qwazse

We are scouters. I think that was nailed down when venturing started having contingents at Jambo. What's cool is some of our venturers, by virtue of being young adult staff or ASMs, etc ... are also scouters. We are indeed laid back. Which resolves some communication problems and causes others.

Oh, they need subgroups. Just not a one-size-fits-all chart. The venturers who I've seen attend camporees will probably form patrols if your program requires it. (E.g. Klondike derbies.) Really, the only way I can see you crack this nut is to talk to the advisors or presidents of those crews and find out how they operate.

Why? When doing so would further alienate the base and not impress the target membership? Like Mrs. @@Eagledad (if I may gather from the way he described her comment to him), some model of the same sex as her on the BSHB cover would not be enough to attract a disenfranchised Girl Scout to us. More importantly, take away the "Boy", and the girls who we might attract will no longer trust the brand. There is an established (all too rapid, IMHO) cycle for rotating in revised handbooks, etc. I don't see that accelerating because of this. More generally, this is not a merger of two organizations or programs. This is opening a gate for some special interests. That alone should give us reason for skepticism. The if-you-give-a-mouse-a-cookie arguments presuppose that we know how many mice want the cookie to be remixed. I think that's a very small number indeed.

We don't need no stinking official sub-group terms! We're subversive enough as it is. Generally, we appoint activity chairs according to the things they want to do. Then groups form around their preferred activity. (So, for example, for a while we had a Philmont Contingent, a Seabase Contingent, and a general interest group.) Lately, it's been rare that we've had membership large enough to subdivide.

You should adopt the policy my hand-held seems to want my thumbs to do: "neg rep" unto others before they "neg rep" unto you. I guess a neg-rep for being of opposite opinion (e.g. the co-ed issue) isn't very cool. That's because in general, we're all trying to iron out our reasons for thinking the way we do, and would rather hear why someone disagrees with us. That prepares us for when some other scout or scouter gets in our face about the same issue. We can actually talk about how some people think without guessing from inside our own echo chamber. But, if I say something that is truly unhelpful. Or maybe too polarizing for someone to kindly write a reply to. I'd like to see the -1. I'd also like to think that I'd be smart enough to tune out somebody with tons of -1s without the help of software.

Facts not in evidence. Are you saying that, by renaming unisex, Cub- and Boy- scouts will not waste millions revamping logo and literature? How's that worked out over the past couple of decades? I would suggest that the boy scouts should not change a stitch of logo if they open to girls, and I'm not just basing this on one Italian exchange student who proudly wore her uniform with its "Boy Scouts Italy". The girls who joined my crew over the years were proud to be members of the BSA. The girls who want to join us want to do so because of who we are and what we offer. Changing logo and literature would represent a level of pandering that would undermine recruitment efforts.

I didn't realize the software would automatically censor someone. I don't mind getting down votes. If it's because someone simply disagrees, that's good to know. If they don't have time to write an opposite opinion, I'd rather see the down vote.

@@ScoutTN, welcome to the forum! I'm pretty picky about uniforming, but I got nothing! I'd go with Stosh's suggestion about the boys in the den picking what works best for them (and their parents who might be teaching them to sew patches -- hint hint ). I am strongly opinionated against badge magic. It can ruin a good shirt for the scout to whom it would be handed down. So there's that, if it helps.

The collapse of GS/USA camps in Western PA leaves us with thousands of girls in search of camps to spend summers in. Someone's gonna be building bathrooms for them. I can see some underutilized BSA camps rotating in a Girl Scout week or two. Some GS troops and districts already use our council's facilities for training weekends. Since we already are collecting coin from folks, seems only fair that we build facilities that work for them. We have hired camp staff who got their start in GS camps. So, there's nothing magic about that transition. Basically, I would advise a council to not lift a finger toward revamped facilities until payments from girls are in hand. Same for the handbook and other literature. No point rewriting unless there is proof that girls aren't buying them. There are plenty more pictures of young women in the new venturing handbook ... Hasn't helped me recruit a one of them. Ultimately at is where the "show me the numbers" comes into play. Membership numbers need to be made on real demand, not political posturing. Thousands of girls buying the handbook regardless of their eligibility for the program would speak volumes to me.

