EmberMike

15 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

Attached is a screen shot. (It is from https://scouting.webdamdb.com/bp/#/folder/3482216/)  They couldn't show boys and girls together or a family with a son and daughter? I know this is for recruiting...but really? Is it just me? I mean none of this stuff is probably cheap. I'd much rather see something like @Cambridgeskip's picture of his "co-ed" scouts.

 

It's in a folder called "Interim Family Scouting Materials." I don't think this is the final set of materials, just what has been produced so far. 

2 hours ago, cocomax said:

In Europe the school system and mothers work very hard to soak young boys in feminine values like accepting responsibility for household chores, being caring, understanding and attentive, and bend to every wish of the woman. This has produced a generation of soft, insecure men, who are out of touch with their masculine nature, identity and strength...

Yeah, we wouldn't want our scouts to pick up on any of that garbage, right? Being responsible, doing chores, caring about others, being attentive. That would be awful. 

I always thought i.Scout was a UK thing, but in browsing the World Scout Shop, they carry i.Scout goods there, too. So it's a WOSM thing, I guess? 

What is it? My Google-fu failed me on this one. Best I can tell it's just a brand of Scouting gear and clothing, but is there more to it than that? Anyone know anything more about it? 

13 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

The level of speculation in this thread is astonishing.  Now we are up to, what happens if the admission of girls (which has just barely started, and in only one of the two programs in which it will occur) does not work and the BSA tries to change back, what will happen then and what if someone sues?  Perhaps we should next consider if, after all of this happens, a huge asteroid collides with the Earth and destroys all life on our little planet.  What will the BSA's policy be then?  I mean, if you're going to speculate, you may as well speculate.  

 

Aliens, man. What if... aliens? 

14 minutes ago, gblotter said:

It's obvious these photos were staged for PR purposes. Much of what happened in the National Geographic television series "Are you tougher than a Boy Scout" was obviously staged for PR purposes as well. I'm not sure why that would be surprising to anyone. Marketing is an important component in helping any corporate initiative succeed.

What, you don't pack your official BSA marketing banners on all outings? 

I don't agree with the intrepretations of "Family Scouting" being all-ages. We'll find out what it really means later this year hopefully. Let's just leave it at that. 

5 minutes ago, cyphertext said:

Dude... 

Go look at the Family Scouting page  https://www.scouting.org/familyscouting/

Family Scouting is basically the catch all phrase that BSA has put on their programs that are open to all members of the family now.  Even in the document that you are pointing to, it says "Family Cub Scouts Boy Dens & Girl Dens".  Now look to the left of that box and the says "Boys Cub Scouts", and to the right of the Family Box  there is a box that says "Girls Cub Scouts".  These are the Packs that will not be coed...  Do you think these packs will not include families?  Are only coed units "Family Scouting"?

The Family Scouting is all about inclusion.  Look at the infographic.  What does it say?  Look at the executive message..  it says "Our recent historic decision to serve families by inviting girls to Cub Scouts and delivering a program that will enable them to earn the rank of Eagle Scout..."

Dude... I don't share your interpretation of this. There is a chart, it says "Family" in the ages 6-10 row, does not say "Family" in the 11-17 row. It's pretty clear. You somehow see if different, and I have no idea why. 

The graphic right on the page you linked to has an illustration of families, all cub age kids. "Family Scouting" is cub age. 

...

29 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

Your statement is predicated on the fact that those girls were told they MUST wear skorts.  If they were given the option and they chose to wear skorts... I don't see how this affects your argument that nothing major would have to change?  
 

It does lend credence to the concept that girls and boys have interests in different things.  

I have a hard time believing that 100% of the girls in that pack just happened to choose the exact same uniform configuration. 

I can't even get all of the kids in my Den to consistently wear a neckerchief slide as opposed to just tying the thing in a knot. And miraculously somehow this girls den/pack pulled that one off, too. 

A statistical impossibility if you ask me. 

1 minute ago, cyphertext said:

"Anecdotally mentioned"?  It is the very first question and answer in the FAQ of "Family Scouting".  BSA has made the push to add girls to the program under the umbrella of "Family Scouting"...  It doesn't mean that the family will necessarily tag along on campouts, but that there is now a program open to everyone in the family within BSA.

That's exactly what Family Scouting is! Tagging along on campouts and meetings! Family Scouting is not just about general inclusivity, it's a specific program type, and it is not at the troop level. 

