Rick_in_CA

When Exploring split into two, Venturing and Exploring, Exploring came under the Learning For Life Subsidiary of the BSA. As a result, their membership policies changed. Part of that was the result of the Chicago lawsuit.

 

 

Many folks advocate that STEM Scouts are true Scouts. If that is the case, then yes, they need to adhere to the Scout Oath and Law.

That is a question that the BSA appears to be trying to avoid answering. Out unit's COR was at a meeting when the BSA was asking our council to be a STEM Scouts pilot council. He said that the question was asked, and they were told it was under Learning for Life and that it was fully inclusive so public schools could use the program (i.e. the DRP didn't apply). I wonder if that is still true? Does the DRP apply? And why isn't that in the STEM Scouts FAQ?

I am curious as to why you think that will be the case? I don't get why it follows that bringing in new adults will create the environment you describe?

You have to understand the truly amazing levels of paranoia in parts of our society. Basically, many people assume that all men are potential threats to children unless proven otherwise. And it's worse with female children.

Any man that chooses to work with children is suspect (especially if they don't have children of their own). Boy Scouts is one of the few places where that is still acceptable. Though I have heard stories of parents complaining about scouters that don't have children of their own, and in one case of a unmarried scouter being asked to leave a cub scout pack because of parental fears (he ended up as an assistant scoutmaster in a troop). Outside of the BSA, we have day care facilities that find because of parental fears they can't employ any men. On the rare occasions when men are allowed to volunteer at GSUSA camps, they must wear bright red arm bands showing that they are "permitted", but must also be escorted by an adult female leader whenever they are near any of the scouts (a coworker's experience). The list of examples is much to long to list here.

If you add girls to the mix, the level of paranoia will increase. And the worry is that the rules to compensate for the fear will make it that much harder for any adventure to take place.

Here is another article about the increase of depression in kids:
 
The Decline of Play and Rise in Children's Mental Disorders
 
Much of what is says applies to scouting. I think it reinforces the importance of real "boy lead" troops and the patrol method. Like this from the article (bold emphases mine):
 

During the same half-century or more that free play has declined, school and school-like activities (such as lessons out of school and adult-directed sports) have risen continuously in prominence. Children today spend more hours per day, days per year, and years of their life in school than ever before. More weight is given to tests and grades than ever. Outside of school, children spend more time than ever in settings in which they are directed, protected, catered to, ranked, judged, and rewarded by adults. In all of these settings adults are in control, not children.

Plus maybe we should do away with all the "school work" merit badges? At least take them off the required lists?

I just had an interesting discussion with a good friend of mine over lunch about girls in boy scouts.

He grew up in South Dakota (he is a Lakota Sioux and grew up on the Rosebud), and was a boy scout in the 60s and 70s. And his pack and troop were coed. It was a small town and there was only the one pack and troop. He said that it was driven by the lack of alternatives (there weren’t any girl scout units in the area), boy scouts was the only game in town. The girls wore boy scout uniforms, earned merit badges and ranks (I didn’t think to ask if any of them earned eagle). He doesn’t know how the paperwork was handled, but they functioned as full boy scouts. They went to council events, summer camp, Philmont and the national jamboree as a coed troop - so people at higher levels knew they had girls. And his town’s troop weren’t the only ones doing it, he remembers girls from other troops at multi-troop events. He didn’t realize that the BSA wasn’t supposed to be coed until he got to college.

He doesn’t know how the girls were registered, or if they were registered at all. But they must have been to go Philmont and other large events right? Did the council just give a wink and a nod and the paperwork said they were boys? Maybe they were actually registered with the GSUSA or something (Learning For Life didn’t exist then)?

This is the first I heard this story from him and I am wondering how they made it work, and if it was just part of small town South Dakota or perhaps was specific to the units on the reservations? Has anyone else heard any stories like this?

This is an interesting article about the effect of smart phones and social media on the current generations of teens. With all the discussion on this forum over the years about scouts and electronics, it adds an interesting perspective on the discussion. Of course it applies not just to scouting.

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

Read More:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/?utm_source=eb

I just read an article about girls and Eagle rank. It says that the US Army will automatically promote an enlisted recruit by a grade once they complete boot camp if they are an Eagle Scout. But not if they are female and have the Gold Award. I have no idea if this is (currently) true. If it is, then that is a case for allowing girls to earn eagle, or to eliminate the benefits the US military offers eagle scouts (unless it's also offered to gold scouts?).

Anyone know if any of this is true?

