solving. Modern programming is a lot of trial and error, ala any other type of "invention". "I did not fail, I now know 1000 ways to not make a lightbulb" - Edison.
Modern physics is not really trial and error. Physics is applied math. You take some fundamental principles, combine them together in a logical way, and get something new. At a high level, that sounds like programming. But for me personally, and I think for many people, the fundamental thought process and approach to problem solving in the two fields is very different.
It doesn't necessarily need to be enforced, but facilitated at least. Boys can't truly be boys unless there are no girls. As such there is a time for boys to be alone; with boys; a time with girls, and a time with adults. Each comes with a set of social rules, and degrees of letting their hair down.
Gender equality is important. Critical, even, given society's propensity to marginalise and objectify women. But gender emancipation should not come at the cost of emasculation.
> Boys can't truly be boys unless there are no girls.
This amounts to trolling whether you intend it that way or not, and predictably sparked a tedious ideological thread. That's emphatically not what HN is for, so would you please not post like this again?
Had this question from my girlfriend earlier. I told her about pissing contests. A literal one, where boys are at the urinal seeing who can pee the highest. That's a guy thing because, well, anatomy right? Now throw a girl into that scenario. The pissing contest would simply not happen. That's removing a testosterone-driven (competitive), masculine thing for the sake of gender equality. Is that a good thing, or bad? Must men rid themselves of their competitive nature before women are able to feel equal?
Sorry are you saying that women aren't competitive, or that men can't compete with women? Because there are the same number of boys and girls as before, they're just together. So even if I accept one of those (which I don't), the boys can still be competitive with each other, there are just girls in the vicinity.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion - women are indeed competitive and men can, and do compete with women.
What I'm saying is that higher levels of testosterone in men increases their competitiveness and appetite for risk.
Depriving boys (and men) of an outlet for that competitiveness is folly. Expecting men to take up crocheting just because equality is folly.
I support giving men and women equal opportunity. I support any individual's choice. If a boy wants to play with other boys who are we to interfere? If a boy wants to play with girls or crochet, who are we to interfere?
FORCING equality, equivalence and absolute parity onto women and men will lead, I think, to societal problems. Androgynous sameness. History, and experience, has shown me that anything in the extreme is a recipe for disaster.
Who knows. I may be wrong (I've been wrong before), but I have yet to hear a compelling counter argument.
> Boys can't truly be boys unless there are no girls.
I disagree. In fact, I think this kind of stuff is very harmful for development.
Imagine telling someone that they need "white-only" time, to unburden themselves from the special requirements imposed by hanging out in mixed company. It only serves to perpetuate out-sized notions of existing differences between genders.
> Imagine telling someone that they need "white-only" time
Boys and girls (at least the majority of them) behave and socialize visibly differently, and can benefit from it. Races do not have the same sorts of inherent distinct needs, and if they do it's typically more granular than "white" or "black"; more likely you want time with the Italian side of your family, or the Somali side, or with your girlfriend's Panjabi roots.
Why do you think so many women occasion a "girls' night out", or men "hang out with the guys"?
Boys and girls have a lot more significant physiological and sociological differences than whites and blacks. Whereas, for example, the noticeable differences between a Japanese woman and a Mestizo woman come down to things like whether the earwax is likely dry or oily, or the probable size of teeth or lips. These sorts of things have basically no relevance or importance to social relationships.
Drawing meaningful distinction between the cohort characteristics of boys and girls is not sexist. I have no interest in determining the rights or freedoms of either group based on these characteristics. I would merely suggest that people in either cohort are likely to have needs that differ more than within each cohort. A hen and a rooster are both chickens, but they are meaningfully distinct as well.
> Why do you think so many women occasion a "girls' night out", or men "hang out with the guys"?
Cultural momentum. They inherit the habit from older generations. May as well ask why Swedes love saunas, or why asian cuisine uses chopsticks.
My friend crowds have not had anything resembling those segregated nights out in forever, and in fact, headway is being made insofar women have men in their bridal parties and vice-versa.
> These sorts of things have basically no relevance or importance to social relationships.
You haven't made a case for why the physiological differences between men and women have relevance.
The biological makeup of men vs. women is a lot more distinct than a one race vs another.
