Pack18Alex

Just a thought... it's not that the uniform now is less functional/quality than in the 1970s, it's just that the rest of clothing has gotten cheaper and more functional over the past 40 years, and the scouting uniform has stayed the same.

 

My son, as a Tiger, had the uniform down to the socks. He hated the socks and rarely wore them (I didn't buy him the wolf socks), and he tried the pants a few times and hated them. At Roundtable, the consensus in our district was: wear the shirt/belt, wear a school uniform navy pants, whatever socks you want.

 

Do keep in mind we're in South Florida, where the weather is a little more extreme. As the school year wound down, the uniform dropped off in appearance and more kids showed up in school clothes or Class Bs, especially as the school year ground the parents down. I expect to get a fresh uniform focus in the fall. Going to try to get more parents/leaders in Uniform as well. I hate the pants I bought with mine, the local Scout Store had my style on clearance, I need to check out some better pants.

 

At summer camp, the uniform was: Camp Activity Shirt + Activity Hat for youth, adults were either the Camp Staff Shirt or Pack Activity Shirt (we had some issues on the adult shirts) with the hat. One of the leaders commented that we weren't in uniform, we shouldn't be saluting the flag. I commented that we WERE in Uniform, we were instructed to wear the Activity Shirt by BSA personnel, and it was no different than military personnel traveling in fatigues, they are in uniform... That seemed to pass muster with the other leader, but I have no idea if I was right...

 

If KDD instructs his boys to wear collerless shirts with Ascots, his boys will be In Uniform, since they are following his instructions... and look Absolutely Fabulous while doing so...

I just did two weeks across two camps (our District and a neighboring one). One program had a tot lot (run by a Girl Scout Volunteer), the other just had the volunteers bring their other children around. The tot lot approach was better, the girls did arts and crafts primarily, joined us for lunch, and during lunch/den time, they went over and did Archery/Slingshots/etc. The second time, they tagged along with me, got chances to do stuff (after the boys of course), and generally had a blast.

 

If you told me I had to pay for child care for those two weeks for my other children so I could volunteer here, then I would have had to decline and gone to the office. It's hard to take off work plus pay for child care to be a volunteer... I think my wife would kill me. Instead, I paid for my son to attend, went as Den Leader, and my son, daughters, myself, and everyone in my den had a great time.

 

I think that making the effort to get a volunteer for a Tot Lot/Sibling Den should be a high priority. I pay my own way, I pay my son's way, and I gave up a few weeks of my life to watch other kids for free. Not sure why looking for a volunteer to watch the other volunteers children is unreasonable.

 

In planning some training programs, getting a volunteer or two to provide two deep leadership so kids can do sports/crafts seems reasonable to me. I invest a ton of my time to making this a strong program, in addition to paying my own way as a participant. I paid for a babysitter to attend Roundtable once, doing so on a regular basis would be crazy unless the Pack is paying for it.

 

Nobody paid for my undivided attention. They paid for a great camp experience, and they got it.

One of the dads stood over the finish line with a phone in video camera mode this past race. We all laughed at him, and only had one or two races that close...

 

That said, when they were closish, the boys LOVED seeing the video of their cars crossing the finish line!

AZmike, here's one cherry the religious right seems to have missed in this argument. One of the main points in the Torah is human dignity. A kid that's gay, that didn't choose to be gay, that can't be "cured" of being gay, that won't inherently harm anyone because he's gay, has no dignity in the boy scouts because he is shunned for something he has no control of. He is seen as inferior, immoral, and is an outcast. All of this because of something God gave him. I'm no religious scholar, but I know this type of humiliation is Wrong. Furthermore, human dignity can supersede commandments in the Torah. In this case my rabbis have allowed it.

 

You say these kids can go do 4H, or BPSA, or just do something else. You say they're a danger to the other kids and it would be safer if they went elsewhere. I can imagine lining up 10 kids and walking up to one and saying these things to him. That's humiliating.

 

It seems my religious beliefs don't seem to be good enough for you, that I'm "cherry picking" the "real" beliefs. People that complain about others beliefs not being good enough are the gatekeepers to the dark side of religion. I'm just asking you to respect my beliefs.