Follow-up ... I wanted to note that the 2013 BSA Lifeguard manual toned down the derogatory rhetoric toward "shiny brass whistles." This year's aquatic staff guide (courtesy of https://www.ncsbsa.org/resources/general_files/Home)says: WHISTLE USE Whistles should be used sparingly ---only when absolutely necessary. The whistle is a communication tool. Discuss with your director the protocols for the use of whistles. So, at least we're saving ink (pixels?) and leaving it to aquatics directors to practice social engineering as they see fit. But, what made me remember this thread? An editor of a prominent journal informed us: It has recently been noted that the phrase "blinded" may not be especially sensitive to individuals with vision difficulties (i.e., "coders were blinded"). Please consider an alternate phrase (e.g., "masked"), if appropriate. Well that's okay. Those double-blind placebo-controlled trials were a pain to run anyway. It will be so much fun if we just hand out masks!

Mash, glad you are still around to talk about it, We can count on racking up some numbers this month thanks to Jambo. Every accident is important and worth noting. Frankly, I wish BSA's annual report would have something about the risks of scouting. We could do better in informing on risks. On the other hand, lacking comparisons to risks of not scouting (e.g., kids fall out of trees often, sometimes far from rescue), it's hard to tell if we're doing much better.

Thanks for introducing this program. I had never heard of it until now. Can it be a song? For a while, our troop had some good singers who practiced all week and at campfire got everyone doing a round of "Buttercup!" All you need is a couple of boys in choir or drama who are natural leaders and a troop who is willing to practice every evening. P.S. - Your a first class scout! Of course you can swim those 100 yards! The question is: will the folks at the aquatics area give you the time an instruction so that you can master the mile swim by the end of the week?

Most SM's aren't going to let any DC push them around. A DC; however, can blacklist MB colleges. It's not hard. "Next Month's Roundtable Topic: MBU's that have failed our scouts." He can certainly talk to the district advancement committee about counselors who've not lived up to their training. On the positive side: he can throw in camporees and events with MB themes like First Aid meets or orienteering races.

I doubt it. If only we had charged more to girl scouts who joined our day trips -- who said they were bored to tears with their troops -- but never signed up with our crew. If all these contingents do is inspire their troops to up their game, I'll be happy.

I honestly don't keep track of these kinds of things. Seems to me that they are trolling to build a mailing list.

First, thank you for all you do (and Lord willing, will continue to do) for the boys. It sounds like you are the charter organization representative (COR), and stepping into the limelight is causing your grief. Yes, trustworthy people are a hot commodity. You'll find yourself knocking on a lot of doors. Meet with your sponsor's institutional head. (For some churches, that's the pastor. For others, it's the clerk of session or chairman of the board. For Legion halls, it's the post commander.) Let him/her know what your official position is and that you've inherited a mess, but you are trying to sort it out. Obviously, if someone else is now your COR, bring them along. If the troop that you mention is sponsored by the same organization, their COR might need to be in the room too. If any of the COR's that I knew that their troop had been given pilfered funds from some pack, they would bend over backwards to support that pack ... even if the money had been spent. That might not translate into actual dollars back into the pack. But you might find some helping hands in other ways. Legal action is not a bad idea but it may or may not be successful. You have to balance that strategy with simply moving on and investing time in the boys from this point forward.

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth reiterating. One of the more active GS/USA troops in this community is run by a mom who attended the GS Jamboree in her youth. If you can spare the coin, it might be worth your while to invest in underwriting a girl, or her troop, for the next GS Jambo.

Not just that. We have not been able to recruit female ASM's for love nor money. (Okay, we only promised them the undying affection of dozens of boys, and some coffee and chocolate -- which almost counts as currency. ) The moms who've really camped with the troop have done so because their boys have special needs. Even venturing, I've had one female co-advisor ... my other female chaperons are MCs. And, I honestly don't believe that my guys are "good old boys". Moms tell us that they are surprised at how open and inviting we are. There is a firm belief 'round here that SM/ASM is "man's work" and I don't think that will change if we go co-ed. That male role-model thing? The parents who would consider the program want that for their daughters as well as their sons. At least, that's the "vibe" I get in our neck of the woods.