Firstly, there is the most obvious: sex organs and growth. Erections, ejaculation, periods, breast/hip growth, etc. are all sensitive topics, and I have not seen evidence that keeping these topics sensitive is a bad thing. Girls generally hit puberty earlier than boys, so it doesn't really make sense for 12 year old boys and 12 year old girls to be grouped together in certain situations, when girls are having a sexual awakening and boys aren't (as a cohort - obviously everyone hits puberty at different times, but society functions through generalizations).
Secondly, there is the general impact of hormonal differences. Hormonal differences have a striking impact on emotional development, and that needs to be considered when raising children.
Biologically, the only general difference between a black boy and a white boy is their skin color, which at an individual level makes no difference at all to their development. Obviously if society treats these skin colors differently and that impacts development, that is another issue entirely and should be handled separately from any gender issues.
I have not seen evidence that keeping these topics sensitive is a good thing, so I think the burden of proof is on you to justify why they should be "kept sensitive". Notably, the "shame" around periods routinely gets challenged by concerned parties. Additionally, "keep sensitive" is a weird euphemism for the original, much stronger claim that boys can't truly be boys unless there are no girls.
I have a buddy who's been a scout from youth til college, and the net impact of gender-segregated scouting in the USA vs. most other countries in the world is that american kids were clueless and out of place at the global jamboree he went to, since other countries have correctly obsoleted the stupid divide.
If puberty is a salient point for you, maybe you need to group slightly older boys with slightly younger girls. However, before that, you'd need to justify why these developmental differences matter at all for the vast majority of socializing kids do.
And ultimately that's my problem with your post. You are very scared about the idea that some of these cultural gender barriers may be torn down, and you have some biological facts in hand, but you haven't actually made a case for why these biological facts necessitate the erection of cultural barriers. The burden of proof is on you, despite the american status quo lagging behind.
I think in this case the burden of proof is on both of us. We both have stances, and both stances have precedent. In fact, you are the one challenging the current status quo, so if anyone the burden is on you.
I'm not really sure why American Scouts would be clueless about girls, considering that almost all of them go to schools with girls, participate in other clubs with girls, etc. etc. If they are not interacting with girls, I think that is more a failing of their other social activities, not a failing of the scouts.
Fundamentally, I think the idea is to have some aspects of life / growing up where sexuality can be largely ignored in pursuit of an arguably more constructive environment. i.e. teenagers have a whole lot of hormones, and focus is easier to maintain when you're not thinking about a tumble between the sheets with the person sitting next to you. That's just how our brains are wired.
Similar arguments could be levied for racial stuff, and I'm pretty sure were used to justify segregation eg: in combat units.
"Different races are strange for kids, it may cause them stresses firing off their innate biological danger senses, maybe best to keep 'em separate if the other task at hand is too important"
The only thing required to challenge the status quo about a discriminatory practice is the absence of proof. I don't agree that I need to do extra legwork just because I want to change things up.
However, I'm Canadian. And in Canada, scouts don't discriminate. So I don't really have to do anything, other than explain that the American attitude towards this seems very backwards to me.
The distinction here is that their are no discernible developmental differences between races. An asian girl is going to start menstruating and noticing guys sexually, just as a black or white or [insert race here] girl will. Same goes for guys and their development. We are talking about developing individuals here, and there is no indication that race (without social factors) impacts development.
Gender/sex is different. Sex is quite possibly the most important indicator and impactor of adolescent development. For example, mixing genders absolutely makes sexual behavior more accessible (mixing races does not).
From there, studies have linked increased sexual behavior in adolescents to increased delinquency[1] and strong negative impact on grades for white males (and less inclination to go to college for white females)[2]. The body of work surrounding this topic is still somewhat small, but I would be happy if you could provide a source that indicates increased sexuality has a positive net impact on the productivity of adolescents, or anything to that effect.
It may be worth not taking that sentence too literally, and in isolation. Try to derive its intent within the broader context and spirit of the whole paragraph.
Forgoing the natural biological propensities that genders (and races) have is much more harmful for development and for this society as a whole. Start seeing reality for how it is, not how you wish it to be Roderic.
I beg to pardon but I highly doubt that the level they will practice at is ever going to touch upon any advanced topic you suggest, and not all games run in 3D either. Science is about observation and deriving insights and rules from what you see, video games is largely more of an engineering problem that typical science/exploration.
Every video-game ever made is a system tailored to maximize the fun another system (the player) has while communicating. Optimizing any given system (no matter how mundane) leads, when approached rigorously and for a prolonged time - to a engineering mindset.
