Gwaihir

On 6/20/2018 at 7:28 AM, qwazse said:

I'm seeing a much different impact on these post-modern nomadic boys. More than ever before, they have unfettered access to the opposite sex - virtually. These warpped icons of womanhood - usually delivered electronically - are toxic to the male psyche. Also their female friends "virtualize" themselves and distribute their preferred "side" to social media and personal messages that arrive at all hours. (Pro parent tip: park all cell phones at charging stations at the end of the hall opposite bedrooms. Kids can make do with a bedside clock.)

With smaller households, more youth are growing up without a peer of the opposite sex in their home. As a side-effect, some elevate their virtual icons to role models that they desire to emulate, identify with, transition into!

How can we free our boys from these toxic virtual icons? I've seen forced marches in bear country with actual peers of the opposite sex, routinely applied, do a world of good.

I don't disagree at all that the internet, social media, online dating, snapchat filters, pornhub, and all the like have had a net negative effect on humanity and on child development at large. 

I agree, I'd drop it completely, but since it was a current required, I'd placed it last. 

12 minutes ago, FireStone said:

I agree civics is lacking in this country, but is Scouting the best venue for teaching it? Seems like we're picking up the slack where schools should be doing a better job. 

Personally I'd be fine with seeing all Citizenship MBs gone. 

yes, Scouting is absolutely where we should be teaching that.  And even still, we're talking about Eagle Scouts... no one HAS to take these merit badges, but I think an Eagle Scout is exemplified by being a well rounded citizen, not just an exceptional "scout". 

Two of the first 57 merit badges was Scholarship and Civics (which was then split into the 3 separate badges), so since BSA's inception, these "school" merit badges have been essential Merit Badges for the well rounded person.  Also, these were when civics was actually taught well in school. 

33 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I prefer to think of myself more on the lines of those working the Underground Railroad, or maybe the Rightous Gentiles of WWII.

That's fair... but the Underground Railroad and the Righteous Gentiles of WW2, while they served their roles in history... were ultimately ineffective to the overall goal compared to the likes of Normandy or Gettysburg. 

29 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

Mixed emotions on the paper pushing MBs as I called them. On one hand, this is stuff that SHOULD (emphasis) be taught in school. However after doing a Citizenship in the Nation MB session while in DC and on the way home, I had a rude awakening on what is actually being done in the schools. The could not tell me what the 3 branches of government are, what checks and balances mean, etc. And these were HS age Scouts who had taken US History and Civics!

I felt embarrassed for them when my then Webelos 2 middle son was answering the questions.

All 3 Citizenships should absolutely be Eagle required.  I'd drop every other merit badge first before those community and nation especially. The one thing we lack most of all in this country, imo, is civics.  I rate the required MBs in order of priority: 

1. Citizenship in Community

2. Citizenship in Nation

3. Communication

4. First Aid

5. Emergency Preparedness

6. Personal Fitness

7. Swimming

8. Personal Management

9. Environmental Science

10. Camping

11. Cooking

12. Citizenship in the World

13. Family Life

14. Lifesaving

15. Hiking

16. Cycling

17. Sustainability

You SHOULD be a bit of an expert at Scoutcraft by First Class... having required merit badges that are around Scoutcraft seems redundant... you want merit badges that make for a well rounded and responsible citizen. imo. 

I'd also make rank advancement more challenging and make the MBs more challenging. 

50 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

No, following  Kenny Roger's advice: " know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em. Know when to walk away. Know when to run."

I can be more effective, do more good, and not deal with all the crap by working with my sons and their friends.

I disagree.  Now more than ever, dealing with the crap to reach as wide an audience as possible, is what we need to do. 

I think of the coptic Christians in the middle east, facing down the barrel of a gun and refusing to renounce their beliefs in public before being executed, or the political dissidents of communist Russia facing execution or a life time in the gulags and choosing the gulags over bowing to the party.  How can we say we are brave, if we shirk this responsibility because of name calling when there are those around the world who would do ten fold for their beliefs?  

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Agreed 100%. You make any comments promoting boys, and you are decried and vilified as being  against girls. Book's author is also female. And she cites plenty of examples where not only men, but women are vilified for trying to do something for boys.

So quit.  throw in the towel.  the fight is lost.  

2 minutes ago, gblotter said:

Let me know how that goes for you. Consider those on this relatively tame forum who dare to decry girls entering BSA (unScoutlike is the kindest of those characterizations).

Are you ready to be assailed as sexist, chauvinistic, and patriarchal? You had better check your male privilege at the door. The only reason that article could be published at all is because the author is female.