My acquaintances among international scouts are somewhat baffled by the existing lack of independence of American youth in general. So, I don't think staying unisex is helping to address that concern. I've observed that similarly-aged scouts (male or female) from another country are ready to hum at 60mph while their American peers are puttering about at 25mph. This applies to basic scout skills, knowledge of Baden Powell's writings, uniforming, organizing as a patrol, and that "once a scout, always a scout" attitude. Admittedly, I have a biased sample. (It takes uniquely motivated youth to uproot and study in a strange land for months and years on end.) But, those examples are what put me at ease. What concerns me is talk of bureaucratic hurdles (e.g. revised YPT) that people will throw up as a consequence of coed scouting. Hurdles that have nothing to do with any real need to secure a youth's well-being. But, rather are to mitigate the fears of National's legal consultants. Each such regulation is a nuance that some scouts won't understand. And, it will cause them to lose interest in the program. E.g., overnight camping -- which since 2008 can't be done without adult supervision in the BSA -- some boys in my community do quite well on their own. Why would they want to waste membership $$ on BSA? Well, what if someone says an SM/ASM can't take their co-ed troop to campsites with only one latrine? Those leaders could point to the Brits and any other WOSM group to say this wouldn't be a problem, but if its coded into the American psyche, those examples won't matter. As a result, no matter how much spit and polish we put on a coed program (e.g. open access to boy scout ranks, O/A, etc ...), if it comes with too many hoops, we quickly loose the interest of candidate youth and parents.

Regarding data ... There's the quantitative and the qualitative. Qualitative (although biased through the lens of high functioning scouts - exchange students, jamborees, etc...): these coeds are having a ton of fun. The ill effects of ignoring male mystique are nowhere to be seen. Or, that mystique reappears naturally in groups of kids who self-select into unisex patrols -- no national mandate required. Program remains unchanged (down to the patches in some places: my Italian's shoulder patch still reads "Boy Scouts Italy"). Quantitative (although it's mostly perception, not survey results, well maybe a few): there are more parents who will take their boys elsewhere than there are who will be attracted to an American coed program. Venturing is the the test case. Disenfranchised teens of the GS/USA aren't flocking to us in droves. Even in European countries (for which WOSM shared decadal census results) associations lose male membership for a decade or two before regaining past popularity. The exceptions are former communist block countries in which scouting had been banned. So, although I feel BSA is missing out on good things by being so exclusive, I don't see tens of thousands of parents clamoring to bring their youth in. Quantity is a quality all its own. Special interests are notorious for tugging on the qualitative while disdaining the quantitative. That's been my experience with the last membership change. An activist relative asked me if things were any worse after the changes. I said, "60,000 boys worse" (about what we lost over two years). She replied "You don't need them." The folks writing these article, repeating claptrap, won't make the effort to survey non-scout parents or potential COs about the matter. They just don't care.

My Italian scout flies home today. That's the real problem with going co-ed: More kids to fall in love with, then watch fly away and break your heart.

How about ... Scout, you're gonna fit in, you just gotta get a necker! or Our newest mate takes 'be prepared' seriously ... showing up with his own helmet! or Used up all the scouring pads again, did we?

So much for "if you remember your brother has anything against you ..."

Thanks for the memo, Flagg. Business sense is a huge problem with these pamphlets' publication. Actually, I think it goes back to a flawed vision. Someone has this vision of lone scouts racing to knock off MB's as quickly as possible. Whereas we have a vision of scouts interacting with people in their troop/district to pick up skills and share resources. This misplaced vision causes the publishing arm to misplace value. The value of an MBP is the text and a few drawings/images that engage the scout at his convenience. A few years ago, someone thought they could add value to the pamphlets by producing colored covers. What does a kid care if the cover of a book is color or not? He's probably already picked the MB. He knows he needs the book. He's gonna get it. If it's B&W he's gonna get it for less and learn just the same. Then the whole kindle thing? How many of your scouts have that device? How many of their parents let them take it to camp with them? Home-grown videos? It takes a few seconds to look at a picture. How many scouts want to watch a five minute video to learn one requirement? Pay editors to select the best one? Tell the scouts to put it online. Count the thumbs "up" or "down". Endorse the best. Done. You don't add value to the advancement method with window-dressing or video-watching. Save that for Boy's Life. You add value by linking your product with other necessary services.

BP, you're sounding like my older scouts who can't believe that I went through college happily without a lick of alcohol, a loss of virginity, or a drink of coffee (the latter had nothing to do with sanctimony, but rather ignorance of how God meant the stuff to be made).