Just to go out there on this...

 

Are we referring to gay orientation (attracted to the same sex), or sodomy (engaged in sex with someone of the same gender)?

 

I mean, a 14 year old attracted to boys comes out as gay, he hasn't acted on it, he's an "avowed homosexual," but hasn't engaged in prohibited sexual acts.

 

Under Jewish Law, no sin has been committed, being attracted to someone is not a sin.

 

Indeed, one of the basics for Judaism is to overcome the evil inclination. Jewish Law prohibits stealing. If you have no desire to steal, that's no big deal. If you have a compulsion to steal, that's a challenge for you. By not stealing, and overcoming your evil inclination, you're on a higher path of righteousness, because you are overcoming your evil inclination.

 

There's an old Jewish story of a great Rabbi asking G-d why his role in the World to Come is lesser than the farmer in his town (who person #2 is changes in different tellings). He's a great Rabbi, a Torah Sage, renowned for towns around him. The other guy was just a farmer, a "Person of the Land," not steeped in Torah knowledge.

 

G-d explained to him that while he was a great Sage, his father and grandfather were Rabbis. While he achieved greatness, it wasn't a huge step up. The farmer was the son of thieves, from a family of thieves and murders. His rising to become an honest farmer was greater than the Rabbi growing into a sage.

 

So there in lies my issue with this. A boy coming out as gay doesn't need our condemnation for his inherit nature, he needs our support and love. Assuming a Torah view, we should encourage him to overcome that desire. Whether he can channel his desires in a heterosexual direction is up to how great a challenge it is. If he is capable of doing so, he should be encouraged to marry and have children (a positive commandment), but if not, celibacy means avoiding transgressing a negative commandment.

 

Despite all that, I see no reason why I would want to kick a gay boy out of a troop even he got into a gay relationship than I would kick him out for getting a cheeseburger. Both are prohibited actions, and I'm not sure why the former merits exclusion and the latter ignoring.

Does the opportunity for rank advancement in Sea Scouts as opposed to Venturing make a difference? In a community where there is a focus on college application resume padding, might a Ship that let's you earn both Venturing Awards AND Sea Scout Ranks/Awards help you with parental support for their kids involvement?

For what it's worth, I think that penalizes someone for same sex attraction is wrong and violates our Pack's religious orientation. Regarding sexual activity, what are we defining that?

 

Boy admits he's attracted to boys, that's not a sin.

Boy admits he's attracted to girls, that's not a sin.

Boy kisses another boy, that's not a sin.

Boy kisses a girl, arguably that is a sin (since we're quoting Midrashim and Rashi, can we bring up Shomer Negiah, observing the separation of the sexes).

 

Boy has sex with another boy, that's a sinful violation.

Boy has sex with a girl, that's debatable as a sin actually... Sex out of wedlock is prohibited actions, but there is certainly precedent in Jewish Law and Church Canon that this establishes a marriage between the two, but contemporary sources do not permit marriage created via sexual activity, so we're back to a sin.

 

A certain segment of the population has had sexual relations of various levels with members of the same sex and opposite sex. Given that, I'm sympathetic to those that believe our value code should encourage those with both sets of attractions to channel it in a heterosexual direction, while the normalization of homosexuality reverses that. For the small segment that is 100% same sex attracted, I'm not sure what to do, but one that prefers their same gender but has an attraction to the opposite, historically would be heavily encouraged to channel it heterosexually, when they fail to maintain that, it's a big embarrassing scandal.

 

That's what makes the local options somewhat appealing and consistent with BSA's non-sectarian nature. Liberal Christian and Jewish groups, as well as secular groups, would obviously have no problem with homosexual members. Conservative Christian groups appear to have strong problems with homosexual activities (and possibly even attraction, I'm not sure), while Conservative Jewish and Muslim groups might have a problem with ALL sexual behavior, same sex or opposite sex.

 

Since we are fundamentally a values organization that teaches general American values PLUS the faith based one in a non-sectarian manner, I think that this is best pushed to the local level.