I find it amusing because I disagree with everything in it! (Except the epaulets...somebody must have had a last minute delusion.) And that amuses me because I think it highlights difficulty with the uniform. I can't imagine how hard it would be to get any kind of real consensus on uniforming issues. Please note that I don['t oppose any of that. I just disagree. As I always tell my children, there's no accounting for taste. Different people just like different things.

 

Just don't go back to the berets and the garters with red tabs. Please, please, please, don't to that. 

When it comes to the uniform, I think as long as the boys feel comfortable wearing it while camping, then I will be happy. This whole silliness of "wear it in the car then change once we get to the campsite" stuff shows what's wrong with the current uniform. When I was a scout we wore the uniform at all times, backpacking, at summer camp (OK, not while swimming), at troop meetings, parades, etc. If we were doing scout stuff, it was in uniform (it was the old green uniform shirt). That is what we should see today. As a scouter, I wear my uniform proudly no mater the activity (OK, not swimming). I just wish it fit better, and wore better, and didn't have so many bits that can catch a pack strap, and I hate the convertible pants (if I want to wear shorts, I will wear shorts). And it costs too much for what you get. And it isn't made in America anymore (though has Made in America prices). Hmm, I guess I don't really like the current uniform much. Oh, and the dis-emphases on the necker - probably the most recognizable scout uniform element in the world! That should not be optional! There are countries where the only specified uniform elements for their scouts is the necker. And neckers are not neck ties! They should not be treated as such!!! If you are showing scouts how too roll and press their neckers, you are missing the point! <hey you kids, get off my lawn!>.

Actually I think part of the problem is that too many scouters think of the BSA uniform as the equivalent of a military dress uniform. It's not a dress uniform, and shouldn't be treated as such (So it's wrinkled, so what? You brought a ruler to the uniform inspection? Really? What is this, the marines? They are backpacking, who cares how "sharp" they look?).

I think I owe @@Col. Flagg an apology. There was quite a bit more snark in my last post then was called for. Just because I am having a bad day doesn't mean I should take it out on others.

Col. Flagg, I apologize.

@@Rick_in_CA, you don't believe in cause and effect then?

 

For YEARS the year on year decline is at 2-3%.

 

Then in 2013 it increases to 6-7% AND STAYS THERE after the policy change until 2017? That's just coincidence? No other big program changes? No perv file issues. Another 70,000 people per year decided to drop Scoutignout of no where?

 

Ok. Then why do you think the rate of declined has doubled and stayed there?

 

There's a relationship between policy and decline. You don't want to see it because it doesn't fit your belief system.

So much for your reading comprehension (hey, if you insult me, I insult you back - see how scout like and better this makes things?). Here is what I wrote:

There is no single, or overriding reason for the decline, it a huge list of reasons. Some have to do with the policies, programs and image of the BSA, but a lot have nothing to do with the organization - our society has changed.

As you can see, I do believe that the policies of the BSA has an effect on the decline.

I think there are multiple issues driving this change. One is some pressure from parents to let their daughters be included (especially at the cub scout level). Another is membership numbers. There are probably additional reasons, perhaps related to fund raising or the desires of various COs (or potential COs), I don't really know. If and when the specifics of the changes are announced, hopefully we will get a better understanding of the thinking (but this is BSA national, so probably not).

As for the reasons for the decline in BSA membership, I submit that those that say anything of the form "it's all because of X" are incorrect. There is no single, or overriding reason for the decline, it a huge list of reasons. Some have to do with the policies, programs and image of the BSA, but a lot have nothing to do with the organization - our society has changed. For one, fewer parents and kids think spending time in the woods is a good idea. They would much rather stay inside and play video games, or go to robot league, or play in their year-round sports team, or <insert activity here>. Almost all the traditional youth programs (4H, FFA, GSUSA, etc.) have experienced decline in membership (it's interesting to note most peaked around the same time: BSA's peak was in 1972, 4-H's in 1975, and GSUSA's peak was in 1970).

The reality is that the BSA will never be as big as it was in 1960 and 1970s. Society is different today, and what worked well in 1950 may not work well today. The BSA has to adapt. The question of course is how to adapt while staying true to it's core ideals.

And look at Scouting Magazine's topic? Coincidence?

 

https://scoutingmagazine.org/2017/08/first-timers-guide-camping-whole-family/

Over all I didn't think the article was that bad, though I agree with @@RememberSchiff about the whole hardware and software nonsense. And what is wrong with encouraging people to go family camping? The article didn't mention scout camping at all. I think if more families had experience camping, then we would have fewer scout parents freaking out about their "little angles" going into the woods and more potential leaders with camping experience.

