Gwaihir

On 5/27/2018 at 4:27 AM, Cambridgeskip said:

OK, but I'm curious as to what specifics put you off?

To lead you a bit if TSA were to say they like the look of BSA and are going to remodel on you I can think of things that I think would work and would be an improvement and things I don't think would work.

Things I'd welcome

Your uniforms. (with the exception of the badge sash) Your shirts look much better than ours. Particularly the blue one for cubs.

Bigger emphasis on the patrol system, would like to see it used more in the explorer section in particular

Things I'd not welcome.

Combining scouts and explorers to run to 18. Not sure it works with natural peer groups here.

Chartering organisations. I wouldn't want to see scouting controlled by other bodies. Albeit we already have a small number of "closed" groups.

Those are purely examples and not exhaustive. It's just a prompt more than anything! I'm certainly not trying to provoke an argument. I'm just curious as to what you see, whether it's actually accurate and what you like and dislike about it.

I think two of the largest areas I don't want BSA to tread down here, are two of the things you'd welcome.  Another poster talked of ditching uniforms except in certain situations, which I am vehemently against and the degradation of the patrol method is another I do not want to see at all.   I am in favor of charter orgs and of reverence and faith being a key part of scouting.  I don't want to see full co-ed for the "scouting bsa" and "Cub scout" programs (which, yes, I know is not the current state of affairs)

"the lore is part of the integral the way water..."

I think I have mild dyslexia... what the heck kind of a sentence is that! 

I would have preferred Boy Scouts redouble their efforts to figure out why 90% of American boys arent joining Boy Scouts, and de-regulated a bit and gone back to more rough and tumble adventure, stay all boy since this has a lot of benefits in teaching boys.  It also provides choice to families that want all-boy environments.   I was more in favor of starting up a girls parallel org to the Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, Girl Trackers, whatever, and dedicated commitment and resources to seeing it be a success.  I think words, names and traditions matter at a basic human level.  In it's current form as pitched by National, with a dedication to single-gender learning, I will support the program because girls should have opportunities to learn the skills provided in Boy Scouts, just not at the detriment of boys.  If we go down a path of co-ed troops, co-ed patrols, uniformless units, etc... I'll cash my chips out.  Skorts was a good idea, girls like them.  I know my daughter does, she loves hers. Was a cub scout, boy scout, eagle scout, assistant scoutmaster, brotherhood member of the oa, den leader, cubmaster, etc.  

Take care TT, and hopefully see you on the trail. 

36 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

 

Gwaihir (who doesn't usually agree with me)

but respect you a great deal. 

Back on topic: 

back on topic, NJC, I can see that argument.  I'd argue that after this long, the lore is part of the integral the way water is part of the mortar that is poured to make a foundation.  Yes, what's important is brotherhood, and service, but without the lore, you're talking about 4H, or some other group.  Why not just drop the OA entirely and do something else.  I'd argue that the trappings are an integral and "foundational" part.  

On 5/25/2018 at 7:17 AM, qwazse said:

He followed with "just kidding."

I'd say gimme a break, but I'm afraid one of you will post a picture of a limb you just fractured!

The point remains, when a bunch of kids spray water guns at each other, they all laugh and have a great time.  kidding around is at the very heart of water gun fights... but Bryan (as the mouth piece of the BSA, I don't know where his heart is on the matter)  tut tuts about how that's not "kind" and is very "unscoutlike" 

14 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

The video on the front page of the Family Scouting website, about the 8:15 mark, "We're not mandating that scouting becomes co-ed."

NJC was being a lawyer, and his point stands.  "BSA" means "Boy Scouts of America", which is the corporation, and under than corporation Venturing, Explorers, Sea Scouts and the ridiculous Learning for Life programs all exist and are co-ed.  You were referring to "Boy Scouts" the program, which the CSE has stated wouldn't be co-ed.   

On 5/27/2018 at 12:17 AM, The Latin Scot said:

I think it would be far more instructive if there were three parts to the requirement.

a. Explain the role and importance of the Father in the family.

b. Explain the role and importance of the Mother in the family.

c.Explain how they are different, and how both together contribute to building stronger family ties.

Whether the Scout is a boy or a girl, from a healthy family or a broken home, these questions are important, and will help develop stronger families in the future as the Scouts learn to understand the vital nature of each parental role in their families, whether present or future.