 

Youth protection is another story, and part of what makes this all VERY odd. Two thirds of BSA's members are in the Cub Scout program, and quite frankly, Cub Scouts have no bone in this fight. While you can argue if gay leaders present the values BSA wants to present (and if that overrides the local CO's values), there is no Youth Protection issue at the Cub level from SSA. The concern at our level is pedophilia, we're pre-pubescent. Since Boy Scouts overlaps with puberty, you need to worry about pedophiles and simple attraction. For better or for worse, we culturally don't worry that a female scout master will be attracted to a 17 year old boy in her charge (the female teacher with male students issues makes the news and results in chuckles, not panic), yes we think that putting a gay scout master in that position with 17 year old boys is more problematic. Quite frankly, we assume that men will sleep with anything that moves if they can without a downside, while women are more discerning.

 

Honestly, I find it VERY unlikely you're going to find gay men wanting to be alone with teenage boys, where such an attraction might be an issue. i know that there is no way in hell I'd go off on a camping trip with another heterosexual male leaders and a troop of 16-17 year old girl scouts, that's just waiting for trouble.

 

But at the Cub Level, where we need a higher parent:youth level in daily activities, this current policy deprives us of valued leaders.

 

Whatever will be, will be. My biggest issue with this is that GLAAD and other groups have absolutely engaged in bullying behavior towards the BSA, and I'm concerned that any change in policy, despite the support on the ground, will look like we've given into bullying. Any approach to do it needs to be cognizant of that fact. Look at Augusta, they refused to allow women in when the pressure was on to NOT give in to bullying, then when they decided to, they invited women in, and did NOT allow the bullies to claim a trophy.

 

But I'm not sure why we'd kick a Scout out for fooling around with a boy in high school but not a girl. I'm okay with a abstinence only policy for Scouting, but not sure why an orientation one makes sense. Either we're against illicit sexual actions or we're not.

I wear my little Cub Service year from my two years as a cub Scout, the boys asked about it in the beginning of the year, no one in our Pack leadership ever wore won. I earned my Tiger Knot (now the lame Den Leader knot instead of the cool orange one, boo), which is the first leader award in our Pack History.

 

I think if we had more adults in uniform and with uniform bling it would be good... I put a few random things I qualified for on mine... my wife teases me about it, but my son is proud.

 

Without advancement, it's an outdoor club, and nothing more. Nothing wrong with that, and BSA provides cheap insurance in return for lots of paperwork, but it would cease being scouting.

We use Quickbooks for tracking our Pack finances.

 

Each Scout Family is setup as a Customer Account, when they have multiple sons, we create a Job within the Customer Account for each one. (This works for us so that when a Parent wants to pay dues via one check, we can handle it). If Scout Accounts are a bigger deal for you than family payments, track each Scout as a Customer and ask the parents to pay separately when needed. You can process a joint payment if need be, receive the check as a deposit and create a Suspense Account, then use it's register to split it across Accounts Receivable for the separate Accounts, then receive payment and apply the credits. Cumbersome but doable.

 

For Scout Accounts, we have a Expense Account for "Scout Accounts" so the Pack doesn't see that as Pack money (if you want it off the P&L, just create it as a revenue account and it will be recorded as negative revenue to not book their share). When a Scout earns money in their Scout Account, we just create a Credit Memo for that Customer or Customer:Job and record it with an Item (Camp Card Sales, etc) that tracks to the Scout Account. If they owe money, we apply it to the invoice, otherwise, we retain it as an available credit.

 

Next time the Scout owes money, we create the invoice, apply any outstanding credits, and email the invoice to the parents, so they see what they are charged and what is due.

 

For parental reimbursements, I have "Credit Card Accounts" for any parents that routinely cover Pack expenses personally. We simply collect the receipts, create a Credit Card Charge for the amount and who its too (generally the Scout Store and/or Home Depot, etc.). When we do reimbursements, the parent gets a check against the reimbursement accounts.

 

If the Parent is owed money when dues roll around, we'll go into the Credit Card Account, and enter a decrease for the amount applied to dues, with the Account as Accounts Receivable and the Name as the Scout's name. Then when the invoice is created for the Scout with dues, we just apply the new credit and the parent pays the balance.

