ParkMan

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

Back when I was a SM I talked to any number of teachers at our local Jr. High and High School, and other members of the community, about being MBCs.  They were of course happy to work with the boys, right up to the point that I said great, fill out this application and take YPT.  Then, to a person, they declined.

It's a whole lot easier to walk up to a parent with a kid in the troop, ask them their interests, and then get them to be a merit badge counselor.  Hey, Mr. Smith I hear you are an arborist.  Would you be willing to be a forestry merit badge counselor?  I see that your son has been working on several merit badges already.  It's free of charge and the rewards are huge.  Since it is a role where you'll interact with kids directly we'll need you to fill out this application and take the online YPT class.

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

No.  I meant that exact situation.  Scout's should be reaching out to MBCs, not handed to them on a silver plate.  It subverts the program.  Scouts should be experiencing MB programs in many different environments and styles. 

At some point, I question the MB program and wonder if troops should fully focus on skills at each rank ... plus nights of camping ... and plus leadership.  Maybe every 5 more nights of camping could replace one MB.  

Ok - to that point then. 

If a Scout wants to earn a MB, he/she goes to the SM and inquires.  The Scoutmaster has a list of names and points the Scout to a name and tells the Scout to initiate contact.  You believe that it subverts the program if the Scoutmaster looks at the list and says to the Scout: "You wanted to work on the forestry merit badge.  On my list here I see that Mr. Smith, Tommy's dad, is a forestry MBC. Please go contact him and see what you can arrange."  

Yes, it's a good skill in life to be able to call someone up cold and talk to them.  But, I don't see that it subverts the whole idea of merit badges if you develop a group of merit badge counselors with a connection to your local troop.  The Scout still has to initiate a conversation with an adult that they probably don't really know all that well. They still have to be self directed to do the work.  They still have to have youth/adult conversations about their progress.  We've decreased that adult association part of the merit badge process by a pretty small amount.

On the flip side - I see lots of good from a troop developing a cadre of merit badge counselors.  In addition to what I wrote before, you generate more parent involvement and you make the merit badge program more visible to families as well.  This further prompts parents to encourage and reinforce their Scout's efforts.  It also helps that with some more visibility of the merit badge program you get more quality control.  You know these counselors and these counselors know how things generally work in the troop.  In addition, because you have a more active merit badge program, Scouts are inclined to earn more merit badges.  As a result of more merit badge activity, Scouts actually increase their adult interaction.  These all seem like good things.  No?

18 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

At that point, I question the value of the merit badge program.  

I'm okay with the troop having some MBCs and such.  But when a troop has an inventory of MBCs for each badge, ... imho ... it really hurts the value of the MBC program.  The MBC program is about getting the scout out of his comfort zone and learning something new ... AND working with someone new.  If the MBCs are the same scouters that you camp with every month, it really really subverts the program.  

I think we may be talking about troops of different size.  Our troop, for example, has 75 scouts.  That's a hundred troop parents and other adults who almost never camp with the troop or serve as a leader in another capacity. 

Some benefits:

1. Provides for a healthy supply of merit badge counselors.
2. Having those parents engaged in the merit badge program is a great way for a parent who doesn't otherwise help out to contribute. 
3. Serving as a MBC can often be the first step towards a larger role in Scouting.

Just my .02.  Rather than seeing councils scaling back, I'd rather see councils out looking at what units like ours are doing and them attempting to build off that.  Our merit badge program has been pretty successful for us.  It's also very easy to replicate in other, smaller troops.  Then those smaller troops could work together to build up a larger, district merit badge program.  This would be a great way to see volunteerism grow and a stronger merit badge program in a district.

8 hours ago, fred8033 said:

District camporees are only going away in name only.  Camporees will still exist.  It's just that council activities team will host camporees.  IMHO, this is better because camporees were never well coordinated between districts and some districts did not do them well.  IMHO, this is also good as you will ... hopefully ... get better attended camporees and a larger mix of camporees from which to select. 

Also, this might better leverage council camps.  For example, our council has six camps.  Three local.  Two within reasonable drive.  One that is three to four hour drive.  Instead of each district reserving part of the local camps and running separate camporees, the whole camp could be leveraged for a camporee.  Instead of a strong inference that you attend your district's camporee that happens once a year on a specific weekend and usually at the same place, you can now select the right location and right weekend that would be a better fit.   

