Jump to content

Camp Recipes and Cooking

Tales of Scout cooks, prized techniques and yummy recipes for gathering around the fire.


59 topics in this forum

    • 8 replies
    • 312 views
    • 4 replies
    • 202 views
  1. Coffee 1 2

    • 19 replies
    • 771 views
    • 1 reply
    • 865 views
  2. Taco Soup

    • 11 replies
    • 1.5k views
  3. Cub Scout Cooking 1 2

    • 28 replies
    • 2.8k views
  4. Covid Cooking

    • 6 replies
    • 981 views
  5. Oktoberfest Meal

    • 9 replies
    • 1.8k views
  6. Campfire Beef Stew

    • 0 replies
    • 735 views
  7. Three Sisters Pottage

    • 4 replies
    • 1.2k views
  8. Iron Chef Food

    • 3 replies
    • 1.2k views
    • 0 replies
    • 609 views
    • 1 reply
    • 1k views
  9. Fooled to want foil?

    • 12 replies
    • 1.7k views
  10. The Frugal Camp Menu 1 2 3

    • 40 replies
    • 4.3k views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • This isn't a fringe view, you just aren't reading what he wrote in context.  He's not saying women are "Neurotic" he's talking about the "Big Five Dimensions of Personality".  Neuroticism is a trait, not a mental illness or criticism.  Another phrase for Neuroticism is "Emotional Stability".
    • @fred8033, I hear ya. During that period I first joined a Sea Scout ship, after hearing the adventures one SM had when he was one. Sadly it was a non-traditional ship, and not very good. I lasted long enough to get Ordinary. Then I got reinvolved with the OA and BOOM I went. The Scouter Reserve was suppose to fill the  wish you have, but it was not widely used until folks became obsessed with training requirements and JTE. But as I said, the 18-20 year olds I have spoken to feel both disrespected by National's pollicy that they no longer count towards YP requirements,  and that National is oblivious to the fact that 18-20 year olds do indeed have friends and classmates under 17, and some YP policies prevent them from being with their friends. They would rather get out of Scouting, only attending the occasional Eagle Court of Honor than losing their friendships.   To quote Col. Sherman T. Potter, US Army Medical Corps, "HORSEHOCKEY!" I have seen first hand a Venturing Crew completely and totally set up and run by 16 to 20 year olds, and a few younger ones..  In 1998 when Venturing first split from Exploring, there was a lot, and i mean a LOT of confusion between Venture Crews/Patrols in troops and Venturing. Long story short, when one motivated young man of 16 found out he was ineligible  for the Venturing Awards because it was a completely separate program, he went to work and got it all done.  He was the one who went to the Field Director to get the info about Venturing,  he recruited other Scouts to be part of the new crew, he recruited adults to serve, and  he submitted the paperwork. As for my non-interest in Venturing, in my neck of the woods Scouting is dying. I have not had a real, unit serving DE dedicated to my district since 2012. We have not been able to get into the schools for so long I cannot remember when the last Round Up was. And the DEs we shared with another district were no help. My old pack went from almost 100 Cubs in about 8 dens back in 2009 to less than 30 Cub Scouts total.  We have lost 4 non LDS packs, and are on the verge of losing more. My Troop was one that lost the feeder pack, and it is all I can do to keep the troop alive.  It is not that I am apathetic about Venturing, far from it. It is that I need to focus my limited time and resources on what will make the most impact on youth. And until BSA starts acknowledging reality and respecting 18-20 year olds, I do not see Venturing, at least in my area, growing.  I know the 2018 YP rules are based upon data, that I have serious questions about because I have not seen the situations they say are happening in my 30 years as a Scouter.
    • I think you should stop posting because if anyone from the mainstream world visits this forum and reads posts like yours claiming that neuroticism is why women aren't in leadership positions... that is very far outside the mainstream and is really terribly offensive.    Again, where are our moderators? Are these fringe views acceptable and defensible? 
    • You are mixing up statistical and non-statistical terminology.  In the context of a statistical study if something bad happens frequently then it's a "high risk".  But a negative occurrence being a "high risk" has nothing to do with the severity of the potential outcome.  Elementary Teachers, particularly in their first few years, are at "high risk" of contracting all manner of infections from snotty, unhygienic children. (then after a few years they are often relatively healthier, illness-wise, than the average adult)  But the likelihood of a serious outcome from all those illnesses is extremely low. So yes, Health Care personnel do regularly run the "serious" risk of death associated with being around potentially life threatening contagions.  However at this point in time, the actual rate of risk of contracting one of those illnesses is typically very low given the level of precautions built into the health care system.  And Health Care isn't viewed as nurturing and "low risk" because it has been predominately a female profession, it's viewed as nurturing both because that's typically a requirement of the job (since a nurturing atmosphere is linked to better outcomes) and because dealing with people who are sick and in pain and dying is emotionally draining and often just a shit job; and only people with a genuinely caring, compassionate and nurturing personality can do the job well. And once again, NO ONE SAID GIRLS PREFER MENU PLANNING OR DON'T LIKE ADVENTURE.  That was your (incorrect) interpretation of what someone said.  This is what Eagledad said: While I don't know that I'd go so far as to say girls have a "natural instinct for management and details", it's pretty well studied that girls are better than boys at the kind of self-regulation and discipline required for scholastic, planning and organizing tasks (without regard to whether or not they actually enjoy it)  This is proven out by the fact that girls out-perform boys (on average) across the board at every level of school. As far as whether or not girls like adventure, well the only statement I've seen anyone make with regard to that was to say boys are more drawn to adventure than girls.  Which can certainly be true in some respects.  The impact of testosterone exposure in-utero and in the body has been studied with the following result: Now consider the first definition of the word "Adventure": Definition of adventure  (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : an undertaking usually involving danger and unknown risks a book recounting his many bold adventures b : the encountering of risks the spirit of adventure 2 : an exciting or remarkable experience an adventure in exotic dining They were looking for adventure.   If you consider "Adventure" to be something risky and exciting then the more adventurous something is, the higher the level of risk you would expect it to entail.  So it would make complete sense that boys would be drawn to riskier adventures (on average) than girls.  However, I don't know that that distinction has much relevance when it comes to the relatively watered-down risks associated with anything the BSA permits Scouts to do.
    • Nope, still here... no petard used or detonated. I claim victory, and leave the field to you with your perfectly displayed trait of Neuroticism. P.S.  Note to self...pearls wasted yet again
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...