 

Sounds more complicated than it is, and it's not exactly GAAP accounting (the Scout Accounts are recorded as a negative Account's Receivable, while technically they should be a positive Current Liability instead of a negative Current Asset), but it means that everything is tracked in the system.

 

I use Quickbooks for my business, and my treasurer is a Quickbooks Pro Advisor and Accountant, so we both can go in and do what needs to be done.

 

Alex

 

We meet weekly. We historically just did it all as a pack and interest waned with the older kids and rank advancement was more or less granted regardless of meeting all the specific requirements. This meant that activities were generally at the Wolf level and the Tigers loved being with the older boys and the older boys dropped out out of boredom. Parents didn't know when meetings were and attendance was haphazard.

 

We now meet weekly, with 1 Pack Meeting, 1 Pack Activity, and 2-3 Den Meetings/month. Sometimes the Pack Activity is a Tiger Go See It if it seems fun for everyone, sometimes its a field trip arranged by a Den Leader, and sometimes its to work on a Belt Loop. In addition to our weekly meeting, we aim to have about one weekend activity/month. Often this is an event at a community event, sometimes our campouts (we did three this year, probably will do 4 or 5 next year, 3 in our District/Council/Religious Committee, 1 or 2 with our Pack).

 

When months get clobbered because of holidays, we skip the Pack Meeting, we're aiming to hit 9 Pack Meetings/year, we'll see how well we pull that off. This week we're trying something new, a combined Pack/Parent meeting. The Pack meeting has a guest speaker coming in to talk to the boys for most of the meeting, the Parent Meeting will be run in the other room, for new and returning parents.

 

We found that meeting weekly helps parents plan, and balancing Den/Pack stuff gives our Den and Pack leaders some variety (they overlap, something that needs to be fixed).

 

We found with meeting more the kids into Scouting take Scouting very seriously and we've lost the disinterested boys, but the people we've retained are far more into Scouting and far more dedicated.

 

If I recall from the story, the BSA bought the land, built the building, then out of patriotism, "donated" it to the city in return for a perpetual lease for $1 or something similar. So while it's nice that the City was forced to pay the legal bills of their nonsense, they did get to terminate the lease and steal a building that was never theirs and was only deeded to them on paper as part of the BSA being a civic organization.

 

A far better result would have been for the city to have to turn the property back over to the council since they didn't want to live by the original agreement, instead of letting them steal the building.

 

As a father with one son and two younger daughters... There is a difference. If my wife has a meeting, I'll often have my younger girls with me. The boys still rough house, but it's different when the girls are there, even at this totally non sexual age. So in an ideal world, I'd say keep them separate.

 

That said, I am my Pack Committee Chair, with no real Pack Committee to speak of, and it's a ton of work. The fact that my wife is out right now at a meeting for the new GSUSA troop we're starting up for the girls is why I'd like to see it co-ed. The fact is, GSUSA is a totally different organization with a different agenda. I'd be thrilled if BSA would dump a pile of books/uniforms on us for Girl Cubs that channels girl interests (like cubs channels boy interests) into citizenship. We could see each other once/month at the Pack meeting, run separate Dens, and show off what we've done.

 

Instead, I have piles of paperwork for two organizations in my house, my wife and I both registered as leaders, and my figuring out how to handle campouts, because we can't double the number, and the GSUSA rules are atrocious.

 

Nor is my garage really big enough to double all our camping gear...

Well, if my family needs to have tents and cooking gear for both our Girls site and our Boys site, that's not Pack gear, that's just my family. If they are all on separate weekends, well Cubs weekend is family camping, and GSUSA weekend is just the girls.

 

In terms of your question:

 

Problem One: we have a few dedicated families, they're slowly stepping up, my focus has been on recruiting and motivating active families. Some of the problem is a legacy problem that will take time to fix. But I committed this year and wanted my son to have a stellar program. I've been very open with my active families that I'm not sure I'm staying vs switching to a more established pack... that has a bunch of them willing to step up.