If you've got a small council with just a few districts, fine.  In those councils the district/council distinction is artificial.

But, if you're in a larger council - I don't buy it.  Say you've got a district with 15-20 troops.  Those local troops ought to be working together, under the leadership of the Camporee staff to put on a local, district camporee.  Now, that function moves to a council staff with what 100-200 troops they organize?  The expectations for involvement are now very different.  What, all 100-200 troops are now going to be expected to be involved in those council organized camporees?

Currently our council holds a council camporee and a dozen district camporees every year,  I do not expect that this new, unified council camporee staff is now going to put on 13 camporees every year.  Instead, they will hold fewer camporees - maybe even just one a year.  This process will in turn create fewer opportunities for units to work together to deliver camporees.  That healthy process of pushing unit volunteers to get involved with their district will further dry up.  

Yes, that one Council camporee will probably be better than it is now because a few of the district volunteers will move to the council staff.  But, by and large, I anticipate that most district camporee volunteers will simply stop helping because they will no longer feel needed.

13 minutes ago, David CO said:

They also have the option to discontinue being MBCs.  MBCs who choose the troop only option often do so because, though willing help out the scouts in their local unit, they have no desire to become unpaid employees of the council.

 

There's also a strong sense of community in many troops.  We have many merit badge counselors that work with just Scouts in our troop.  These adults have been long standing members of the troop community and want to help.  They're not volunteering for Scouting in general, they are volunteering to help strengthen options for boys and girls they know.  Becoming volunteers for Scouting in general isn't what they signed up for.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

I disagree.  Much of the district structure has been broken and broken for a long long time.  People expect quality and it's not there.  Today, you can one chance.  Maybe two.  Then, people move on.  

I often think about why I attend round table.  I really do it to see my friends.  Beyond that, there is no reason to attend.  In fact, I have several reasons to NOT attend.  One main reason is it can be a monotonous, re-hashing of the same content.   ... Years ago ... 18+ years ago or so ... I did anything I could to avoid going to cub break outs.  They were bad.  Bad created poor attendance.  Poor attendance meant if I left the room, 25% to 50% of the audience would be leaving ... in a district with 20+ packs.  

What some may call a power grab, I see as addressing quality failures.  ... in fact ... the most important district role is done the worst:  unit commissioner.  Eighteen years as a unit leader (in different roles) and we've never had a unit commissioner visit.  Maybe a slight interaction, but absolutely zero useful.

IMHO, districts should be relieved because for far too long districts have looked for warm bodies to staff roles, training, activities, advancement, etc.  IMHO, that was just wrong.  We need to look for quality or re-engineer to create structures that promote quality.  

From what I see, districts are not going away.  It's just that everything in the district will be targeted at direct unit support.  aka commissioner service.  

          http://www.northernstar.org/Portals/2/Documents/2019-11_Putting-Units-First-Presentation.pdf

I think roundtable is a good example to consider.  Roundtable serves a few purposes:

1. provides ongoing training and problem solving for unit volunteers.  It helps improve volunteer readiness
2. serves as a networking and social gathering point for volunteers.  It helps to build a stronger Scouting community
3. provides an opportunity to distribute information to unit volunteers.

We tried discontinuing roundtable and saw: 1) fewer and less trained leaders, 2) increasingly disconnected local units, and 3) less engagement by local units in district activities.

My take away - having a meeting called "Roundtable" isn't that important.  Having a poorly planned and organized monthly meeting because the Council Commissioner said you have to do it isn't productive.  Having some sort of vehicle where unit leaders can network, get ongoing training, and get the latest news is very helpful in building Scouting in a local community. 

This is why I dislike these kind of changes.  We're getting rid of the very structures that help build Scouting in a community.  First it was local training and in many places roundtables.  Now you've got people getting rid of district camporees and local merit badge counselors.   Yet, in all this time I've never seen anything of real substance from anyone in the BSA - whether it national or council level that is really focused on strengthening local teams.

Ugh!  These are awful changes.