Just because an older girl program is mentioned in an introductory document on Family Scouting, a document that as previously mentioned has no detail on Family Scouting at either the Cub or Troop level, that does not mean that Family Scouting will apply to all ages of the program. 

8 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

it's totally speculation.  this is all thought exercise since nothing is in place.  However, didn't the SCOTUS already rule BSA could create their own membership rules?  Wouldn't that ruling mean they could change back to all boy?  

Changing back to all boy means actually kicking out girls already in Cub Scouts. It would be PR suicide. Never going to happen.

It doesn't matter what legal protections they might have to do so. The public backlash would kill the organization. 

In the highly unlikely scenario in which they did actually kick the girls out, I'd hang up my uniform permanently. 

Just now, cyphertext said:

Why would it be addressed in the "Family Scouting FAQ" if it is not part of the "Family Scouting" idea?

It is anecdotally mentioned in that document describing the general policy change and the decision-making behind it. That document does not define any detail of "Family Scouting", at any level. 

14 minutes ago, cyphertext said:

First question and answer on the "Family Scouting FAQ"...  https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Family-Scouting-FAQ.pdf

Family Scouting FAQ

Q: What decision did the BSA make regarding girls’ involvement in the organization? Starting in 2018, families can choose Cub Scouts for their sons and daughters, enabling them to take advantage of the life-changing experiences provided through Scouting. A program for older girls will be announced in 2018 with projected implementation in 2019 to deliver the Boy Scout program to girls, allowing for participating girls to earn the highest rank of Eagle. 

 

 

That still doesn't say that "Family Scouting" will be applied to troops. All it says is that the older girls program is forthcoming. 

As mentioned, other documents clearly define "Family Scouting" as ages 6-10. 

Unless you can show me where it says otherise and that "Family Scouting" is all ages, I'm going with the document in front of me that defines the age. 

2 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

I would slightly differ in that view.  BSA National and pretty much every interview CSE has had emphasized and at times over emphasized family.  He talks about families doing things together, that families want programs they can do together, and that scouting can be the program they can do together.  The surveys tell them family is key and they want to do things.  As a family.

One can infer that if the new families that come into Cubs with the family transition to Scouts, the expectation is the family will come along.  Those of us that are dinosaur troops, all male leaders on outings,  using patrol methods, scouts off by themselves, referring scouts to their SPL for questions, will be (I assume) be expected to welcome the families.  Even if we are all male and the Scouts potentially crossing over are male, this family focus will be a challenge.

 

I don't get that impression at all. The documentation I've looked at does not mention "Family" for the programs for ages 11-17. "Family Cub Scouts" is limited to age 10. 

2 hours ago, gblotter said:

Where do you read this interpretation of Family Scouting as applying only to Cub Scouts (age 10 and under)? I'm not disputing you - I sincerely want to know. From what I have been able to tell, BSA has applied the term Family Scouting with a very broad brush to justify pretty much whatever change they want to make at whatever age level. By attaching the label "Family", BSA hopes to defuse resistance - because who can disagree with and go against the needs of the "Family", after all?

In the Fact Sheet document on Family Scouting. They list the program types as Boy Cub Scouts, Family Cub Scouts, Girls Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Girl Program. 

Family Cub Scouts is ages 6-10. There is no mention of a Family Scouting program for ages 11-17. 

1 hour ago, cyphertext said:

What are you calling "Family Scouting"? because the push to bring girls into the BSA is what BSA is calling "Family Scouting", and it is most certainly being applied at the troop level.

 

That's not what Family Scouting is. It's a specific program level, age 10 and under. At the troop level, "Family" is not a part of it. This is in the BSA Fact Sheet document on Family Scouting.

9 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

While it may be great it is also required for any outings, and for good reasons.  Note that Cubs and Scouts are two separate programs.  What is great for Cubs and 6 - 10 years olds does not translate to working with 11 - 17 years olds

That's why Family Scouting isn't being applied to the troop level. I think the BSA is handling this part of things well, limiting Family Scouting to age 10 and under. 

2 minutes ago, gblotter said:

Based on their history of lying and deception, frankly. I have very little faith in the competence of BSA National leadership. They are making this up as they go along.

And they never said the program would not change to accommodate girls - they only said the requirements would be the same for boys and girls (see the difference?).

