Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Eagledad

  1. There is one part in the discussion that is being missed, it's the culture that should guide everyone in the troop, not the adults. The Mission is to build moral and ethical decision makers using the Scout Law to guide them. Type A Scouts aren't rewarded more because the actions of their personality require less encouragement, introverts are rewarded equally because they are shaped by the culture of expectations for everyone's actions in the troop. If the expectations are to be servant to everyone (Scout Law), then the expectations for everyone are equal. I saw this over and over, when the need arises, the introvert steps up because that is expected of them in that moment. Introverts are always impressive because they appear to step out beyond their personality. But in reality, they are just doing what they've been watching what all the scouts are doing in the culture everyday. Where training fails the adults is convincing them that what scouts SEE is what they learn. They don't have to be THE leader to turn learn the habits of leadership. If the Scouts see leadership over and over, that is how they will lead (give or take) when their moment arrives. Scouts don't need leadership training to lead because they will act as they have seen others actions. A mature troop requires little leadership development. Of course some scouts are just better leaders because they change their style by the reactions of their decisions. But, that is a personality behavior. I use leadership actions as an example, but the same idea works through all the culture. The scouts learn expectations of the culture (good decisions). If the adults encourage a culture of expectations and accountability, the culture will teach and encourage the scouts to make better decisions. The culture is the "guards rails" not the adults. And it works very well when the adults encourage it. Where the adults come back into the picture is when something unexpected challenges the expectations of the culture, then the mentor steps in and ask questions to push for a the brain to create a solution based on the scout law. Usually discipline for really bad decisions is what pops up. Bob threatened to Steve with his walking stick. How should we handle that. And, usually that happens with the SPL approaching the SM. "We had and incident that I need some help figuring out how to deal with it". My experience is that the program will eventually mature to a place that whatever the SPL brings will be a challenge to the adults. Scouting is called a safe place. Most adults take that as meaning that scouts are safe from predictors. But actually it means that scouts are safe to make bad decisions and learn from them. That means that adults have the attitude that bad decisions turn into good habits. Of course some bad decisions like intentionally trying to hurt another person has to be dealt with more appropriately, but I found that adults acting disappointed instead of acting angry is the best action in an environment where making bad choice is acceptable. My son once told me that the scouts would much rather I yelled than to act disappointed. I don't know why, but silence has a lot more power to correct. My point of this post is to start thinking of how adults should encourage a culture of expectations with consequences that are based from intent of decisions. Honestly, the Scout Law is outstanding for doing that because each point is selfless action for bettering the other person. The Scout Law encourages a servant culture. A self serving decision becomes quite obvious in a servant culture. Barry
  2. The policy in our troop was that ALL adults except the SM had to get the SPL's permission to attend the PLC. The SM only attended for brief 5 minute visits. The parents embraced the rule because it was part of our boy run program. This came from one of my WB Ticket items where I visited 5 different troop PLC meetings. Only one of those five troops gave the SPL autonomy to run the meeting and no adults were allowed. I duplicated the policy and the it worked very well. Barry
  3. Your just using narrow scope nip picky specifics to feel relevant. I know what I know and your post doesn't provide anything useful for anyone. And You miss the point. There is plenty of studies over the years that contradict both sides. So what! I respect qwazes desire for girls in scouting. I think his resources are sound. I don't respect him using condescending terms to reinforce point. Does anyone gain from it? At best he just continues the defiance. At worst, he drives folks away that might have otherwise wanted to learn. If his post is so strong to stand alone, then he should provide it by itself without being condescending.