I'm on board with this approach

6 hours ago, Cambridgeskip said:

I hope you don't mind me asking but why is that?

Because that's not the scouting I grew up with, it's not the scouting I believe in.  It's nothing against you, if it works for you, that's great.  It's not what I signed up for. 

8 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

I have no problem with using the word "parent", it certainly is not "trash". Why such an unkind comment?

Maybe this thread has run its course?

because I'm critical of the idea that parents are homogeneous and that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.   Parent in and of itself is not trash, that's fairly obvious.  Again, I'm critical of an idea.  Not of people. 

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Unkind words. What if the scout comes from a single parent family? But for me,  Family Life should be a family matter not a merit badge so that problem would not exist.

Another $0.02

 

I agree with you that it shouldn't even be a merit badge, but single parent family is irrelevant.  I stand by my point, change the words to be "find out what it means to be an effective father from a loved one such as your father, uncle, grandfather, etc if you're a boy and what it means to be an effective mother from a loved one such as your mother, aunt, grandmother, etc if you're a girl" The point of the requirement is to teach the boy how to grow up to be a good father and to teach the girl how to grow up to be a good mother.  

And unless you were saying the requirement was unkind words, I would argue a Scout is to be kind to people, not to ideas.  Ideas can be horrible, and should be chastised openly and publicly bravely.  I think changing the requirement to "parent" is a bad idea.  

2 hours ago, FireStone said:

I still can't believe there is even outrage at all over a magazine title. Then again, this forum never ceases to amaze me with what brings out the pitchforks. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that someone is threatening to quit because there will be photos of girls in the handbooks. 

It's not "outrage",  outrage is reserved for Hamas terrorists killing Jews.  This is anger, but not because of a name change.  CSE Michael Saurbaugh repeatedly stated the BSA respects and believes in the differences between boys and girls and will stand by the benefits of single-gender to reach those unique differences... and then purposefully and with intent they do the exact opposite.  It's called lying, and what amazes me most is how easily some so willing accept the lying as something that's a-ok.  I often wonder what other points of the Scout law are so nonchalantly disregarded in some of the units around the country because "trustworthy" is not even on the radar any longer. 

If BSA becomes the same as Scouting in the UK, I'm out.  That's my breaking point.  

23 hours ago, FireStone said:

Kind of related to my original post and where I think we are going from here, in particular modeling the BSA after Scouts UK, as it relates to uniforms I think we should expect more of the UK model there as well. In the "Adding Girls to the Pack" thread (page 9) on this forum there is a video with Anthony Berger, and towards the end he talks about how the WOSM regards just the neckerchief as being "in uniform". And he's wearing his neckerchief in the UK style, with the friendship knot. 

I fully expect to see more of this and a reduced emphasis on Class A uniforming in the BSA. I think we'll always have Class A, but more for ceremonies, COH, Blue & Gold, formal events, etc. In fact I think this video was pretty much confirmation (unofficially of course) that this is happening already. We should expect to see more of the UK-style larger neckers in the BSA, especially going into WSJ '19.  

If that's the destination we're headed to, then I will leave.  I want nothing to do with UK scouting. 

On 5/25/2018 at 12:43 PM, Thunderbird said:

While I cannot speak for anybody else, as a female, I would have felt perfectly comfortable reading a magazine called "Boys Life".  If I were younger and joining the BSA because of its program, I would not want or expect the program to change its name or that of its magazine just to accommodate me.  Obviously, it would make sense to change a few things here and there (like the Family Life merit badge requirement on what it means to be an effective father).  But I don't see why changing the name of the program or the magazine is necessary or "Thrifty".

I'm very curious if the change will be 

"what it means to be an effective father if you're a boy and what it means to be an effective mother if you're a girl" or if they just say "parent".  Which would be trash. 

On 5/25/2018 at 12:19 PM, Buggie said:

I get why people feel that the magazine name change shouldn't have happened. Still I wonder, would you feel comfortable reading a magazine for the program if it was titled, "Girls Life"?  

There should have been two magazines.  All of this program change is in the name of growth.  Grow then.  Make a new magazine, have some cross-over content, and then have some content specific to girls and boys wants.  Feature male heroes in Boys' Life and female heroes and role models in Life for Girls.  Changing everything to neutral is lazy circling of the wagons.  