Finally, im sure you could drop them a "scientific" task, and watch the number o interested persons drop to zero. Science can be horrifically tedious, i remember those experiment/measurement serieses my grandfather let me do when i was enthusiastic about chemistry in my childhood.
One afternoon, of unexplained science drudgery, (a repetition of radiactivity measurments) killed my interest for chemistry back then. So horray, for taking people by something they naturally care about at that age (Games) and by that hook interest something that makes them grow.
> Science is about observation and deriving insights and rules from what you see
Is mathematics a science?
How about mathematics within a pre-defined discipline (e.g., doing novel work on group theory without inventing new axioms/structures)? Is that science?
If you include mathematics in the sciences, which I think we should, then it's hard to see how video game development is non-scientific.
(Besides which, the old trope about AI applies also to science. AI is AI until it becomes useful, then it's no longer AI and becomes some other branch of CS. All of engineering is science until it becomes useful, then it's no longer science but some branch of engineering.)
> video games is largely more of an engineering problem that typical science/exploration.
For one, video games are a great way to understand the strengths and limitations of simulation in science. And basically all fields of science these days have a corresponding field of computational science focused on using simulations to better understand the underlying science. So, it's important.
Well then ekianjo's argument is even weaker, because "STEM" now clearly includes at least one thing that is unambiguously not "science"...
(besides which, there are some obvious problems here -- not least of which is that many sciences rely on mathematical objects in probability and statistics to determine what is and is not true about observations. IMO modern science is inseparable from mathematics, and concrete mathematical objects form most of the philosophical substrate of modern scientific practice... so, if "science" is separated from "mathematics", that's only the case in some primitive high school understanding of how modern science is actually performed in reality. Maybe that's a problem with how science is performed in reality, but AFAICT it seems to be working pretty well in most areas with some notable huge exceptions.)
It would be kind of silly to say “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math” if the latter three were subsets of the former rather than related (and sometimes overlapping) but distinct categories.
To the contrary, there is a large amount of math to be learned from 2d game development(beginner level). Algebra, geometry, coordinate spaces, physics, perhaps even linear algebra. You are right that it is more engineering, but engineering encourages and facilitates understanding scientific principles.
Making a game at the very most basic level teaches logic. Making a good game, no matter how basic, involves game design, which touches upon psychology.
As a scout I agreed to it vacuously. No God, no obligation, and it's not that hard to fulfill a vacuous obligation. I'm sure that's not what they meant, but I figured "be friendly" and "tell kids that homosexuals are unclean rapists" [1,2,3] were also obviously contradictory in spirit.
If they get political cop-outs from their pledges, then so do I.
[1] unclean: "We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html
In terms of finances I think they're the biggest by a narrow margin, but they make up 15% of the membership (a huge chunk of which doesn't even participate), recently withdrew from both sponsoring the Varsity and Venturer programs, have all sorts of exceptions to the way they run the program that no one else does, and a majority supports withdrawing entirely, but sure - let's blame Mormons for a stance the organization had before they even partnered up.
FWIW there's a huge difference between "sorry, but this is a safe space for religious people" and "if you're not a religious person then you can't be a good American".
I don't think anyone has a problem with the former. But yes, the latter is... worthy of criticism, especially from engineers and scientists who pay attention to things like empirical counter-examples. Maybe not bigoted, but also clearly false.
In case this is a serious question, I'll answer you: no, of course not. But do you feel that the import of the statement I quoted is merely that the BSA is a religious organization?
>I don't know any scientists or engineers who would be willing to sign on to this kind of bigotry
I guess you don't know many engineers, or you only know software engineers in Silicon Valley or something. Engineers, in my experience, and especially the non-software kind, tend to be extremely religious. In fact, studies have found that many middle eastern terrorists come from engineering backgrounds. The engineers I've worked with have been overwhelmingly conservative, and frequently religious. (Those that weren't conservative were usually libertarian.)
Yeah, your typical Millennial programmer in the Bay Area probably isn't religious at all, but hang around some 40+ mechanical or electrical engineers and you'll see an entirely different crowd, with probably a lot of Trump supporters.
We've probably encountered a different engineering demographic. But it's not just a question of being religious. Would the religious engineers of your acquaintance say that unbelievers are incapable of being the best kind of citizens, by virtue of their lack of belief in the supernatural? That's what the Boy Scouts say.