What "be prepared" is all about. Having the confidence and skills to handle unexpected and difficult situations. Well done!

Hmm, morally bankrupt. Coming from someone who admits little patience with religion or God, I don't know what that means. I'm sure you are a pleasant fello in person.

Throughout this discussion, many people have cast the position on the other side as morally challenged. If you say "you know that this will hurt the boys but want to do it anyway", that is an implication that the person is morally questionable (whether you mean that or not - after all willingly hurting others is usually considered immoral). And I can fully believe that you had no intention of making such an implication. Text is an imperfect medium, and when posting on forums we can be rushed - so sometimes what we post here is not our best writing (something I am guilty of from time to time ).

As for little patience with religion or God? I'm truly hurt. I don't think I have ever posted anything that implied that!

What I do disagree with are those that use their own narrow definition of what "belief in God" looks like, as an excuse to disrespect those that believe differently. The BSA is officially nonsectarian, and "respect for the beliefs of others" is a core value. Yet I have run into scouters that feel free to belittle, insult and dismiss the beliefs of those that don't believe like them (some is a result of ignorance, but too much of it is actual religious animus). On this forum we have witnessed people posting that Christian denominations that don't condemn gays are not "real Christians". I've been told to my face by a scouter that my religious faith (Unitarianism) was "a load of garbage and wasn't a real religion". I have met scouters that said non Christian scouts and scouters should "shut up and be happy we allow them at all".

Religious faith takes many forms and it behooves us to recognize that when operating in a BSA context. If you are doing the invocation at a council event, all I ask is for you to be aware that there are most likely multiple faith traditions represented in the audience and acknowledge that. In other words "respect the beliefs of others". I also don't believe that as scouters we should stand judgment on the religious beliefs of others. It isn't our place to judge whether someones "belief in God" passes muster or not. That is between them, their religious teachers and, well, their "God" if any.

I think I have been consistent in my postings, and I don't believe this shows "little patience with religion or God". If that is what I communicated, then that was a failure on my part as that isn't, nor has ever been my intent.

I'm Texan, my English ain't so great...but my BBQ is.

Mmmm... BBQ! Wait, why am I suddenly hungry?

1) As I stated, the caps are for emphasis, not shouting. I guess I could Bold or underline or even italicize for emphasis, but I admit I'm lazy and caps works easiest.

 

2) You may studies are all over the place, and yes they are. But look at the methodologies used. Some of the research uses methods that leave out factors. Heck even some of the pro single gender ones have questionable methodologies. But if you look at the studies for single gender as a whole, there are fewer problems with them overall than with coed studies.

 

3) If you want, I'll not only pull up my research from back in the day, but see what current studies show.

 

4) Considering both Surbaugh and the GSUSA both state that single gender environments are better, I would tend to believe them. Too bad Surbaugh is trying to do away with it.

 

5) Someone mentioned female SMs. I 'd say it goes back to Exploring going coed in the 1970s. At the meeting I was at on this topic, most of the ones there were Venturing folks, and were pro coed. Heck some of them even acknowledges that a partnership or parallel program would not work.

 

6) Those Same Venturers also admitted that while girls were in the minority, they were the majority in leadership.

Hey, no problem on the all caps. I admit I'm not really up on the latest research, though I did spend some time today seeing what I could find before posting the above. It looks like it's still all mixed.  If you find some high quality recent studies, I would love to read them. Someone said there was a study that was being done in South Korea that should provide some good data. I don't think it's out yet though (I haven't checked).

I personally have mixed feeling about coed scouting. The vast majority of the world makes it work, so I don't have a problem with it in the abstract. But we don't live in an abstract world. To me, the issues that worry me have more to do with specifics of our society here in the US, then coed in general. We are a very paranoid, prudish and fear driven society right now. I'm worried the new rules created to integrate girls into boy scouts will be so draconian and/or broken that it will interfere with the ability of the unit to function (though it doesn't happen at the venturing level, so maybe I'm "borrowing trouble" as they say).

Europe is simply much less uptight then we are about a lot of things, and it shows in their scouting culture (Sure our older scouts drink bear at campouts. The trading post sells it to the scouts (in Germany at least). Girls and boys sleeping in the same tent? Sure, what's the problem? Coed troops skinny dipping together? Why not? (this one I don't think happens that often, but one of my coworkers told me when she was a scout in Sweden, her coed scout troop went skinny dipping all the time). Twelve year olds using paint rollers (with an extension!)? Why not?). Sure what goes in Germany might not go in France, but over all, they appear to be a lot more relaxed then we are. I think that makes being coed (and a lot of other things) easier. I think they understand better than us that you can't eliminate all risk in life, and there are good reasons why you shouldn't even try. Some risk is good and necessary. It's about balance.

