Jump to content

Eagledad

Members
  • Content Count

    8510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    105

Posts posted by Eagledad

  1. 2 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

    Before my tenure as SM... the troop operated way differently and the scouts were used to the adults doing everything and making all the decisions. It took a few years to get them operating like a troop should, but that effort paid a lot of dividends for us. We're certainly not perfect by any means... but I am incredibly proud when I see my scouts leading the way in their schools and having great impacts on our community. It took a lot of explaining to the other leaders that if we loosened up our grip... the scouts would take charge and surprise us. We still have hiccups every now and then, which is to be expected, but that just teaches the scouts how to adapt and overcome (roll with the punches life throws your way). 

    We had two Eagle Project proposals at last night's committee meetings and the two 14-y/o scouts were commanding with their presentations and took every curveball the committee tossed their way. When I see our scouts performing like this... it does make me think we are giving them a solid program. 

    Well said. I agree with the how the program can impact the community. One year I learned that 6 of the 7 students voted as leaders by the high school student body were scouts in our troop. The 7th was a girl. None of those scouts told me, I learned it later from a teacher. Surely that can't be coincidence in a school of 2800 students. 

    Barry

    • Upvote 1
  2. 24 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

    Sorry, the older scouts being the 16 & 17 y/o scouts. In our troop, the scouts know it is their troop. They run it using the patrol method. I have two 17 y/o Eagle Scouts that are my troop guides. Their entire function is to help the SPL make the right leadership decisions. Each patrol also has an ASM assigned to them so there is adult guidance. But, all my ASMs know that failure is ok. It is ok for the scouts to make mistakes so they can learn from their mistakes. As for me, I mentor the Eagle Patrol since they are JASMs. I want them to mimic my servant leadership style until they can come up with their own way.... I think it helps set them on the right path towards a lifelong journey of "cheerful service"/ 

    Sounds like a great troop. Ours functioned much the same way.

    I instructed the scouters in my adult training classes that if they would focus on a quality older scout program, they will inherit a quality younger scout program. Troops tend to do the reverse leaving the older scout program as more of just a hang out for the scouts and fill in when they are needed. Older scouts need to set the tone of the program just as you said so the younger scouts learn good habits simply by seeing them in action.

    Barry

    • Upvote 1
  3. 9 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

    I'd have to disagree. If the younger scouts, by way of the patrol method, are being mentored and guided by the older scouts... I have seen 13-14 years with the emotional and leadership maturity of well-seasoned scouts. Kids parrot what they see. If they see older scouts that are rock-solid youth leaders... they will mimic those traits. ;) 

    Of course, but we are talking about taking the older mentor scouts out of the loop. prepubescent boys instinctively tend to herd for protection. Leadership forces them on the open away safety, so heavy mentoring gets them through it. But, 13 year olds are not older scouts and adults aren't good models to mimic. 

    Barry

  4. 26 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Agreed and your points here may end up being the death of Scouts BSA as it stands.  18 years old isn't a light switch.  To be more safe, we may need to follow the UK model, Scouts 10.5 - 14 ... Explorers 14 - 18 and Network 18 - 25.  I think there is a bigger risk for 17 year olds hanging out with 13 year olds than 18 year olds with a 17 year old.  I wonder if in 5 - 10 years if BSA is forced to change based on insurance policies & litigation potential.

    This is probably where scouting will go, for insurance purposes, but it is the death of scouting as a program where youth develop character through the process of making independent decisions.

    My experience is under 14 scouts aren't instinctively mature for leadership, leaving the adults to intercede when the growth stalls. Scouting is the one true program that develops maturity to confront the realities of adulthood. Now what?

    Barry

    • Upvote 1
  5. 3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

     We are here because BSA national leaders took too long to act to protect kids.  If BSA survives, which I think it will and should, we need to make sure that never happens again. 

    That’s all quite a reach without hard facts. That being said, what do you propose to make sure it doesn’t happen again?

    Barry

  6. 19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Would this then work?