A Scout is brave. 
 

Also, I'm not saying we all need to be Jordan Peterson (who is called all those things, but presses on because it's what's right) on youtube with millions of subscribers... I'm saying focus on your neighborhood, on your community.  Start there, double down there. 

I'd also argue that the retired group has got much less to lose, so they have a little extra capital to expend before their time on this earth expires.  But to each their own. 

4 minutes ago, gblotter said:

Thanks, @Eagledad. I stumbled on this article before you posted the link on this forum. I cried when reading it because truly we are losing our boys and nobody cares. Not even BSA cares anymore. My son faces this on a daily basis in a school environment dominated by female teachers and female administrators. He is graded according to female methods of learning and disciplined according to female standards of behavior. Scouting has been his refuge - a safe space for boys to just be boys. That is now sacrificed on the altar of inclusiveness.

 

With troops of 12-13 year-old boys and 12-13 year-old girls in the same summer camp environment, tell me which will be called out for being disruptive and distracting, and which will be praised for being focused and attentive?

 

There is no going back. So our boys will retreat to their last remaining dominions: sports teams for those who are athletically inclined, and the dropout society of the video game culture for the rest. Sad beyond belief. This social petri dish is putrid.

Sorry, but we men need to stand up, especially those who are "retired" or those who feel that all is lost.  The defeatist attitude is a contributing factor to the detriment of boys.  Rally those in your community to your cause, put in the extra work.  Be vocal (not online).  WE have to fix this, and bemoaning the state of affairs doesn't fix anything. 

On 6/14/2018 at 4:05 PM, Eagledad said:

I get that the BSA has moved on and there is no going back, but just maybe a few here will be swayed to consider the needs of the boy, sperate from the girl, and bend their family scouting program, at least a little, toward that need. 

I know that as much as girls needed a program like the Boy Scout program, boys need it a lot worse. 

Barry

God know, I'm trying. I just wish other units would put in the work to do the same, for the kids' sake, and not take the easy way out and just lump everyone together.   

ancillary to this discussion... it's time for a serious discussion about criminal justice reform in this country. 

5 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

Gender is a social and cultural construct - not biological (its a common error to use gender when what one really means is sex).  Since gender is not biological, it is very fluid - both on an individual level and on a societal level. 

Why would it be a bad thing to use language that does not reflect a gender bias in school?  Is it  really that difficult for people to say "firefighter" instead of "fireman" or "police officer" instead of "policeman" or "flight attendant" instead of "stewardess"?

As for "the fact that the BSA now holds that a child can participate in Scouting as whichever gender they choose", why stress over it now - it's a moot point next year. 

Do you also subscribe to the notion there are over 200 genders?  

On 6/7/2018 at 8:46 AM, RememberSchiff said:

Where was the scout's buddy? 

Send him away to get his buddy, continue to read your book in peace.

technically speaking, by speaking to the scout to send them away, you have now had one on one contact with the scout and are in violation of policy.  The adult needs to get up and leave in order to comply with policy. 

How does anyone know they have a limited pool of volunteers before a program has even been rolled out?  You have families chomping at the bit to get into scouting, to get their girls into scouting, but not a single one of those parents is up for being a part of it as well?  I highly doubt the question has even been broached to those parents.   From where I stand, it's laziness and dishonesty (from volunteers and from national) .

10 hours ago, bearess said:

So, as mentioned, my father’s cousins were all Scouts Extrordinaire.  Five children in the family (six including my dad, who floated between his aunt/uncle and maternal grandparents— they only lived three houses apart).  All four boys were Eagles.  Daughter was a first class Girl Scout.  Mother was a Den Mother for all boys (including my father).  Father was a Scoutmaster.  They were featured in a Sunday magazine feature in the main newspaper of their state as the “Scoutingest Family in xxxxxx  in the mid 1960s (think Indianapolis Star or Des Moines Register).  Most of their children (my generation) were also active Scouts, with several of them earning Eagle.

Sooooo.....all that said, we went out to dinner with one of my dad’s cousins tonight.  We were chatting about Scouts, and my son’s Troop currently having girls.  Other than some speculation about what that looks like on paper, his reaction was entirely neutral/positive.  He pointed out that all of the skills he gained in Scouting were ones he went on to use with female colleagues/friends/community members. I suspect his brothers all feel the same.

I don't understand why no one can be trustworthy or obedient.  The program is to be single-gender for troops.  It's incredibly disappointing to know the leadership involved in these troops are the ones teaching their youth to be disobedient and untrustworthy. 