  4. I believe Mormon units have been allowed use single gender leaders. I could go on and on, but what's the point. You want to set your personal standard on others while trying to appear open mind with your Local Option. Barry
  5. That's not sexist. That is a different opinion based on different information. Shesh. Your supporting my point that you can't (won't) have an open mind because you risk loosing ground on your opinion. Even though you control your opinion. Are you afraid the other person jut might change you mind? Do you really think your information is the only information on the subject? Does personal experience that doesn't agree with your information count for anything. Seems like folks today can only have a discussion if they feel they have the upper hand. Scoutlike? Even scientist differ on opinions based from personal evidence. As an engineer, I often have different opinions with other engineers even though our numbers are an exact and don't have an opinion.. Barry
  6. You had me up to here. What is the point of the local option if some options are off the table? All the examples you gave for supporting the local option are political in nature to some degree. This is exactly why many posters (pro gays included) didn't support the local option. How can the local option give COs room to provide a program if the CO is given limited options based on perception. I thought the whole idea of the local option was to give the BSA a break on perception. Barry
  7. We had a similar situation with the schedule, only opposite. The scouts wanted to spend extra time at the fishing camp, but that would put us in our campsite late. So, they set the alarm at 4:00 in the morning to get us on the trail by 4:30 am to get to Fish camp by 7:00am. AND THEY DID IT. It wasn't easy getting up that early and we were even hiking in the dark for awhile, but we adults were impressed that they looked a head and made the plan. They actually did something similar for two other days. So, I didn't get much beauty sleep. Barry
  8. You hit the nail on the head. The issue I have about this forum is that the discussion isn't sexist because in reality both youth genders learn more faster with role models of the same gender. But, members here have an agenda and that fact doesn't fit in their agenda. It's like the word racist, seems to be the go to defense these days when racism has nothing to do with the topic. It's just a word to shut down the other persons opinion. If each gender learns more from same gender leaders, then at the very least, we have to admit that we are willing to loose that advantage by mixing the adult genders, At least that is honest. Oh, I know we can go on all day speaking of the outstanding skills and role modeling examples of each gender in the scouting program, but, that wasn't my point. I'm very pragmatic and find emotionally driven discussions frustrating. I believe intelligent people should make intelligent choices based from facts. And then justify their decision with intelligent reasoning. If you value growth of your scouts is better with mixed genders than the advantages of single gender programs because mixed gender leadership give scouts a more rounded experience, I'm good with that. That is an intellectual choice and the reasoning admits sacrificing an advantage for another. But, if you believe all units should agree with you, then I would say that is an opinion biased on bias, not reason. If you really believe in the local option, you better be ready to support a unit you disagree with. I do agree that the GSUSA reason for not including boys or even men is not honest, what ever their reason. But, at least they are strait about it and I do respect that. Folks here on the BSA forum ignore the GSUSA all together as if the BSA is the evil sexist giant and the GSUSA doesn't exist. I think that hypocrisy is worse. Barry
  9. So you think a discussion on the subject is sexist. You gotta love the irony that the subject would be discussed honestly on the GSUSA forum. Barry
  10. The question is does one gender of youth instinctively learn better from the same gender role model. Some experts say yes and that is where many of those discussions came from. Is bringing that point into the discussion sexist? The reality is that quality of growth depending on the gender role model is secondary to an organization using both genders to influence growth. Barry
  11. I look forward to you new thread. But, it wasn't about physical skills or different experience as you imply, it was about how the natural youth brain learns from what it observes. The discussion was more about quality of growth, not about levels of quality sexism. For a discussion to be productive, both sides have to be open minded, and in my opinion, this discussion has proven that not all participants are willing to be open minded. Barry
  12. Yes, there has always been unexperienced dads joining the program, it just wasn't an issue until moms scouters increased the size of the resource pool. And, we predicted here on this forum that more unexperienced dads would join the program once their daughters were allowed. Which is ironic because the GSUSA has a reputation of not being welcoming to dads. It has also been discussed that with admittance of gays and girls, a lot of experienced scouters would leave the program, leading to a larger percentage of inexperienced parents in the program. One other interesting thing I've noticed with inexperienced dads joining the program is that on average, they have the same amount out doors experience as moms. Which on average is almost none. So, the hurdles are increasing in size all around. Barry
  13. Even National stated they admitted girls to increase membership. Of course it looks good from a political position, but there wasn't the heat for change that is implied here. The tone here is that the BSA was the last bastion of barbarism for sexism, yet there is the GSUSA moseying along without even a whimper from folks here, or anywhere. That is real hypocrisy. Just trying to keep the facts strait. Barry
  14. I think you are right except for the gender issue. There was never a public outcry for girls in Cubs and Troops and it has was left alone s a political activism for the reasons I stated earlier. It's still not an issue now for the GSUSA. Barry