Unless you had some sort of tiny council, what can be gained by removing local, hands on support for unit leaders.  Whether it's training, advancement, camping, or something else, centralizing things is only going to lead to further distance between units & councils.  Units that need support will be less likely to get it.

The reason we have districts is to provide local Scouting contacts to units to strengthen their programs.  If districts are becoming too weak to function, then that's what we need to solve - not get rid of districts.  No organization manages their way out of a problem by cutting support resources.

The LDS departure is a blip in the history of Scouting. It created a false narrative that Scouting was bigger than it really was.  Yes, it's painful that we have to adjust budgets to the loss of that revenue, but that is an adjustment we have to make.  There isn't another group out there like the LDS church for us to loose.  So, by definition we can't really have that happen again.

The lawsuits the BSA is facing is the bigger deal.  This needs to be problem #1 for the BSA to deal with.

Problem #2 is coming up with a path to grow traditional Scouting again.  Local councils need to see packs & troops grow and need to see new packs and troops started.  Any plan created by the BSA that doesn't deal with that is not worth the paper it's printed on.

I frankly will be unimpressed with any plan that doesn't address both of these.  Reorgs, shifting of resources, etc are all just window dressing if we don't deal with these.

1 hour ago, yknot said:

One interesting thing is that I don't know of any other non-military youth related organization where the volunteers or adult leaders ever earn and wear regalia that reflects on their own achievements, or if they do, it is a very small or subtle emblem. This is one of those things that seems very unique to scouting. I know a lot of people really like the bling but I've never been totally comfortable with it. When scouts and leaders are in a room, I want to be impressed by the scout uniforms, not the adults. 

I guess I've never seen the issue with the knots. To me, they're really just a way for you to personalize your uniform.

Most of us who volunteer started because of our kids.  But, once your kids age out we tend to stick around because we enjoy Scouting.  That enjoyment can be lots of things - working with kids, the fellowship of other like minded adults, perhaps a sense of accomplishment in building a great pack or troop.  If adding a little color to your uniform adds some fun for you, I don't see the harm.  Sometimes I believe we have a tendency to overthink things.  They are after all simply some colored patches one sews on a uniform.

11 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Well.. you would need to actually see the first 4 on the list.  That is not likely in the real world, you know...on a camping trip, where there are actual youth.

The wood badgers are harmless and humorous; just let them wear their kilts, beads, pink hankies, carry walking stick with 30 lbs of trinkets, etc and they are easy to spot and avoid. 

There are many who like to wear the 7 rows of knots, medals, ribbons, and cords; gives them a South American dictator look.  One of my Scouts asked me what all of that stuff was on one Scouters pockets, told him I had no idea.  He asked what mine were; told him Arrow of Light, Eagle, Training award, that's all you may need.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.  It's always just seemed rather ridiculous.  

You know that putting the training award on your uniform puts you in that category too.  So you start with AOL & Eagle.  Then it's a den leader award, then a Webelos leader award, then a Scouter training award, then a Scoutmaster key.  All of a sudden it's 6 knots.  Then it's a district award of merit. Then your kid ages out and you decide to become a roundtable commissioner and get another one.  Then it's a silver beaver.  Next thing you've got 9, 10 knots.  Of course "next thing" took 20 years to get - but that's no reason to have ever put that first one on your uniform.  

Nah - I just find it all rather silly.  We're all just people helping to bring Scouting to kids.  Take Wood Badge, wear 15 knots, serve a council VP of knick-knacks for all I care .  If you can find a place to help strengthen the program for kids I'm glad you're here.

3 hours ago, carebear3895 said:

I'm sorry to hear that. I get that a lot of Professionals make bad decisions, but just being hateful doesn't help anybody.

When I started volunteering, I was quickly introduced to the anti-professional culture in the volunteer ranks.  Within a certain segment of the volunteer community, it is considered a requirement to be anti-professional.  It always felt to me a little like those 80's movies where the kids in the fraternity have to be automatically oppose the school dean.  The list went something like:

1. professionals
2. the council
3. the district
4. commissioners
5. people from Wood Badge
6. people who would wear knots

This seems to have died down a bit, but I still see it from time to time.  

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

I can personally attest that is in fact the case.  Lasted a couple of years.  Immediately went back to volunteering with units and never looked back.