 

Problem two/three: I don't know, I think that my daughters love doing the cub stuff, they were less interested in working with tools than the crafts. I don't think it would stretch BSA to bring in a few consultants on childhood development for girls, plus review the GSUSA material from 40+ years ago and put it together. I mean, they've got a decent amount of experience with the 13+ girls from Venture/Sea Scouts, so we're not dealing with cloistered men that have done nothing. I think that the investment is small, and might be able to be fundraised for. A merger would have the added benefit of being able to create Knots for the Girls Silver/Gold Awards so that Girls Scouts turned into BSA/GSUSA Scouters would get recognition like AOL/Eagle Knots are for Boy Scouts turned BSA Scouters. I think at least 60% of the program would be identical, 20% minor adaptations for girls, and 20% ripping off ideas from old GSUSA back when they were Scouting and not the liberal political movement wit

 

Problem four, never had a car in my garage, don't see that changing. That said, my parents kept two cars in their garage my whole life.

 

Problem five, we're a Jewish Pack, to AHG isn't an option for us for the Girls, and Jewish dietary requirements require us to have more Pack gear than most Packs need. I mean, each person in my family has two mess kits to separate meat and dairy, and a bunch of other restrictions. That also complicates joining another Pack for me.

I think the biggest limitation would be confusion with GSUSA. That said, I think GSUSA would close up and die pretty fast of BSA went co-ed. The fact is, having dealt with both organizations, BSA is better run, more professional, and better organized. GSUSA survives mostly because BSA doesn't offer a program at the age that GSUSA really operates in.

 

However, beyond that, the goals of the organization are totally different. GSUSA is totally about girl empowerment. While they nominal accept male leaders, it isn't real, and absolutely pushed back. Looking at our local programing, other than a few hour Daisy-and-Daddy program over the summer, there really is nothing for men in the GSUSA program. While BSA-Cub Scouts is a completely family oriented programs. Siblings come to our camp outs, events, etc. On the flip side, Girl Scouts are simply not as family oriented. These things made historical sense, but at this point I think that there is demand for a BSA-quality program for girls that want family, community, and faith with some outdoors activities, and GSUSA is simply moving in the opposite direction.

The girls want the BSA Cub program because it's a stellar program. The GSUSA program is simply not the outdoors and activity oriented program that cubs is. If you compare the Daisy/Brownie Program to the Tiger/Wolf/Bear programs (same age range), the GSUSA program is adorable and girly, but way more talking and less doing. In the BSA program, built around young boys, we're there to teach values, we do it with action, while the GSUSA is teaching their values, but in a more classroom style program. Both programs are heavy on crafts and light on scout craft, which changes as they get older. I'd be okay with leaving the program as is, I just think you could easily make a more feminine program with minor changes that would focus on how girls learn and operate like cubs focuses on how boys learn and operate.

 

I'd do a Cub program with parallel instruction for girls, and part of the reason to make the programs slightly different is that we like the fact that boys get to be boys in the pack, and different handbooks (less junglebook, more girly) would reinforce that the girl dens and boy dens need to be distinct. The identical program would mean fully coed dens, which I think would be detrimental. I think two Scout Handbooks, Scout Handbook for Boys and Scout Handbook for Girls would encourage separate Patrols, with more Patrol time and less Troop time, with them ready to go coed when they get older and more mature for it.

 

I think that many girls would prefer the GSUSA program, hence their move towards a more upper middle class orientation with the modern campsites... Let's face it, going into the inner cities makes everyone feel good, but GSUSA's cookie sales (and therefore revenue) come from their white upper middle class troops, and that's their interest, small cohesive groups of girls that do activities and sell a ton of cookies.

 

If BSA decided to go coed with no changes, I'd make my Pack coed. I'd just prefer if it was kept "mixed" to give boys boy time and girls girl time while giving us an outdoor and value oriented program for both boys and girls.

