NJCubScouter

Actually women have "always" been permitted to be Cub Scout Den Leaders (other than Webelos den leaders.) In fact, before sometime around the early 70's, ALL non-Webelos den leaders were women and were called Den Mothers.

There is another thread (Girl Scouts letter to BSA, which is now in Issues and Politics) that has been started for discussion of the letter dated August 21 from the national President of the GSUSA to the national President of the BSA. I suggest that all posts regarding that letter be made in that thread, not here, in order to avoid duplication. Thank you all for your cooperation.

Hawkwin, welcome to the forum! I am moving this thread to the "Issues and Politics" section of the forum, where all of the other current "girls in Boy Scouting" threads are located.

I am moving this to Issues and Politics - where this same letter is being discussed in another thread.

In fact I did want to read what you were referring to, but you didn't provide a link and I really don't do Facebook. You mentioned scoutstuff so I guess I figured that what is on scoutstuff.org would match what is on BSA's Facebook/scoutstuff. In retrospect, probably a foolish assumption. So ok, let's say it's a girl's shirt. The description that I didn't see previously supports the supposition that I made earlier. It's not being marketed to girl-Cub Scouts and/or girl-Something Scouts. It's being marketed to "Cub Scout sisters who are a Scouts at heart." Cub Scout sisters. Sisters of Cub Scouts. Like I said before. Of course, when they do let girls into Cub Scouts there will no doubt be shirts for girl Cub Scouts. As one would expect.

Are you talking about the purple "Scout at Heart" shirt on this page? http://www.scoutstuff.org/bsa/apparel/youth/t-shirts.html?p=2 Perhaps you are more expert than I at determining the gender of a t-shirt from a tiny thumbnail photo, but there is nothing that appears to be necessarily female about that shirt. The description says "youth." And even if it is a girl's shirt, "Scout at Heart" implies that it could worn by anyone who feels an affinity toward Scouting, whether they are a member or not. Like the sister of a Scout, maybe. But maybe it would be easier to believe that this is all part of a nefarious conspiracy to acclimate us to the upcoming membership change... Speaking of conspiracy theories... sure, an article that gives advice to families who want to go camping can only mean that the Boy Scout program is about to become exclusively Family Camping. (The italicized portions of this post are intended as sarcasm. I point this out due to years of experience watching people not "get" sarcasm on the Internet, so when I use it I feel compelled to hang a big sign on it.)

Which would be great if any of them were wearing pants, and the YP guidelines don't care about cuffs or no cuffs. Not to mention that there seems to be one-deep leadership.

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant, but ok, let's change that to: "I agree that it would be fairer to apply this change to all Eagle Scouts who were active AS A YOUTH MEMBER in a troop as of August 1, regardless of when they had their EBOR." So, no, it doesn't include WoodBadgeJim, wouldn't include you anyway, doesn't include the 67-year-old ASM in my troop who is an Eagle Scout, etc. etc. And actually it doesn't include any youth members in my troop at the moment, because all of the Eagles are at least 18. (Well actually there is one who turned 18 in July but I don't think he has had his EBOR yet, so I think he qualifies. Maybe.)

Looks like multiple YP violations to me.

As Dr. Freud might have said, sometimes a t-shirt is just a t-shirt.

Well, my suspicion is that what they really mean is "the official uniform pants with no cuffs or the official uniform shorts." I realize that's not what it says. I think it's just very poorly written, which would not make it unique for a BSA publication. It looks like a sentence that was "written by committee."

I suppose technically it is optional since it is not required by National, but I think it is helpful for the Scouts.

I think this is really more of an issue of which troop you were in. I was a Boy Scout from 1969-1976 and I don't believe there was any reduction in the amount and variety of camping, hiking and backpacking that my troop did. If anything there was a more "strenuous" program after that point - which was a result of what the leaders were encouraging the PLC to do when planning activities, and not anything that National did or didn't do. Were parts of it silly and unnecessary? Sure. My favorite example was changing the "Scoutmaster's Conference" to a "Personal Growth Agreement Conference". Even as a 14-year-old I realized how ridiculous that was. But it didn't affect the program.