You become a DE and Professional Scouter to (naively thinking) work with units, camp, become the Scouting expert.  In reality you are pushing paper, have key 3 meetings with volunteers, doing a lot of planning, raising money, sweating membership numbers, following up on what volunteers haven't done, etc etc.  Never really see a Scout, at camporees and summer camp it's all about the problems or a volunteer bending your ear over some issue.

Scouting fun is best experienced at the unit level.  That's where the best times are.

It's a good job for the right kind of person.  We often assume that people who are involved with Scouting find the most enjoyment in working with you.  I think that's a false conclusion.

I'm not a professional and have no intention of being one.  My own career is a better fit for me personally.  However, as a volunteer I made the shift a while back to become a district volunteer.  I recognized that in order for our Scouts to have a great program, we needed to have strong units.  I felt that it would help our units to be more successful if we had a strong district support structure - so I got involved there.  Today I enjoy working with other volunteers to make district activities happen.

Yes, you could look at what I do in Scouting as meetings, planning, and paper pushing.  But, most of it is working with other volunteers to help them be successful.  If I'm successful, we'll have stronger district program which can then result in better support for units.  It can also help result in better membership programs in our units - meaning more Scouts in the program.  So, while the mechanics are a lot of meetings and paperwork, I see benefit from it and value in it and so I keep doing it.

I think a DE is the same way.  The DE role can have a big impact on Scouting in a community.  Is it working with Scouts and doing traditional Scouting activities - no.  But, if you enjoy the program it can be rewarding work.  But, make no mistake - if you want to be a paid professional who is still doing unit Scouting activities - be prepared to volunteer on the side in a unit.  It's a different role.

30 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I think you are looking at it wrong. As you’ve said many times, if the volunteers did the tasks they are supposed to do, the units would be running quality programs. But that comes down to training and guidance from district volunteers. Districts aren’t  doing their tasks correctly because Council (DE) aren’t recruiting the right talent and/or training the volunteers. DEs aren’t doing their tasks correctly because Council (DFE) isn’t training or directing them correctly. I don’t think the DEs job was designed to require more than 40 hours, but their bosses are doing it wrong. Find and Fix the problem, not the symptom. 

Barry

Well said.  The job is fine, the management of those in the job is wrong.  Yes - I see your point and fully agree.   

27 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

@ParkMan ,

 

Our DFS required DEs to camp at camporeed. Heck one guy just got out of the hospital and on light duties was told he better be at camporee or start looking for a new job.

As for picking up supplies, yes that was an expected duty by the DFS. I vividly remember driving two hours round trip to drop off bb guns because the DFS was furious that I told someone they could pick them up whenever they could. 

I could go on, but I don't have the time. As you can see, different councils have different expectations. 

Gotcha.  That's too bad.

I think it would be smart for the BSA to look at the job responsibilities of the DE role and ask - how much of this do we really think adds value?  How much can we reasonably expect someone to do in  40 hours a week?  

So, I have to wonder why we feed into this as volunteers. 

I've made it a personal rule to never call our DE at night or on the weekends.  I would almost never ask a DE to come to a unit meeting in the evening.  I'm fine with the DE coming to a camporee or other event for a portion of the weekend.  No way would I ask a DE to camp at camporee.

I would never ask a DE to pick something up at the council store or make me photocopies at the office.  I ask my DE for advice on how to get something done, I don't ask them to do it for me.

A good DE is an amazing resource and they do a lot to help us.  It's of almost no consequence to me to do these things myself.

25 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Sad part is these and the other lawyers have little or no real desire to compensate and help victims.  If they did then this would handled in a different manner, with the focus on getting the proven victims assistance.

This is lawyers eyeing the billion + in assets, dreaming of a new vacation home, and suing the BSA.  Yeah yeah, the victims will get some crumbs....maybe

So true.  At the end of the day, these lawyers are just another company and the product they are selling is lawsuits against the BSA.  I expect to see TV adds soon by the lawfirms on the low cost TV channels.

1 hour ago, David CO said:

Last month, a survey was published that indicated that only a third of Catholics believe in a key point of Catholic faith.  Local surveys conducted at our parish/school have given a similar result.  It appears to be true.

