>>1132736>Either girls will be able to hack it or they won't.Your so goddamn close that it hurts to listen. Yes, there is going to be a sizable percentage of girls that won't be able to hack it, and yes, they will negatively affect things on the boys side. Did you read the post from
>>1128545 that worked at Northern Tier? A large percentage of the girls won't be able to hack the more physically demanding end of BSA, and that will cause it to be watered down so that EVERYONE can do it. That's the main issue here, that BSA is a large enough organization that they don't cherry pick, they set requirements for everyone. This means that at these sort of places the boys are going to get stuck dealing with the requirements that are built around an average teenage girl being to hack it, and are going to have a lower quality experience because of it.
>The girls who want to be challenged will be the ones coming to BSA.Yeah, just like the women that want to join the Army, EMS, Police, etc. They still can't meet the physically demanding requirements and end up lowering standards across the board and cause the men to suffer because they can't handle it.
>The girls who want to participate in BSA are not the girls you need to worry about.And why is it worth the risk to find out? It only takes a few bad apples to royally fuck up a program with SJW nonsense once they're inside.
>You talk about drama and politics and catty teenage girls, but AGAIN, the girls you are worried about are not the same girls who want to be sc/out/s.Refer to above. You keep pointing out how BSA won't get worse if/when it allows girls in, but you haven't been able to make a compelling case about how they'd make it better.
BTW, I'm still waiting on your answer for why women are unable to start/maintain quality /out/ programs and why it's men's job to take them in. You seem to keep ignoring that one even though you've had this issue pointed out to you several times.