Quote

 

3 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

And that's basically what he (or actually his ghost) says in Episode VI, but the way he says it, it sounds like he knows he's full of baloney, as my mother would say.  And Luke knows it too.  As besides, his explanation (especially if you call it "pyschological murder") doesn't work because by the end of that same movie, the "soul" of Anakin returns - right before he dies, and again when he appears as a ghost. So I guess his soul wasn't really dead.  It was just hiding.  Or pining for the fjords.  Unless we are talking about resurrection here.

Well, I see it as a good try.

eh, tying heavily into  religious themes, it's no different that Christ being murdered, dying and then having a resurrection.  Anakin's redemption is similar in this regard.  so yeah, I think resurrection is the apt way of looking at it. 

again, I don't think Lucas planned Vader becoming Luke's father from the get go, so this is all shoe horned in post-facto, and like you said, it's a good try.  I think it works a little better than you think, that's all  

ps, my Grandma loved the term full of baloney, it needs to come back into popular lexicon.  

19 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

They did.  Of course, in the first film they said Darth Vader killed Luke's father, and in the next film Darth Vader was Luke's father, and no amount of verbal gymnastics by the ghost of Obi Wan in the third film can reconcile that.  A certain point of view only goes so far.

Not to mention the terrible thing the writers of the fourth movie (Episode I) did by turning the grand mystery of the Force into a matter of some bacteria-like things that you can measure with a blood test.  By the beginning of the new trilogy, apparently the midichlorians never existed.  Otherwise I have to believe that at some point, Rey would have been approached by a lab technician with a needle and a Band Aid...

technically he said Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father.

One could argue Obi-Wan meant the psychological murder of the soul known as Anakin.  Granted, I don't for a second believe Lucas originally intended for this, but in the context of the film, i see it as legitimate. 

Just now, ParkMan said:

Uncle.  Ya'll do what you want here. 

I just don't think the answer to G2SS rules you don't like is to pretend you're not acting as a Scouting group while you break them.  But, if that what you want to do and argue it's OK - go for it.

 

I'll finish with this, no one here said anything about "pretending" anything.  What was said is if a group of boys want to go camping together in a similar fashion to the old ways of patrol camping, they would have to do so outside of the scouting paradigm.  That this was a perfectly viable solution to young men wanting to get the experiences old scouting prided itself on instilling in scouts and something American teens do now regardless of scouting.  It also might be a contributing factor as to why 90% of American teens don't want to be bothered with Scouting.  

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

Being the internet, we like to take a point to it's extremes and then argue it's fallacy.  I was tempted to insert a meme her but don't want to insult your basic point.

This was started because a statement was made that if the BSA prohibits patrol campout the course of action was to:

I hear this point from time to time.  We don't like the rules, so we'll do it anyways and just say it's not Scouting.  The point is that any lawyer worth his salt can poke through that in a second.  Now, I'm sure your lawyer will argue it's not a Scouting function.  I'm sure the BSA's lawyer and the CO's lawyer will argue that it's not a Scouting function too.  It will all be messy.

I am sure the BSA has been burned by this multiple times and their lawyers understand what is provable in court.  So they instruct us to follow the G2SS when groups of Scouts gets together. Are some of these cases over each- I'm sure.  But I'm sure the cost of litigation is significant to the BSA and they are trying to do what they can to minimize it.

Clearly - if your neighbor is a Scout, you don't need to worry about following the G2SS.  Clearly if your son invites some scouts to his birthday party you don't either.  

It these cases where folks try to be clever to get around the rules that are the point.  

 

A group of friends who happen to be in a patrol getting together, hanging out and doing stuff together is not even remotely "an extreme", that's normal everyday American teens.   The other examples provided were predicated on the premise that all events are considered scouting events even if not in uniform or outside of scouting... this is what you said the trainer stated.  

41 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

FWIW - I remember a training somewhere along the way.  It was very clearly said that when a group of scouts gets together, whether its an official meeting or not, is still a Scouting function.  It was designed to prevent 1) people circumventing the G2SS and 2) YPT violations.

I just don't recall the source now.  Perhaps someone else does.

yeah no.  That's not how life works.  I'd like to see that be upheld in a court of law.  So if 3 scouts from the patrol get together with 3 kids from the neighborhood, is that still a scout event?  that's BSA overreach and I really cannot see how that flies, at all. 

8 minutes ago, Chris1 said:

BUDDY SYSTEM: I found it interesting that the following was removed "The buddy system should be used at all times. The buddy system is a safety measure for all Scouting activities. Buddies should know and be comfortable with each other. Self-selection with no more than two years age or significant differences in maturity should be strongly encouraged. When necessary, a buddy team may consist of three Scouts. No youth should be forced into or made to feel uncomfortable by a buddy assignment."  and replaced with "The buddy system should be used. " .  It removes "self-selection"  age gap and "forced buddy assignments." 