Two' date=' I think that integrating Cub Scouts is more straightforward than Boy Scouts because of the family orientation. I think that a Tigress program would be nearly identical to the Tiger program, swap the Achievement/Elective for Go See It: Sporting with Elective: Performance and you pretty much have the Tigress program. Wolf/Bear are more complicated, I'd have the Wolfess/Bearess programs do more sewing, less whittling, and a few other things. One of the strengths of scouting is that it plays to gender stereotypes while society as a whole fights them.[/quote']

 

Because everyone knows, girls can't be interested in sports? Because we don't want to encourage them to do any "manly" things like whittling? Gender stereotypes are a GOOD thing???? One of BSA's strengths??? Really?

 

Since there are plenty of girls that want to do the current cub program, why would we have to change any of it (other than adjusting a few of the pronouns in the hand book)?

Because a belief that the "manly arts" are dying, and Scouting is a way of preserving them. Our boys live in a world where "boy things" are discouraged at school, etc., which is part of the "crisis of boys," scouting counteracts that.

 

I didn't say they can't be interested in sports, my cousin was a state championship competitive team as a freshman (they got damned close), my sister-in-law was a NCAA recruited athlete. Those are great things, I have lots of sports-oriented women in my family, both playing and spectators. Just like boys into sewing, tailoring, cooking, etc., are all good things.

 

Again, it's swapping the requirements/electives, mostly. The Cub Scout program is using classical "boy" activities to teach values. A girl Cub Scout program should, therefore, use classical "girl" activities to teach values.

 

i'd create a more female oriented "collecting" achievement, things like that.

 

For example, we "expect" girls to like cultural things like performances, we "expect" boys to like sporting events. That's why the Tiger Cub REQUIREMENT is to See a Live Sporting event, while the ELECTIVE is to see a live performance. If I were doing a girl program, I'd swap that. I'm not sure why that's saying that girls can't like sports, and more than the current program is saying the boys can't like live theatre? I think in the Tiger program I'd make a swap there, and in the wolf program, swapping collecting with a more sharing about yourself. I think that most of the program through Bears transfers perfectly.

 

I wouldn't say that girls can't whittle, but I'd move it to the elective section, and move an art-oriented equivalent skill in the required section.

 

I'd move the Tools stuff for the girls program to the elective, and move some of the crafting stuff from electives to requirements. I'd also dial back the Indian Lore old-western components and instead do more modern multi-cultural things in a female oriented program.

 

Guys that can't bond over sports are seen as weird, so in our training boys to be men, we train them in guy stuff like watching a sporting event. Women are expected to be able to bond over shoes and clothes, girls that can't do that are seen as weird, so we should train them in gal stuff like that.

 

Part of Cubs is training Boy Scouts. Another part of cubs is raising men that are men. Girl cubs should be raising women that are women. Part of the obesity crisis is that we have women who haven't had anyone know how to cook in three generations. I think that a Girl cub program would introduce cooking alongside the gender neutral healthy nutrition section.

 

Assuming you have the same number of requirements, you can't just add, you have to swap.

I think the biggest limitation would be confusion with GSUSA. That said, I think GSUSA would close up and die pretty fast of BSA went co-ed. The fact is, having dealt with both organizations, BSA is better run, more professional, and better organized. GSUSA survives mostly because BSA doesn't offer a program at the age that GSUSA really operates in.

 

However, beyond that, the goals of the organization are totally different. GSUSA is totally about girl empowerment. While they nominal accept male leaders, it isn't real, and absolutely pushed back. Looking at our local programing, other than a few hour Daisy-and-Daddy program over the summer, there really is nothing for men in the GSUSA program. While BSA-Cub Scouts is a completely family oriented programs. Siblings come to our camp outs, events, etc. On the flip side, Girl Scouts are simply not as family oriented. These things made historical sense, but at this point I think that there is demand for a BSA-quality program for girls that want family, community, and faith with some outdoors activities, and GSUSA is simply moving in the opposite direction.

Despite all the cookie sales and cookie revenue, they are dysfunctional. Too many service units, all run by volunteers. I don't know what they do with cookie money, but they don't run a quality organization. People bitch about BSA national and high salaries, but you underestimate what having a high quality leadership behind the scenes does for the program. If all you do is activities with your Den/Pack, you don't get much, but if you are in a great district/council (like we are), you really see the benefits.