Some institutions do not offer an opportunity for either schism or transition.  Individuals may choose to stay or go.  The institution doesn't need to change its beliefs to accommodate them. 

Very good point.  Given my Catholic roots I see a lot of value in this concept. 

The challenge in the Methodist church is that there's a sort of democratic character to the religion.  There isn't a strong hierarchy like there is in the Catholic church led by a singular leader.  As such, they all get together and vote on things.  I get the sense that since these rules are decided by committees it's a little different than many are accustomed to in a religion.  People are well aware that the decisions like whether a church can perform same sex marriage are driven by who is in the meeting more than it is by some deep analysis of faith.  It's the literal definition of church politics.

What this had led to practically in the Methodist church is that you've now got whole churches which are skirting the rules and in some cases discussing breaking with those that disagree on this topic.  On this topic, there is a group within the Methodist Church which is called the Reconciling Ministries Network (https://rmnetwork.org).  Today churches label themselves as a reconciling church.  If you want to worship in a church that is supportive of LGBTQ issues, you can to their website and find a local reconciling church.

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Unlike the BSA, the UMC parishioners affirm one catholic (i.e., universal church) in the Apostle's Creed. Letting issues be local or regional is not an option. That is why the folks who are slinging a permissive sexual ethic want the restrictive folks to operate under a different name. They believe that their permissive ethic is the outflow of a united methodical Christian exercise. Basically they are saying to the traditionalists, "You can have your heresy, we'll keep the brand."

Obviously the folks with the restrictive ethic would rather the permissives move on, but to my knowledge they've made no offer to give them their capital.

The offer to keep properties at (presumably) no cost for separation is a generous one. For reference, many churches among the rising Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, and other spin-offs of the PC/USA paid substantial sums for an amicable separation.

I was born and raised Catholic, but have attended a Methodist church for years now, so I'm familiar with the Apostle's Creed.  

This is a wonderful idea in concept, but life gets messy.  The country (world?) is in the midst of reexamining our views on homosexuality.  In 20 years, there will probably be a new consensus on homosexuality.  But, today people are coming to their conclusions are differents speeds.  This is a very natural process.  It feels messy in the midst of it, but it's really not that unusual.  In the Methodist church there at doctrinal reasons rooted in the faith.  In Scouting, it was just opinions about the Scout Law.  But, the net effect is really very similar.  Those people who are on the progressive side of the shift in views are impatient.  The base much of their beliefs on theory and interpretation of concepts. Those people who are on the conservative side of the shift and frustrated and can rightly point to numerous texts to defend their beliefs. 

Your label of "permissive sexual ethics" is a great example of this.  I don't really see anything permissive about our ethics in the change.  What I see is a change in understanding about how one thinks of attraction and love.  I also see it as a change in how we think of gender.  It sounds like you look at the same and think it's a losen of our morals and ethics.  30, 40 years ago it was unlikely we'd have had this discussion.  Perhaps in another 30, 40 years from now it will be unlikely again.  But, today we're looking at this and all reflecting on it.

Today, there is pressure to explain and defend specific views.  So, it puts institutions in a bind.  How does an institution deal with a transition like this? 

I for one believe that the sanctity of the institution is more important than the specific issue.  Having been born into a faith that's about 2,000 years old I have a sense of longevity.  The Catholic Church weathered many storms.  It seems a shame to blow up the Methodist Church over this one.  Rather than constructing plans to split the church, I'd think the Methodist scholars would be better served with finding some doctrine that allows them to agree to disagree on issues of social upheaval.  Let's agree that our common bonds and strength as Methodists is more important than this one issue.

I would think it would be in the church's best interest to simply let the LGBTQ issues be a local or regional choice.  It reminds me of the similar BSA issues.  Because the BSA took a stand on the question at a national level, it became a topic to argue over . But, if the BSA had simply said that it is a topic which can be decided locally, it would have saved years of arguing.

So, here you have a social issue that the world is grappling with.  If the church put the responsibilty on the individual churches to handle it as they believe best, it would allow the church to remain whole.  