I think we've discussed this before, but from a U.S. perspective I find that amazing. Unless all the people in the tent were siblings of each other (which I believe is ok YP-wise), having Scout-age youth in mixed-gender tents in this country would set off so many alarm bells that you could hear them over there.

Well, I doubt that "ideal" is a term that could ever be applied to my district but our district's process (both before and after 2011) was more reasonable than what you are describing from your district. There are two project review meetings per month (held at the same time and place as EBOR's and post-project reviews.) I do not recall whether the workbook had to be pre-submitted, but it was reviewed by one person, with the Scout, not by the entire committee. It was not (and is not) unusual for the Scout to have to make one round of changes, but more than that is unusual - meaning that in most cases the Scout should be able to get approval within two weeks after the initial review meeting. (Which is a good thing because in many cases in our troop, district approval is being obtained three months or less (in my son's case, much less) before the Scout's 18th birthday. And when time is getting short, most of the reviewers will do follow-ups by email and/or phone.) Usually the only thing that might add to the two-week time frame would be if the district requires a significant change to the scope of the project, in which case the project beneficiary's approval is required for the revised proposal.

I'm not sure the process has really been "simplified". What they did is to take the "pre-project" part of the workbook (whatever it was actually called previously) and divide it into two sections, the "proposal" and the "plan", and made only the "proposal" part required as part of the signoffs to begin work on the project. The "plan", to be filled out after approval of the "plan" is obtained, is supposedly "optional" and does not require approval, but in my district (and I suspect elsewhere) the Scouts are "strongly encouraged" to complete the plan before starting work. I do not have an old workbook handy, but my impression is that the "plan" section requires MORE detail than was required in the old workbook. Not to mention that the Scout now has to get through several pages of legalese, including excerpts from the Guide to Advancement, before he even gets to the proposal section. So overall the process does not seem "simpler" to me.

I agree that it would be fairer to apply this change to all Eagle Scouts who were active in a troop as of August 1, regardless of when they had their EBOR.

As my father used to say, rich or poor, it's good to have money.

Well, in theory at least, that patrol of 11 year olds has a Troop Guide (an older Scout, ideally a former PL), providing the PL and other NSP members with, well, guidance on how to operate as a patrol. There also is supposed to be an ASM specifically appointed to watch over the NSP. Does it work? Sometimes. Personally I am on the side of assigning the new Scouts to "regular" patrols, but I have seen it work (and not work) either way.

Qwasze, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that group include YOU, half the time? Sometimes it seems you are in favor of admitting girls on even-numbered days but not on odd-numbered days, or some other pattern that I have yet to identify. And correct me if I'm wrong again, I think you have acknowledged being on both sides of the issue. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that, except when you start putting labels (like "special interests") on the "other side", when you are sometimes on the other side. Am I wrong? Also, I have observed that what "special interests" usually really means is "people I disagree with." In some sense, anyone who has an opinion and advocates for it (including all of us who participate in I&P) could be considered "special interests."

Not to mention, and I should have put this in my previous post about private schools: Haven't the Boy Scouts and the Campfire Girls (before it went "coed"), and the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts, been "separate but equal" programs for many years? And still is, in the case of Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts? (I can already hear the response, that GSUSA does not offer a program "equal" to the BSA. First of all, on a national basis it offers a fairly equal program, but too many local leaders do not have their troops participate in most of the outdoor activities available. Second, the distinction would matter only if "separate but equal" (as the BSA programs would be) is WORSE than separate and unequal (as the current GSUSA/BSA separation arguably is. And surely nobody would argue that equal is worse than unequal.)

And yet there have been boys-only and girls-only private schools all along. There aren't as many now as there used to be, but they still exist.

Maybe there is another troop nearby with better meetings?

There was also a rumor about 45 years ago, when I was a Scout, that the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts were merging (there is probably a better way to phrase that) and that is why the uniforms were now being sold with the strip over the pocket that said "Scouts BSA" instead of "Boy Scouts of America." There are always rumors.

Very nice. As long as the person taking the last photo did not drop the camera.