  15. I agree. Where the understanding gets muddy is who applied the pressure. The claim and assumption in this discussion is that the pressure came from families, but that is not the case. If one looks at membership trends, the slopes don't show membership changing as events drove the BSA. It is true that a lot of business drew back their support in the late 90s, but that was politically driven, not public. Activist were busy pushing (threating in some cases) companies to remove their support to the BSA, mainly over the gay issues. I remember a lot of folks felt Levi Co withdraw was indicative of the public support, but a report came out and showed that Levi's Co was a leader in gay activism. What folks didn't understand is that while loosing those sponsors did hurt the BSA some, the main funding came from alumni support. That is why no more was heard from National for another 10 years. I once talked to a professional in Campfire Kids organization and he said all scouting organizations envied the alumni support of the BSA. Just look at the Philmont to understand how the passion of scouting drove alumni support. But, as you pointed out, the external pressure from activism eventually took it tole and National started making noise of change. THAT is were National started loosing the alumni support 10 to 15 years ago, and that is were they started feeling the pressure between the activist and their mainline funding. Events occurred very quickly at that time with the gay membership changes and who knows when the bottom dropped out. National probably saw the writing on the walls with the abuse law suit and loosing a 3rd of the membership with the Mormons, the future must have looked bleak. One last note of record, it was the homosexual activism that drove the change. There was never pressure to add girls to the program. Let's not reinvent history. And there is a simple reason why female activists never pushed or threatened the BSA. Can anyone guess? I will give you a hint; GSUSA. The women's equality activist entered into the Girls Scouts program back in the 70s. Their plan was not equality of boys and girls. If you remember back then, Women's movement was about women. That is why even today nobody is touching any female organization for combining the boys and girls. Campfire Kids made the change in the 80's as a strategic move to increase membership. They started recruiting boys in 1st grade, which is year before the BSA recruited cubs. That is why the Tiger program was created. The pressure that both Campfire Girls at the time and the BSA felt today is funding. As a result of loss of support from the alumni, the BSA made the bold move to grab a share of the GS's membership. And the GSUSA is not letting it happen without a fight. But, there is still no push for the GS program to accept boys. And there won't be. Of course there is more a head. I was told by a gay activist leader in 1992 that the enemy of culture is religion because morality is the constraint for social freedom. He said that any and all organizations that are based on moral principles will feel the pressure to change their moral principles. And look where we are at. The BSA will give way to god as well. And once that foundation falls, living the oath and law will basically mean do what feels good at the time. The suggestion in this discussion is that if the BSA relaxes on it's basic founding principles, it will appeal to more of the public. It did work for the Canadian scouts and I think the reason is the forces that pushed the Canadian Scouts to change came from activist, not the public. I think the same is happening with the BSA. The public in general supports the BSA program as they know it. The recent changes and future changes are from activism, and, well, the law suit. But, it's probably just as well, the culture will not allow a principled youth program program. Barry
  16. Will you believe it? I give the results of our research of why families drop out and it’s disregarded. Folks here seem to only accept what fits their agenda. In fact, I would be surprised if today’s research didn’t support our data 25 years ago because program hasn’t really changed. We didn’t have a theory when we did research. We had a problem but didn’t know why. Research took us to the problem. Once we saw the problem (like why first year scouts have the highest dropout rate), we could track it to when National started recording membership numbers. Barry
  17. We kept hundreds of scouts in the program with that Non-data.LOL That’s just a theory, you don’t even claim Data to support the theory. I happen to know a few young dads who were in scouts not considering it for their kids because it doesn’t look like the program of their youth just 20 years ago. I don’t know if that is any kind of trend, but it has to be considered. Barry
  18. I think not. I did all the heavy lifting of acquiring data until about 12 years ago and used our research results to fix programs. We didn’t have a grudge we were trying to support, we were just trying to make the program better. It’s your theory, go find your support. There is plenty of National data if you are so inclined. I don’t think you can tho, your theory that girls and gays are the reason membership declined over the years is pretty out there. I interviewed and exit interviewed a lot of parents and scouts and compared that data with other people across the country. Gays, god and girls never came up. Maybe because families that would be so offended to quit would never join in the first place. We had several atheist parents in our units and several gay families in the district who joined and seem to enjoy the program. trust me that a lot folks are also watching resent membership data very close after gays were admitted. Like you, folks want to prove their personal theories. But since the Mormons pulled out following the membership change, trends are a mess and convoluted. Now add girls. Well Good luck. The trends we researched are still valid, but they are internal program issues. Stuff that doesn’t interest you. Barry
  19. You would like to see the data of no data that supports your theory of BSA membership declining because of no girls! Barry
  20. Trends and program reviews. Easy to monitor. And, it makes sense. There are several scouting programs for girls. What do you have that suggest an overwhelming demand. Barry
  21. No contradiction, there has never been any indication that not admitting girls caused membership losses. National admitted they started taking girls to stop the bleeding after the Mormons left the BSA. Barry
  22. Why is taking freedom of speech the go-to weapon for those who can’t sway their ideals on those with experience and knowledge. Barry
  23. Better? Who is “us”? Several posters lately have been going out of their way to, well to impose an alternate reality. Why? There are mature adults here who only want to develop a program where their youth actually grow from their experience. The scouters come here Looking for tidbits of information to help them get closer to their efforts by asking real questions hoping for sensible solutions. The “us” are noise that pushes those real scouters away, thus keeping them from doing the best they can with the resources within their reach. Is wanting to be a resource for those asking for help prideful? Barry
  24. I worked with concerning and skeptical parents for years. You have no integrity because you condemn the organization without intellectual reason. Parents want some kind of intellectual reasoning So they can trust you with their kids out in the wilderness for a weekend. You are close-minded and resort to flinging emotional spit-wad insinuations. It’s not the same. Experience trumps anger. Parents see it in an instant. Barry
  • Create New...