Just seems to me that a part of the problem is that the DE role is ill defined.  When they have to work 60 hours a week just to keep up, that's not good.  Our council seems to want to treat the DE as a jack of all trades.  Chasing money, membership, new units, supporting existing units, supporting the district committee, etc.  I'd suggest the BSA figure out a job model that can be done in about 30-35 hours a week.  Then, that gives the DE some breathing room to focus on new things that matter.

37 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Ah! the "boys and girls are equal" analogy. Looking at cause and effect is not a hang up, it's a consideration in developing a strategy. You approach it from your perspective, others will approach it from their perspective. Simplifying the situation by starting with girls and boys are equal is condescending. It's that adults respecting other adults modeling I was talking about. Ironically, I believe your perspective is more close minded than mine.

I've grown old concluding that the secret of a good life is balance in everything. I this case, I agree with David Co. If we let the youth of this example crew choose, we would likely see them segregate. Or do nothing and wait for a higher authority (adults, not the other Guy) tell them what to do, which is what most crews end up doing. I believe that the free thinking behavior habits of humans are basically set by the Venturing age, so I personally think balance was lost several years before.

That's not my point on youth.  I don't doubt that there are some gender differences.  So what?  My point is the we should stop worrying about whether girls are better leaders than boys.  Just focus on developing those skills that individual scouts need and are keeping them from taking on a leadership role.  If it turns out that you' have to focus more on a group of boys to do that than a group of girls, so be it.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

There was a recent article about the American women's soccer team demanding equal compensation with the men's soccer team. In short, the dilemma is nobody goes to watch women's soccer, so their are very few sponsors. Now, I guess we could say the issue is sexist sponsors, or sexist sport fans or whatever trigger response throws guilt in the discussion, but the truth is probably more toward the difference between men and women. Is forcing sponsorship a balance?

Of course sometimes balance requires compromise. I recently went to the action adventure movie Downton Abbey purely to make my wife happy. Men and women are different even with movies. My wife was truly thankful for giving my time to her, but I'm equally fine leaving her home so she wouldn't have to drudge through Ford versus Ferrari. Humility and love. 

Barry

Your movie analogy is a very good one and one which I think shows some of these choices have more to do with upbringing than gender.  I go to the movie's about 6 times a year.  Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Ford. vs. Ferrari, Fast and Furious, etc...  My wife couldn't care less about any of them and stay home.  But, my daughters see just about every one.  My daughters see and follow just about all of the same franchises as my son does.  Now, if I were to infer that females like movies about feelings and males like action movies, my daughters would have missed out on all of this.  But, I never inferred that and always invited them.  So, there's very little difference in what my kids watch for movies. 

If you look at either my wife's or my upbringing you'll see parents who much more prominently favored traditional boy or girl roles.  So, in my wife you see interests that reflect that upbringing.  As times have evolved, you see fewer traditional boy or girl activities for my kids - so their interests are increasingly similar.  Their friend groups are increasingly more mixed gender too.

55 minutes ago, TMSM said:

How many moms showed up with chainsaws?

 

We did have one - yes.

A quick google search shows the industry getting behind this too:

https://www.chainsawjournal.com/best-chainsaws-for-women/

https://splitwoodclub.com/the-best-chainsaws-for-women

https://sawedfish.com/best-chainsaw-woman-top-3-choices/

https://sawingpros.com/best-chainsaws-for-women/

https://www.mechanicalcaveman.com/best-chainsaw-for-women-review-smallest/

20 hours ago, desertrat77 said:

I understand, vol_scouter, the media is no friend of the BSA.  But organizations that are facing negative publicity usually launch a proactive PR campaign to tell their story.  I don't think an organization like the BSA, with the challenges it faces, can survive by simply being quiet.

This is the key point.  The BSA doesn't need a "marketing" strategy with glossy TV ads, it needs a public relations strategy.

Today, the BSA is letting others define it - lawyers, the news media, etc.  The BSA should not simply respond to articles and send out press releases.  The BSA needs to get ahead of this story and define itself.  The BSA should create news that tells the story of Scouting and it's values.  Instead of simply telling people about the great YPT program the BSA has, the BSA ought to be convening summits in Washington or New York of national leaders on the prevention of child abuse.  The BSA should be embracing victims of child abuse and helping them to tell their story.  Create some kind of significant fund to compensate victims of abuse and assist victims in getting access to it.