    “If your child joins this pack/troop her or she may be sexually abused.”?

    ”BSA will try not to have people sexually abuse your child, but we cannot guaranteed it won’t happen”?

    Or are you suggesting what is known as an “internet danger” disclaimer or warning? That scouting is so Per se or inherently dangerous that anyone who agrees must acknowledge the inherent danger?

    I don’t know, the scandal of a public school coach caught. abusing girls has been in our news all week. There is probably at least one sex abuse scandal in a public school every week somewhere in the US. That is a lot of scandals. So, let’s replace BSA in your example with “your child’s school” in all public schools and imagine how parents should respond. Should National Leaders shut down all local public schools? Inherent danger?

    I’m trying to imagine 85,000 school teacher sex abusers. Even with all the press, that still seems like a lot.

    Barry

     

  7. I think the moderators have done as good as they can in holding the posters to a scout like tone. And I’ve not always been so kind with my opinions of the mods.

    The discussion is being dominated by emotionally fueled posters who believe they are the smartest contributors in the thread. Add newer members who expect extra leeway with the victim card, and the discussion gets very one-sided. Fine as long it stays on the facts of chapter 11, but most folks here have a vested interest in the future of the program, so any opinions about the future of the program can draw expected responses.

    It’s a complement to the mods that victims feel safe in this forum. But, being scout-like means there has to be fairness, balance, and respect for all the members, including the passionate members who have a stake in the future of the program. After all this is a scouting form.

    Barry

    • Upvote 3
  8. It will be interesting to see how volunteers are guided to deal with tenting two scouts of the same identified gender, but opposite biological gender. I read where a UK Girl Scout Professional was fired for not allowing opposite biological genders' in the showers at the same time. We live in complex times. 

    Barry

    • Confused 1
    • Upvote 2
  9. 41 minutes ago, qwazse said:

    @SiouxRanger, I agree that bygone bathhouses would not stand a chance against video devices of today. I just don’t know if modern shower houses have provided any long term advantage against determined predators. Good scouters staying educated may be all we can count on.

    Reminds me of one Webelos summer camp in 1993 where a female Webelos leader was asked to leave camp because she walked in the shower area to tell (shouted) her scouts that they were staying in the shower area too long. The whole camp could hear those scouts laughing and joking around. The scouts where in their swimsuits and she was just being a mom walking in the shower area without thinking to tell them to quit messing around and holding up the showers for the rest of the camp. That was when we knew Youth Protection was getting really serious.

    Barry

  10. 2 minutes ago, qwazse said:

    Strange. I haven't seen a whole lot of natural instinct for organization among girls. I challenge young teens to build crews, the first step being getting them and five buddies to show up at my door and tell me they want to get started. That first step is very, very, hard for them.

    Totally agree. My Paintball analogy reflects the same thought. My guess is that organizing strangers into a functional group is a different type of organization skill The reason the Girl Scouts are able to do it so well is because they learned over the years in their Troop.

    I did an exercise like this at each of our Council JLT training. After all the participants arrived to course, we gave them 15 minutes to organize into patrols of 7 with each scout assigned to a POR position. The only restriction was no two scouts from the same troop could be in a patrol.

    Barry

    • Like 1
  11. 1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

    Having sons, could you enlighten me about "girls' natural organization instincts?" Thanks.

    Sure, with two older sons and a little girl trailing, I learned there and at other youth organizations that girls tend to fixate on being organized while boys tend to be more adventure oriented. And, in general, girls tend to think in a small picture of details while the boys think in the big picture. What I found is that the young girls will take over a group of boys when it comes to planning and organizing because they like dealing with details. Ever watch very young girls play house? Boys willingly give that up because they hate the tedious small stuff in organizing. 

    What is more frustrating about those trends is that adults interpret the girls organization skills as good leadership skills, when that isn't the case. Girls struggle a lot with the chaos of group dynamics. Boys do to, but only when they don't agree on the goals. And I get so tired of adults bragging about the girls organizational skills to motivate boys to step up. It only frustrates boys relationship and trust with the adults.

