Hi Rangers,
I added my answers to all those e-mails to this one:
> Women were the main Christian educators in the church back then. A void
> of men (except in Sunday service and maybe some other minor events) left
> an unfulfilled need in those boys lives. That need was proper Christian
> 'male' role models. There was only so much a boy could learn from a
> woman but the rest had to come from emulating men. They needed role
> models to show them proper male character - spiritually as well as
> socially, something they couldn't get from a women.
What a bullshit argument (excuse my language, please). What was the unfilled
need in boys lives surely was not a man-only leadership, but other (scouting
etc.) issues Royal Rangers provides. But that could also be provided by
women leading an OP.
> Now this may not be as factual as it was told to me but the meaning
> remains; boys need to move away from behind mother (and her skirt) and
> join the men so they may learn from them. Today, our boys don't need
> another motherly figure from a women commander but a male who will
> demonstrate to them what it means to be a godly man. Something a
> motherly figure cannot 'fully' teach.
I agree boys do need to 'emancipate' from behind mother's skirt, but you
can't generally say it has to be men who lead them in that. It is Royal
Rangers methods (learning by doing, building up the self-esteem in the boys)
that do help them emancipate from 'behind mother's skirt'.
> Why does everything have to be gender neutral? Developmental science
> tells us that boys will be boys and girls will be girls. Girls are
> naturally going to go after the dolls and boys after cars and trucks.
> What's so difficult to understand that there are differences, and with
> those differences come unique traits and attitudes that only those of a
> particular gender can understand. Have you ever heard a women say, "you
> don't understand, it's a women thing"? Well, if there are women things,
> naturally there are men things.
But there are also things that are gender neutral. Do you really think any
marriages would work if there wer only men's interests and women's interests
kept strictly separate?
I know there are many girls who also do like scouting (as much as the boys
do). So why not have girls (and coming with that female commanders) in a
scouting organisation.
> I understand in some countries girls and women are allowed to join RRs
> because there was no alternative girls programs. The leaders adapted to
> what will work best for them.
Where do you know that from? I don't think it is a lack of girls programs
that made European Royal Rangers (and Australian of course) admit girls in
Royal Rangers.
> One final thought, suppose there was a movement in the church that men
> wanted to become Missionette Sponsors, how far do you think that would
> go? I'd pull my daughter out of it immediately, because a man has no
> business working strictly with girls. Shouldn't this apply to women who
> so desires to be a part of RRs, or is there some double standard we have
> to abide by?
But why are women then allowed in B/SA leadership. Aren't Buckaroos and
Straight Arrows the same boys that will once be Pioneers, Trailblazers,
Challengers?
Also if girls would be allowed to be in Royal Rangers women could lead
female patrols and men male patrols (this is the system we use in Australia
(am I right?) and Europe).
So far Williams arguments.
Ken Komoto writes:
<< I think it's important to keep reminding everyone that foreign Royal
Rangers
DO NOT have the girls integrated into the boys program! Like Missionettes,
they usually meet in a different location and they camp separately. If you
are envisioning tents intermingled on a campout, that is not the way it is.
Even at the National Camporama, they have a separate area to camp.>>
But we don't have that to the extent you think of (if I understood that
right). We are having male and female rangers in the same meeting but in
different patrols (with different leadership). The same with campouts: they
are in the same campout but in separate areas. The extent which I think to
see in your text is that in national and international campouts there is one
area for all the girls and one for all the boys. That is not the way it is
done. Each outpost, section or whatever is the smallest organisatory unit
has separate areas for boys and girls but not the whole campsite.
Each patrol will have it's own tent, but male patrols will be kept separate
from female patrols (but both are on the outposts campground).
Tiffani Maalouf writes:
<<Yes boys should have a male role model but entertain this situation. A
small church only has only one male commander he can't run it by himself.
Yet a few women have the calling to help. The commander either stops the
program or lets the ladies help. Do you forget the whole program because
you don't have MALE leaders? Who would God hold accountable for those lost
souls who didn't find the truth because women couldn't teach?
In a pefect place there would be enough leaders for both RR and
Missionettes. I have been involved with Missionettes for over 17 years and
the highest priority is to reach children for the Lord.>>
Thank you Tiffani. At least ONE female voice.
>From an economic point of view it would surely be better to have one
organisation than to have two. I don't want to say: 'Abolish Missionettes'.
Beware. That would never be my intention.
What I'd like to say is: why not allow girls to be in Rangers? That would
surely be great for those small churches who don't have the leadership for
two organisations, but for one. If your church has both ministries, why not
let them choose whether they want to be in Rangers or in Missionettes.
Women in Rangers does work. If you can't believe that: come and see.
Visit my homepage at www.royal-ranger.com
Allzeit bereit f�r Jesus,
Fani
Pioneer-Cmdr
OP #78 Moetzingen/Germany
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Eat the hay & spit out the sticks! - A#1's mule" RTKB&G4JC!
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