The BSA PR head should be on the speed dial of every media person originating stories in this area.  Be open and transparent with the media about what happened and what needs to be done.  Be THE expert on past abuse in youth organizations.  

But, in short - the BSA needs to learn the first rule of crisis management.  You have to be proactive and get out in front of the crisis.  This is why I made my earlier suggestion.  Instead of promoting some mid-level marketing professional from some big council to the national role, the BSA ought to open the checkbook and go out and hire someone who really understands this stuff.  Perhaps a professional spokesperson from a major politician.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I certainly can't disagree, but we also have to be mindful of an over reaction in the other direction because that is just as harmful. In scouting, balance isn't that boys and girls are equal in their abilities, balance is that living the Oath and Law encourages scouts to live to the best of their abilities. If scouts observe adults living the actions of oath and law toward each other, then everything else will balance out because respecting the best abilities of each other is living the oath and law.

My main objection to bringing troop age girls into the troops is that mix genders will take away from what boys are supposed gain from the program. Girls by their nature are more organized and better with follow through. In the patrol method environment, the nature of girls is unbalanced and will take away the opportunities to force the boys to practice those unnatural skills. I've heard a few voices of skepticism of that reasoning, but the number one complaint from Venturing adult leaders is that the boys don't engage very well on the planning and management of the crew. Girls naturally take up the slack. Strangely, many adults use that observation to brag about girls. While I believe that money drove the BSA to bring girls into the program, I believe illusion of social justice is more on the minds of many volunteers. OK, fine. But, the unnatural process of social justice doesn't encourage balance growth. It forces growth against nature. And that comes from the will of adults.

Barry

Agreed.  As volunteers, we should be mindful that as we're giving all these kids equal opportunities to grow.  It's most certainly not about creating a culture in Scouting that promotes one gender over another.

My suggestion is that we simply worry less about gender.  Try to strike it from your vocabulary.  If you find that you're starting to say "we need a dad to ..." or "we need a mom to ..." or "the boys in the Crew ..." or "the girls in the Crew ..." ask yourself what you're really trying to say and simply say that.  We had a recent example where we needed some adults to clear a small area at our CO.  One of the female leaders said "we need some dads with chainsaws to come clear the space."  What we really wanted to say was "we need some people who have and are experienced with chainsaws to come clear the space."  The second is really what we wanted anyways - we just were conditioned to make that connection with dads.  It takes a little practice at first, but over time it's very easy.

A similar concept exists with female and male youth.  If you're looking at a crew and notice that girls are doing all the organizing the issue really isn't that girls are naturally better organizers than boys.  The issue is that in your crew you've got a significant part of the team that isn't engaged in or leading the Crew planning.  Take a look at changing that without getting too hung up on whether it's a boy thing or girl thing.  Of course, any parent or leader who starts to talk about how great it is that the girls in the crew are leading everything sets themselves up for the same comments I've made above.

Again, none of this is about social justice or fighting nature.  It's simply about letting kids be kids, to explore their interests, and to develop their skills. 

There are certainly differences between men & women.  As a parent with both sons and daughters I've seen that clearly.

The point is that there are a lot fewer differences in capability between the genders than we often think.  Woman clearly have the ability to lead a group of kids, to haul a log, fix the plumbing, to change the oil.  I work in a STEM related field that has historically been primarily male.  Today there are many women in my field.  Contributors, leaders, managers, executives - they are very successfully filling all kinds of roles.  20, 30 years ago this was rare - today, it's very common.  Locally, I see more and more women in skilled trades roles - construction, electrical work, landscaping, etc.  It has become so commonplace in my area today that you almost don't even think about it anymore.

 When dealing with kids, regardless of our geography or background, I would suggest that we be mindful how we portray a woman's ability to succeed.  @jsychk - since you mentioned hauling a log, I was reminded of the "Inspire Her Mind" video that impacted me and which I've posted a few times here.  I've included a link to that below.  The point is that we need to watch the subtle things we do that suggest that women cannot be every bit as successful as men.  I would specifically suggest that whenever you feel the instinct to insert the phrase "we need a male leader" or "we need a dad to do", you really ask yourself - is this really true or is this simply what I'm accustomed to saying?