I think the biggest limitation would be confusion with GSUSA. That said, I think GSUSA would close up and die pretty fast of BSA went co-ed. The fact is, having dealt with both organizations, BSA is better run, more professional, and better organized. GSUSA survives mostly because BSA doesn't offer a program at the age that GSUSA really operates in.

 

However, beyond that, the goals of the organization are totally different. GSUSA is totally about girl empowerment. While they nominal accept male leaders, it isn't real, and absolutely pushed back. Looking at our local programing, other than a few hour Daisy-and-Daddy program over the summer, there really is nothing for men in the GSUSA program. While BSA-Cub Scouts is a completely family oriented programs. Siblings come to our camp outs, events, etc. On the flip side, Girl Scouts are simply not as family oriented. These things made historical sense, but at this point I think that there is demand for a BSA-quality program for girls that want family, community, and faith with some outdoors activities, and GSUSA is simply moving in the opposite direction.

One, Cub Scouting is something like 65% of BSA's Youth Members. Once you've crossed over it's easy to focus on the flagship Boy Scouts program, but when 95% of Boy Scouts are former Cubs in some regard, so Cub Scouts is the core of BSA's membership, even if the least focused on by the leadership.

 

Two, I think that integrating Cub Scouts is more straightforward than Boy Scouts because of the family orientation. I think that a Tigress program would be nearly identical to the Tiger program, swap the Achievement/Elective for Go See It: Sporting with Elective: Performance and you pretty much have the Tigress program. Wolf/Bear are more complicated, I'd have the Wolfess/Bearess programs do more sewing, less whittling, and a few other things. One of the strengths of scouting is that it plays to gender stereotypes while society as a whole fights them.

 

The family orientation of cubs also makes it a more natural realm to integrate, since the family participates in things.

 

So you're left with a donut hole. The fact is, your Girl Troops should be separate from the Boy Troops. You'd need a Scout Handbook for Boys and a Scout Handbook for girls. You'd be teaching citizenship and values through similar life skills. If you added some merit badges that were more girl focused, and created different "requirements" for Eagless, you'd be there as well. I think that you'd need new literature/uniforms, but otherwise have it more straightforward.

 

I mean, why else is there a partnership with American Heritage Girls? As GSUSA moves into a more liberal feminist direction, and BSA moves in a more conservative traditional values direction, there is a logical need to create programming for girls.

 

GSUSA's camping problem is that they are focused on Mother/Daughter which ignores our modern world where both parents work and are stressed. Dad doesn't come home at 5 PM Friday done while mom has been home all day. So the lack of Family Camps, the lack of a Pack style infrastructure for Girls, etc., means that you basically spin up a Troop for your daughter and her friends in Kindergarten and they stick around until they drop out over time. They aren't always recruiting like we are.

 

I think that GSUSA would remain as a Arts and Crafts -> Service club for pampered rich girls, which is where GSUSA is really shining. But BSA-Girls would do better in the middle class core where BSA does well and offer adjunct stuff for sisters that want a real Scouting program.

Females generally disapprove of boys behaving like boys.

 

Really? How about some examples?

At a Camp Out, my wife was freaking out at the rough housing and the getting dirty. I pulled her aside and said, "this is a boy scout event, they will be boys, they will get messy, they will rough house, and it will be okay." She backed off and all the kids, boys and girls, had fun.

Some of these comments are hilarious. I was a boy. I don't remember hurting for time "being a boy." I pretty much was one all the time. How does having girls present keep boys from being boys? If the boys aren't allowed to swear' date=' go skinny dipping in the pond, or talk about girls & sex with male leaders present, then how does adding girls change anything? The program has already neutered the boy-specific activities and boy-oriented nature of the scouts. It is essentially already primed for girl participation. As for the Cub Scouts, I have no idea why that is not co-ed now. Girls already come to everything, and cub scouts is run by women. What the heck are we resisting there? [/quote']

 

Cub Scouts run by women? Not in my former Pack. Most of the Den Leaders were men, as were all the Cubmasters/Assistan Cubmasters

My Pack is also male led... to our detriment, active mothers don't think that they should step up and take a role, it's seen as a fathers activity. That's fine for the involved fathers, but leaves me short of man power. My understanding is about 65% of Cub Scout volunteers are women. My Den Leader as a child was my mom, and never made it to Webelos when they couldn't get a male Den Leader. Practically speaking, allowing women into all leadership positions has saved Scouting.