I haven't asked any that particular question, but I see no reason to think that many religious people, engineers or not, would answer that they believe that unbelievers are incapable of being the best kind of citizens. That's a pretty normal kind of belief for religious Americans really.
I suppose you're right, that this kind of bigotry is commonly considered acceptable among believers. I know more scientists well than engineers. Even the ones who are Christians would be appalled by the Boy Scout Principle.
"We have all likely heard horror stories of boys being asked in their Eagle Scout board of review about how they have done their “duty to God,” only to have the youth say they don’t believe in God. Equally disappointing is the example I heard of recently of an Eagle Scout who publicly admitted that he simply lied when asked about “duty to God” in his board of review."
The position that "you can define god however you want!" is common, and I'm not really sure how that position is any less dishonest than just straight up lying about believing in God. It's also not the case that you can always take on a leadership position -- any leadership position -- in the scouts without belief in God. There seems to be a myriad of opinions and practices, ranging from openly accepting to openly hostile. But the assertion that you can be always be a scout -- let alone take on leadership positions -- while being openly atheist doesn't match my experience.
> As a former scout (an Eagle Scout)
As a former scout who dropped out well before becoming an Eagle Scout in large part because my religious beliefs were unambiguously unwelcome locally, and IMO also nationally, I disagree.
> As a former scout who dropped out well before becoming an Eagle Scout in large part because my religious beliefs were unambiguously unwelcome locally, and IMO also nationally, I disagree.
Sorry to hear that was your experience. I started scouting in the midwest (where everyone assumed you were a christian weather you were or not) and moved to the Seattle area (where nobody cared). I never had anyone shove a bible in my face and demand I witness.
> The position that "you can define god however you want!" is common
It's very common in 12 step methods. The text uses the term "higher power" - I think most people have their God as their higher power, others use their sober self, or something else they care greatly about.
I am fully informed, having read the entire Declaration and all the rest of the list of requirements. Further, I don't see where you have "corrected" me. I never said that the Principle insists on Christianity. I also don't see how an "athiest", friendly or not, can be a merit badge counselor, unless he agrees that he can not grow into the "best kind of citizen," or that somehow he can remain an atheist, yet recognize his "duty to God" nevertheless.
Your sources do not seem to support your claim. To quote your last link:
To register with the Boy Scouts of America, a potential merit badge counselor must complete the BSA's Adult Application form
To quote from that form, as linked from the same page:
Excerpt From Declaration of Religious Principle
The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without
recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the
member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that
the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention
to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious
Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to register
and the applicant explicitly signs that I have read and affirm that I accept the Declaration of Religious Principle
If it was Boy scouts is introducing sewing, cake making etc. The response would be along the lines of, that's great in theory but in practice boys just won't join Boys Scouts anymore.
Cooking is a required merit badge for Eagle Scout, as is Family Life. (One of the requirements for Family Life is doing chores around the house, which is usually going to include laundry--arguably a more useful skill for teenagers going off to college soon than sewing is).
That kind of thinking results in an inevitable chicken and egg problem.
How did society get this way if it's all a construct? A secret cabal decided what constitutes a "masculine" activity and what constitutes a "feminine" activity, some indeterminate amount of time ago?
If I only like playing with toy cars because my father liked playing with toy cars, and my father only liked playing with toy cars because his father liked it, who was the first father and why did it stick?
The reality is that men and women have different biological compositions with different hormones and different instincts that organically give rise to different behaviors. Sure, toys are toys, and generally any kid will probably be happy with any toy, regardless of gender. But the idea that preferences in childhood development didn't arise organically is honestly not founded in reality.
But if you introduce it as cooking, that's a whole different ball game. Besides, baking is a little bit impractical while camping compared to, idk, cooking eggs over an open fire?
I'm not really against the STEM push in Girl Scouts I guess, I'm indifferent to it. Maybe it'll get a few more women interested in the field which is cool.
Right but you are doing so in an disingenuous way. I like baking too. Referring to "girls baking" implies cupcakes, cookies, frosting, and cakes. All of which are impractical while camping.
Ya you do. Otherwise nobody would have been talking about it. The cultural norm when somebody mentions baking in this context and "boys doing it" revolves around things like cupcakes and cookies and what not. It's obvious. It's not a point of contention to anybody here except you, for reasons unknown to me.