    Growth comes much easier for both groups when they are dealing with the same general struggles of the group personalities because the growth gains from the decisions are basically the same. Or can be coached or mentored basically the same. Many believe boys are slower to mature, but the reality is that the instincts of the two genders appose each other so much that the nature tendency for adventure contrasted against organization makes the boys appear less mature. Throw a few boys together in a paint ball match and see how quickly they will make a plan. It's amazing really. Girls struggle just coming together as a group.

    This is not to say some boys are better at organization and some girls are adventure minded. But, in the big picture. the two genders don't mix well until puberty. AND that has it's own struggles.

    Barry

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  12. My reason against girls in troops is that their natural instinct of organization disrupts the growth of boys learning to organize. But, I could see all girl patrols working within the true patrol method since the personal challenges wouldn't be gender specific. The problems of natural instincts fade as each gender reaches puberty, so I don't think older scout leadership is a big problem at the older ages. It's not perfect, but we live in a culture that cares less about maximin potential growth of the youth.

    Barry

    • Upvote 1
  13. On 8/13/2021 at 4:42 PM, TAHAWK said:

     

    I have been copying the Unit leader to prevent "one-on-one" communication.  A parent is now required?

    I may be corrected, but I think the answer is "no", parents aren't required on all communications. Just a 3rd person. Of course the unit may have additional policies. 

    Barry

  14. 59 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    Since most scouters do not attain the rank of Eagle Scout (Eagle Scouts are older scouts and abuse victims tend to younger) and the fact that most victims withdraw from scouting old Eagle Scouts (exception @ThenNow) would tend not to be abuse victims.  But how were they approached...it couldn't have been thru the perversion files since victims names were redacted.  Do you know for a fact if they were abused or not?  If they were not abused are you saying someone (who) was trying to have them file false claims?

    The older Eagles are friends and relatives in their mid 60's. The friends do not know the relatives. My Eagle son was contacted as well. None of these Eagles were victims.

    Barry

  15. 12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Sadly, there are still people here trying to downplay the child sexual abuse. You are right: if there wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be here. But some people are still claiming BSA had (and has) no child sexual abuse problem.

    That isn't true. Some folks just want to see the facts..

    Barry

  16. 23 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    Incidents are always ugly.  Always.  People have a right to feel angry.  

    The issue is as you said.  Numbers.  Standards.  Comparisons.  There are some numbers and I'm not sure BSA fairs any different than others.  Better in some ways.  Worse in others.  

    Maligning BSA based on incidents is wrong.  Label the incident and the individuals, but many of us are uncomfortable labeling the larger organization due to this.

    Good post.

    I have no trouble with the anger. I struggle with how the vague numbers are used as fact. One way or the other. When data can't be defended, it becomes a weapon for both sides of debate. Doing this was a big no no in debate class back in high school because it gets nowhere. The 82,000 has gone nowhere for a long time. Better to leave this thread as a reporting the facts of the case.

    Barry

     

  17. 1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

    I do not use this forum normally for one-on-one debate.  That said, it appeared to me that your assumption was that there were fewer than 82,000 cases of abuse.  If I was wrong and you believe there were more, my apologies.  If your assumption is that we will never know the true number then we both agree.  My point was that when 16% is generally accepted as being the prevalence, and this as been cited consistently, then before anyone assumes the amount in abuse is less in scouting they should do the math.

    I don't have an assumption of numbers in this discussion because there isn't accurate data one way or the other. That is the point of my post. 

    Barry

  18. Just now, MYCVAStory said:

    Multi-tasking while the hearing proceeds.....  Your comments will certainly create head-shaking.  I'd like you to consider one accepted principle of abuse, especially among men. That is the fact that it takes years and decades for people, again, especially men, to come forward as victims of sexual abuse.  While the validation process will determine the number of unduplicated valid claims I'd like you to consider that there will also be many many victims who have not come forward, or never will, or may later in life.  PLEASE do your research into the prevalence and behavior of sexual abuse victims, especially males.  Here's a place to start: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15894146/   "Contact CSA was reported by 16% of males"  Again, PLEASE spend some time educating yourself regarding this topic and ask questions.  The shared experience in this forum, while not always in agreement, really helps understanding this topic not only quantitatively but also qualitatively.  You, like many, might find your assumptions changed.