My biggest fear around the whole "family scouting" thing is that it's going to lead to more adult hovering and less scout independence. I want to see the pendulum move in the other direction. I would love to see independent patrol camping make a come back. I'd like to see the independent journey come back as a rank requirement (it used to be required for first-class). I'd love to see the BSA recognize how important unstructured and unsupervised time is to childhood development (summer camp used to be mostly unstructured and unsupervised time for the scouts. Not any more). I want to move back to the world where 12 and 13 olds got jobs as babysitters, instead of needing them. I know, dream on...

I detest the implication that single gender organizations are morally wrong as suggest by many so call progressive minded idealist.

I detest the idea that a single gender youth organization is less capable of building men of integrity. 

And I detest the sacrifice of a program that can have so much impact on a boy going into manhood simply because of pop-culture idealism.

 

I also detest allowing a small group of individuals to direct this change in a program with the tradition of building integrity in its youth without feeling any accountability is required.

And I detest the constant implication by some people that those who advocate for coed scouting "don't care about the boys", or "hate the program" or are "pandering to some external pressure group" or are "out to destroy boy scouts" or "aren't real scouters", etc. All of which basically breaks down too "you are morally bankrupt for suggesting it".

Can we discuss this without implying the other side is somehow not legitimate?

I am against allowing girls in Boy Scout troops for a variety of reasons, but in a nutshell BOYS LEARN BETTER IN AN ALL MALE ENVIRONMENT JUST AS GIRLS LEARN BETTER IN AN ALL GIRL ENVIRONMENT! (caps for emphasis). Heck Surbaugh evens mentions that in the jambo video thatis online. If it hurts the boys I'm against it.

I can show you studies that say BOYS LEARN BETTER IN A COED ENVIRONMENT! (Does shouting make it true?) The whole single-sex education thing has become a mantra among some people, but the data doesn't actually back that up (at least not yet). The studies are all over the place. I can show you studies that say one thing, others that say the opposite and ones that say it doesn't matter. So you may believe it's true (and it might be), but it isn't a given and it isn't unreasonable for people to disagree with you on this.

Slam "Leadership Programs for youth" into your Google search and it will kick back 130,000,000 results.

 

I scrolled down 43 pages until I found ANY vague reference to BSA.  NYLT Academy of LA had a website that if one were to look at the picture, one saw a scout uniform and the BSA logo was at the bottom of the page.

This brings up a question, how much of the public (in and out of the scouting) thinks of the BSA primarily as a leadership program for youth? I bet most cub scouts parents don't.

How much does the BSA talk about youth leadership in it's marketing material and web sites? Looking at scouting.org, it does get mentioned here and there, but it isn't a primary theme. Which probably explains the Google results.

If National thinks they need to lead the BSA off in a "brave" new direction all the time fine... I'm politically inclined to agree with them as part of their newly coveted "Millennial" demographic. 

 

What's not fine is pretending to solicit member feedback and then doing whatever they were planning to do to start with. Just do it then....

I'm not sure I agree that it's automatically dishonest for an organization to solicit member feedback on a topic that is already decided (though there are dishonest ways of doing that). I can easily image a situation where an organization decides it needs to do action X, and solicits member feedback to learn how much, and what kind of pushback or support for action X there is. They are going to do action X anyway, but the feedback helps them gauge the response, and too address the concerns that the membership brings up. I don't see that as dishonest. Unless they are dishonest while soliciting the feedback (such as lying about how the feedback will be used, etc.).

I'm not sure that is what is happening here. I think the BSA has decided that something has to change via girls in scouting, but they haven't decided all the details yet, especially at the boy scout level. I think there is still a debate going on about how to do this at National. I don't think a final decision has been reached. I could be wrong, but I see a lot of assumptions being made that I don't think the facts support (yet).

I know boys do better in a single gender environment.

I have seen several comments like this that take it as a given that boys and girls do better in single-sex classrooms. The reality is that the evidence isn’t clear on that.

While you can find studies that show children do better in single gender classrooms, you can also find studies that show the opposite (In college I read a study that claimed boys do better in coed settings, but girls do better in single-sex settings). Basically the studies are all over the place, and it’s difficult to do a good study. It appears to be more about the quality of the setting, and the advantages the students have than whether it’s coed or not. But with more data, that might change.