So now we can force an 11 year old together with a 17 year old who he does not know, or even one he is terrified of. Wow, I'm sure that's going to work out just fine. <<please note my extreme sarcasm>>. 

I was told all the stuff you cite as removed, was expressly added.  Was there a very recent update? 

That said, yes, you "can" do that, but who will do that?  I doubt many.  What it does do is give you the freedom to do that in situations where it will work.  

"who he's terrified of" 

1. a scout is brave

2. a scout is friendly, kind and courteous. 

If both scouts are following the Scout law, which they should be as they show Scout spirit... this isn't an issue.  

1 hour ago, David CO said:

I have been considering the discussion on a recent topic about Star Wars and feminism. I don't think the SW movies have become a springboard for feminism so much as they have become an attack on organized religion.

The original trilogy presented the fictional Jedi religion as a good and civilizing influence on the SW universe. The prequel trilogy presented it as clumsy, ineffective, and morally ambiguous. The sequel trilogy discredited it and burnt its temple to the ground. Luke went from being an idealistic young man, eager to become a Jedi master, only to become a despondent old hermit who has lost all faith in the institution he once loved.

 

 

I originally felt that way about The Last Jedi, but upon reflection, I feel that analysis is inaccurate.  Many see Luke as a righteous hero, destroying the Jedi order, but Luke was not the righteous hero who burned the temple to the ground... he was the wayward son who misguidedly burned down his faith.  Yoda shows him at the end that he was wrong, that the liturgy of the Jedi faith had gotten corrupted over time and a return to fundamentalism was in order.  That burning down the tree was good, but not for the reasons Luke did it.   In the end, Luke's faith is restored and he sees the need to keep the church alive, which is why his last act is one of great sacrifice.  Seeing the books in Rey's drawer at the end shows us (and of course this could all change in the next film, because when you have multiple writers, things can change and don't have a clear narrative in place) that this is a kind of reformation.  

58 minutes ago, Pale Horse said:

Absolutely not.  To even think that one family is inferior than another is beyond the pale.

I'm sure there's things that everybody wishes were different about their family or life (inlaws anyone?), but to feel that because of how life works out somehow makes it inferior is quite alarming.

To extend your argument about it being more difficult for single parent families, would a traditional middle-class family be inferior to one in the upper class? After all it's more difficult to raise kids on your own without the help of a nanny.  Difficulty does not equal inferiority.  Some may even argue the opposite.

I would argue that the vast majority of single parent house holds, if given the choice (or the ability to make different life choices that led to the current status) would choose to not be a single family house hold.  You're conflating the amount of love and care a parent has for a child, with the optimal/sub-optimal environment for which the child could be raised.  Do single mothers love their children any less than mothers from two-parent homes?  I would argue no, of course not.  But is it optimal for the child to be brought up in a single parent home?  I would also argue no, of course not.  Single parent families happen.  It's a part of life.  But they are inferior, by which I mean sub-optimal for the rearing of the child.  I would also argue that the data on this, as we have progressed and gathered such data, is becoming more and more clear. 

29 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

It reminds me of the time George W. Bush tried to say “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”  It did not go well.

low blow.  "the lore is an integral part the way water" so much for self deprecation.  

1 hour ago, Chris1 said:

You may want to review what sealing your membership in the brotherhood means. The following is from the OA on brotherhood

"4) Plan for Service in your Lodge 
A) Retain your registration in your Lodge and keep your dues paid. 
• Be aware that acceptance of Brotherhood Membership involves a pledge of service to 
the Lodge. 
• Develop a concrete idea of how you plan to fulfill this pledge."

Becoming a Brotherhood member is about making a pledge of service to you unit, lodge, OA, and scouting.  Now there are plenty of people who get their brotherhood sash and disappear. And I will not presume that you will not make a difference in the next 18 months. Just something on which to reflect. 

this post comes off as a very unkind and discourteous. 

Patrols can still do overnighters by themselves.  They just can't do it under the banner of scouting.  I assume all but the perversely helecopterish of units, this will be the case.  it'll be friends getting together on a saturday to do something together... just not as Scouts, which is exactly the opposite of what the BSA needs right now.  These rules are absurd and need to be scaled back asap.  Time to write some letters and make some calls.  Scouts can't dictate what youth do outside of scouting, despite the overly Orwellian reach Scouts seems to want to get into the family.