    What are my assumptions? 

    Barry

  19. 45 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    Wait, Mr. Engineer. You never, ever, not even once used even a teeny tiny itty bitty bit of predictive modeling or analytics based on hard data to calculate and extrapolate in your research and design? Hm. Curious. Never? Never, ever, cross your heart and hope to die? Pinkie swear, too?

     

    Oh, I see. You're only using a teeny, tiny itty bitty bitty predictive model. Well that is different. See how well that works when engineers used the same amount of design to defend a car wreck or plane crash..

    You folks admittingly don't have a clue of the numbers, high or low. Nobody does. Lots of emotion, but not a lot of data.

    I'm curious, I can understand lawyers using these numbers in court to your advantage. But what do you gain defending those numbers on this forum where it doesn't make a difference. You're situation implies an obvious bias, so you aren't changing any minds. I don't get it.

    Barry

  20. 43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    we don’t KNOW how many scouts were abused. All we know, maybe, is 82,500 people claim abuse. There were likely thousands if not tens of thousands more victims who did not file for a host of reasons.

    You have said this before and you should stop because it's purely conjecture based on nothing.

    I'm an engineer and we learn quickly that quality of the design, and safety in my field, is the result of the precision of facts and elements used in development. Anything less looses integrity. We all have our quirks and the scouts in my troop (and my kids) learned quickly that I am a patient man/father until someone spreads guesses and conjecture as facts. Once they do that, they loose integrity, and that is hard to earn back. 

    In this case, I know a lot of elderly Eagles Scouts who were approached several times in the last couple years to join this law suit. And what about all those TV commercials in front of millions of viewers. The temptation for easy gain was very tempting.

    43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Moreover given that BSA deliberately destroyed files from the “perversion files” subcategory of the IVF files we will never know the full scope.

     

    Exactly! We will never know the full scope. Any guess that is used to forward an opinion is just an emotion looking for an audience.. 

    I saw a poll a few months ago that showed the American public has the lowest respect for the American new media ever. Is anyone surprised by the loss of that Integrity?

    Barry

  21. 18 minutes ago, skeptic said:

     The main thing here is being aware, and also open to apologies and hopefully positive corrective measures.  As far as smoke shifters go, we use it as a group joke at times, including demonstrating the method of right hand and left hand holding the shifting device.  Kids still are more receptive to simple fun than we may think.

     

    I found the greatest role modeling action that bonds and raises trust with scouts is admitting a wrong choice or action. Adults instruct at youth so much of their early life that they rarely see admissions of being wrong from the adults. Youth feel an adult admitting they are wrong raises them, the youth, to an equal level of character and it changes the relationship. 

    Barry

    • Upvote 4
  22. 2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    Yeah.  There is a line.  I'll miss things like upside-down bobcat ceremony, but I agree it's more a safety issue.  BUT then again, I could see one in 10 or one in 30 scouts reacting badly.   I'd fear more for the 45+ year old, out of shape dad than the kid.

    I'm sure I awarded at least 1000 Bobcats for that ceremony and I never saw a single scout who wasn't giddy with excitement waiting for his turn. I was the CM of a pack with 140 scouts, so 30 bobcats wasn't unusual. We looked for several dads to alternate, mainly for the scouts safety. 

    Then Branding became popular to replace the hazing ceremony. An ink print of the Bobcat  was dipped in a water base paint and applied to the arm. But, political correctness ended that ceremony. That was before tatoos were as popular as they are now. I'm thinking the ink print might be popular now. 

    Adults know how to take the fun out of scouting.

    Barry

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...