Ok, but when we're talking about summer camp specically,, for better or worse the summer camp program is heavily weighted towards merit badges, which are requirement-based. So if the requirements aren't changing, the bulk of the activities at camp will remain the same. How will they change the "program" in a way that will drastically impact sumemr camp without changing the requirements? 

3 minutes ago, gblotter said:

Those large drops are directly attributable to attacks on BSA by Social Justice Warriors over gays, trans, and God. Political controversy drives down enrollment - simple enough to understand. To say that will somehow be fixed by adding girls is illogical.

Those drops existed long before the media attention on the BSA over those issues. The biggest drops started in the 90s and early 2000s, long before we were headline news and became a social discussion. How could the controversies drive down membership when they weren't yet well-known controversies? 

4 minutes ago, gblotter said:

But that’s just it ... BSA *does* want to appeal to these new types of Scouts and these new types of Scouters. That is what Family Scouting is all about. Girls are the source of increased membership (in the eyes of BSA National leadership). Thus changes will be made to summer camp and advancement programs as they chase membership increases. They will claim these changes are what families demand. Thus, it will be exactly like Y camp that tries to appeal to everyone with all interests.

And as the program keeps changing to better accommodate Family Scouting, it will be the boys - not the girls - who self-select out. We’ve seen it so many times with boys in society already.

But the BSA is saying the program won't change. You're assuming it will. Based on what? 

Girls joining the program are joining because they want the BSA program. If it changes, they might self-select out right along with the boys because they didn't get what they asked for. Changing the program would be organizational suicide. 

Family Scouting is Cub-level only. It keeps getting injected into the overall program discussion, but when we're talking about summer camp and mostly at the Troop level, Family Scouting doesn't apply. There is no evidence that Family Scouting will impact summer camp for troops whatsoever. 

6 hours ago, Cambridgeskip said:

You're right in that it didn't bring boys back in itself. What I would argue though is it was the first stage in a much larger, and desperatly needed, modernisation and it was that over all change that started putting bums on seats again. The image TSA has now is a whole world different from what it was in the 90s. Our annual scout census is done at 31 Jan and the results announced in April. Certainly locally we're expecting numbers to be up again. I'm aware of 1 new beaver colony, 3 new cub packs and 2 new scout troops in our district alone. If that is reflected alsewhere I'd expect another sharp jump.

I said in another thread that I doubt that the membership changes will be the last major change you will see in BSA. Clearly something is amiss if you are losing members. The core part of BSA is good. Get young people outdoors, working together in small groups, allowing them to lead and take ownership of the program. That basic set up is the same worldwide. So I certainly don't expect that to change. Some of the other stuff around the edges though, I would expect changes to that. Possibly the uniform, possibly the award system, possibly age ranges.

And this is exactly what I expect from the BSA. You're right, the core program is great. But something is clearly amiss if we can drop tens of thousands of scouts per year, sometimes approaching a six figure drop in past years. This is a modernization that a lot of peope aren't going to like, but it's necessary if we are ever to see growth in Scouting in the US again. 

1 hour ago, gblotter said:

For a co-ed week at summer camp - that would change the entire experience (and not in a good way).

I'd love to know specifically how "the entire experience" would change. Can you explain that?

Just now, gblotter said:

But you thought it.

Sure, and for the reasons I stated. But I wouldn’t tell someone directly to leave. That’s a decision each person has to make. And like I said, considering how passionate some folks are here about this change, I’m amazed more people aren’t leaving. 

Just now, gblotter said:

Apparently, a Scout is vindictive.

Apparently you didn’t read the rest of my post. Despite me being told to leave, I’m not telling anyone that. 

1 hour ago, Pselb said:

...

3) So those ASSUMING the change is inevitable and all the myriad of problems are merely bumps in the road,  take the high ground and those that don't like it are told to leave...

Its not an assumption that the changes are inevitable. They’re already happening. For the BSA to go back on this now would mean they’d have to actually kick girls out. That little PR nightmare would never be allowed to come to fruition. 

I have never told anyone to leave, but I’ve thought it. Not in a vindictive way or anything. Just some people should leave if they find this all to be too much to bear. Before the gay membership policy changes, I was done with the BSA. I registered with another scouting organization to learn their ways, and I was ready to take my kids there when they reached Scouting age. I only came back to the BSA because of the changes and how they fit with my views. 

The way some folks talk about the BSA here, it sounds like some are more passionately against what the organization is doing now than I ever was. I was told often that if I don’t like the policies, I should go elsewhere. I did. And now the shoe is on the other foot.