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

While Surbaugh has risen through the ranks, that is part of his problem. He has not been a volunteer in a very long time, assuming he was a Scouter in college. And the bulk of his professional experience has been with Exploring and Learning for Life, and not traditional Scouting. From an interview somewhere, he deliberately had no children in order to focus on his career. That's another negative in my opinion because A) how can you relate to parents if you are not one and  B) How can you relate to modern youth when you have no kids of your own?

not being a parent, imo, is a HUGE negative against him when it's an organization dedicated to youth that's trying specifically trying to roll out "family scouting".  You cannot even begin to relate to the family unit if you don't have one of your own.  It's just one more ding against him coupled with a bevy of decisions he's been at the helm of... and honestly even with all that, it's the lying more than anything else that's at the heart of the problem! 

1 minute ago, David CO said:

Don't just voice your displeasure. Cancel your subscription. Stop donating to FoS. Stop selling popcorn. In short, it em where it hurts.

Agreed.  

2 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

 

 

 Voice it where?   to who?

the media, our councils? I know I'm dropping the Boys' Life subscription for my son.  

I'm sure Bryan Wendell was all in favor of this name change. 

2 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

I'm actually upset with this.....

Boys Life was actually one of the only magazines I knew geared towards young boys. There was 0 need to mess with it. 

Add a "girls life" if you wanted to be inclusive. 

Voice the displeasure.  We have to be vocal about these changes.   If Scouting could revert some of it's changes in the 70s, it can do so now.  

16 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

I was being kind...also haven't you been paying attention???  THOUSANDS of GIRLS are signing up, plus the LIONS, plus the FAMILIES, and did I mention the GIRLS, and STEM, and SOCCER, and LEARNING FOR LIFE, why the tent is HEEWGE and will need to get HEEEWGER, what with all of this influx BSA (current corporate name but not married to it), will need to no doubt add (wait for it) SUMMIT WEST to handle the need for High Adventure

I laugh every time I hear the "thousands" line being thrown around.  2,000 whole girls joined! whoa!  

Wait.. how many girls are in America?  millions?  oh... shh, don't say that part. 

21 hours ago, oldbuzzard said:

Right. But what kind of success? I view Scouts as an apprenticeship to adulthood... lots of opportunity to experiment and fail in adult tasks. My sons will be adults in a pluralistic society with bosses, peers, and subordinates who are female, gay, trans, ethnic minorities, etc, etc. Women's colleges and HBCUs have been declining since many students have taken the greater opportunities at previously male/white schools. Does anyone doubt Harvard, and probably America, benefits from taking some of Howard's best kids. Likewise Princeton and Bryn Mawr. This is how I view the Scouts transition. I want my kids to be capable leaders... not just capable leaders of men. The Service Academies made this transition way before women were allowed in combat and without it that transition might have been impossible.

No one disagrees with that.  But there is a difference between children, adolescences and adults.   The proof is in the pudding, boys are being forgotten, left behind, called toxic, they're failing out of school, they're not bothering with college, they're using drugs at a higher rate, they're shooting schools at a higher rate, they're killing themselves at a much higher rate and at a much younger age.  As we've done all this transitioning to gender neutrality, the statistics on failing boys has climbed ever higher.  Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but there are is an abundance of evidence that this is a large part of the problem.  Your kids might be good leaders, but their kids aren't going to be good leaders, they're going to be lucky to just survive.   This is something we need to address as a society... our boys' lives literally depend on it. 

20 minutes ago, an_old_DC said:

Geez, if the geniuses at National tell us girls love the program and want everything Boy Scouts has to offer, why change the name, drop "Boys'" from "Boys' Life" etc.?

They have to change the program so that they'll love the program.  

It reminds me of we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it. 

Just now, Hawkwin said:

I don't think you believe that. Even with an increase in so-called paper Eagles, only something like 2% of all scouts make Eagle.

I still think it matters today.  I'm speaking of 10-15 years down the road.  Since inception, it's 2%, but the number annually is up to 6% and climbing.  The "since inception" number will stay low for a very long time since that's how percentages work, but the annual numbers are relevant to the living, and when Eagle scout is the chief marketing tool, you'll see that number continue to climb and the requirements to earn it diminish.  I want to be proven wrong and in 15 years, I'll return here and see if I am.