I think the biggest limitation would be confusion with GSUSA. That said, I think GSUSA would close up and die pretty fast of BSA went co-ed. The fact is, having dealt with both organizations, BSA is better run, more professional, and better organized. GSUSA survives mostly because BSA doesn't offer a program at the age that GSUSA really operates in.

 

However, beyond that, the goals of the organization are totally different. GSUSA is totally about girl empowerment. While they nominal accept male leaders, it isn't real, and absolutely pushed back. Looking at our local programing, other than a few hour Daisy-and-Daddy program over the summer, there really is nothing for men in the GSUSA program. While BSA-Cub Scouts is a completely family oriented programs. Siblings come to our camp outs, events, etc. On the flip side, Girl Scouts are simply not as family oriented. These things made historical sense, but at this point I think that there is demand for a BSA-quality program for girls that want family, community, and faith with some outdoors activities, and GSUSA is simply moving in the opposite direction.

 

As a father with one son and two younger daughters... There is a difference. If my wife has a meeting, I'll often have my younger girls with me. The boys still rough house, but it's different when the girls are there, even at this totally non sexual age. So in an ideal world, I'd say keep them separate.

 

That said, I am my Pack Committee Chair, with no real Pack Committee to speak of, and it's a ton of work. The fact that my wife is out right now at a meeting for the new GSUSA troop we're starting up for the girls is why I'd like to see it co-ed. The fact is, GSUSA is a totally different organization with a different agenda. I'd be thrilled if BSA would dump a pile of books/uniforms on us for Girl Cubs that channels girl interests (like cubs channels boy interests) into citizenship. We could see each other once/month at the Pack meeting, run separate Dens, and show off what we've done.

 

Instead, I have piles of paperwork for two organizations in my house, my wife and I both registered as leaders, and my figuring out how to handle campouts, because we can't double the number, and the GSUSA rules are atrocious.

 

Nor is my garage really big enough to double all our camping gear...

 

I am going to say the CM is handling this properly. The boy is registered, entitled to Rank Advance, and if parent, as Akela, signs off on the achievement, well, the boy is entitled to his Bear Badge. As far as the CM presenting it and not you? Well, he's not in your Den, is he? I mean, he's basically a lone scout working on requirements with his parents and not coming to stuff. Clearly the CM wants the boy in Scouting and hopes he'll return (or figures he'll disappear after this and never be seen again), so who cares.

 

I get the hurt feels, I'm a Den Leader, I sink a ton of time into it, but when you step back, this is entirely within the "letter of the law," so I don't see a reason to prohibit it.

 

I'm guessing that the parents didn't like what they saw you doing, had other commitments other than Scouting, but wanted their son to do Derby and get his badge. We have some of those in our Pack as well. You hope that they'll return next year as schedules shift, but who knows.

 

But I don't see any reason for you to present his Bear Badge with your Den, he didn't earn in with them. If you want to make it clear that this isn't reasonable, ask the CM to present it without any ceremony, and then make a big deal about your Den, talk about a few great meetings/activities that they did.

 

Going out on a limb here, I'm going to say it's very unlikely that if he was in your Den last year, and they were active, and they signed up for Scouting again, that it had anything to do with that meeting. They had a year of your Cub meetings, then decided at a Parent meeting that you suck? That's silly. I'm going to guess that one of the new families has a big conflict with them, either parent level or scout level, and they aren't participating as a result. Their son might miss Scouting, and this might be a way back. If he's the only boy w/o a Bear Badge, that'd discourage him from returning.

 

But who knows. Regardless, don't sweat it, focus on the boys in YOUR Den, and ignore the rest, it's not your fight.