This article is a good overview of the subject:

The Never-Ending Controversy Over All-Girls Education

That being said, I am sure there are individual boys (and girls) that will do better in a quality single-sex setting than a coed one, just as I am sure there are boys and girls that will do better in a quality coed setting.

OOOOoooh  Rifle MB!  Yea!  until you get to the range where you sit and listen to the RangeMaster rattle on about gun safety and then after an eternity of waiting your tern.  You finally get to touch the gun and they give you 1 bullet?  Really?  But wait, the girl in line steps up and begins to show you how to load the gun  because you were bored out of our gourd during the lecture.  She pops off a bulls eye and now it's your turn.  Yep, that's the adventure of the new Age of Family Scouts.

 

Oh for the Real Scout program that used to mean something.

Wait, I'm not sure what you are trying too say here. It reads almost as if you are repeating the old: "if a girl can do it, it isn't worth doing" thing.

The focus of my point was that the YMCA, now the Family Y, had to change totally away from it's original mission in order to make the change, is that what BSA is up to?  Sure things changed, they merged, they went co-ed, they invited in families, etc. etc. etc. all for membership the the bottom line.  I was hoping BSA had more integrity than that.

Actually, I wasn't disagreeing with your main point, I was just pointing out something that I thought was of interest. I always thought that the two Ys had merged. But recently found out that they hadn't.

that there used to be a Young mens and a young women's CA and now theres just a combined YMCA.

Actually the YMCA USA and the YWCA USA are still separate organizations. The YWCA is just less visible because they don't run gyms and pools anymore (at least not around here), and are much more focused on issues specific to women.

When one pushes the age of real maturity in the mid-30's and early 40's, one can expect the growth at the teen years to be retarded  I like to compare it to the college students of my era (1960's) to today's college student.  We protested a war, they protest having to pay off their loans.  Kinda makes one wonder how far

 

In a lot of countries the conference of adulthood is in the early teens.  I can't imagine our 13 year olds going out and killing a lion to prove his manhood or a woman in her early teens giving birth to a child.  There are cultures out there that think this as normal.  I guess the big move to adulthood is moving out of your parents basement sometime after you turn 30.

When I was a child, my first babysitters were 12 and 13 year olds. Now 12 and 13 year olds need babysitters. Not a good trend.

I have no clue where this problem lies. Actually, that's not true. I do have a suspicion where it lies but it is not a popular one and will likely make me sound like the old Dana Carvey character on SNL, "Grumpy Old Man".

 

I think the problem lies with society. It lies with the video games kids play (and parents allow). It lies with the TV shows networks air and what passes for entertainment. It lies with instant gratification. It lies with the "trophies for everyone" mentality. It lies with the social media approach to news, information and narcissistic display of one-upsmanship we see every day. It lies with the lack of manners and respect for one's self and others. It lies with the slow eroding of family values and teaching of morals. That's not code for anything, it just simply means that most boys won't act like that when they have a solid, working father figure in their life that respects women. It means that when families eat together, instead of in front of the TV or at a fast food restaurant every night, their son can be taught respect for his mother, sister and female relatives. He can learn to honor them instead of objectifying them.

Actually I don’t think things are that much different now then they were 30, 40 or 50 years ago. There have always been a segment of our society that believe that women shouldn’t <insert here>, and that they are entitled to harass women that <insert here> anyway.

I think it may have been worse at jambo because of the anonymity of the whole thing, 40,000 people? And the scouts aren’t really with their troop mates, but with council contingents. It probably makes the bad apples feel freer to misbehave.

And the way I have heard some male scouters talk about girls and women in the BSA lately (about either female leaders, or the hypothetical female boy scouts) is rather derogatory to females. If these scouters talk this way in front of the scouts, they are communicating to the scouts that girls don’t belong in the BSA because they will “ruin itâ€. How do you think that effects the male scouts attitudes to female scouts?

Just look at the history of women trying to enter new career fields. The harassment and disrespect women got (and sometimes still get) for trying to be officer workers, engineers, construction workers, police officers, firemen, military officers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

I had a female coworker that was a former girl scout. She went camping and backpacking with her unit a lot (this was in the late 50s and early 60s). She talked about the terrible times her unit sometimes had when they had the misfortune of camping near a boy scout unit. Catcalls, stolen clothing, sand, itching powder and worse in their sleeping bags, etc (including one attempted gang rape - the fact that their girl scout leader had a revolver stopped things. She did remember units that were “perfect gentlemen†- she told a story of a boy scout troop that invited her troop over for dinner. They put out an amazing spread that made the girl scouts seriously rethink the definition of “camp cookingâ€). So I don’t think it’s really all that new.