The Latin Scot

I've always kind of wondered about these scenarios since, frankly, I am an odd duck in the Scouting community. I am not married and have no children, but I am a Den Leader over the Pack's largest Den, I am the most active member of our Cub Committee, and I am at all activities - Day Camp, Scout-O-Rama, et cetera, - as a youngish single guy with no actual relation to any of the boys I work with. It would be far too easy to assume that as a professional educator and child development specialist, I could go about my Scouting business without raising too many eyebrows, but I have to be careful since, in today's climate, every action I take and every comment I make could be taken the wrong way by some parent who doesn't know my background or training. I have to bear in mind that these parents are trusting their children with me, a single man, sometimes for hours at a time. So I am meticulous in ensuring that I ALWAYS have my assistant or another parent near me at all times, and I have trained my boys to know that I cannot be in a room alone with them EVER. So much so that they often use it to taunt me; I arrive early to Den Meetings to set up, and if a boy shows up and I am the only adult in the room, he WILL yell at me to get out until another grown up is present. They then have free access to whatever treats are in my bag, or they may play with my hat if I forget to grab it, or whatever mischief they feel like getting into at the time - but at least they know to protect themselves, and I know that I am protecting myself from any potentially awkward or untoward situations. Total transparency has long been one of my most valuable shields against misperceptions.

Today's society makes it incredibly difficult for men to make a difference in the lives of young people. But as long as you take the right precautions, it can be done. 

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I am kind of surprised they got me back into the movement, seeing as I am still unmarried and have no children of my own. I suppose the fact that I am very involved in my Church's congregation, and the fact that I work with children professionally, meant that getting me would make some sense, but yeah, I can see how there would be some distance right after getting married AND going to school. He has some remarkable insights though, and the right perspective on what makes Scouting work. I hope he gets back into the program when the time is right for him and his family!

13 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

The lodge had nothing for me either.  Ordeal '74, Brotherhood '75.    But  in 2000 I was welcomed with open arms and a cup of really strong coffee

.  @The Latin Scot  wadda ya mean " way back in '97"   Sheesh ,these young whippersnappers!  

I guess I figure anything that happened before 2000 is 'way back' for me, LOL. I was only 13 or 14 at the time, so it seems forever ago now. But if I had a nickle for every time a seasoned Scouter called me a young whippersnapper, I could retire early! 

I went through this exact process just under two years ago. I went through the Ordeal as a kid way back in '97, but never had any contact with the OA after that. So when I approached my chapter to get my membership caught up, all they asked for were my dues for the year and the date of my Ordeal ceremony. Fast-forward two years now and I am a brand-new Brotherhood member with all kinds of new duties in the lodge. Hopefully the process is as quick for you as it was for me!

Our Pack will be answering all the letters you sent us at our Pack Meeting tonight, and you will get our responses tomorrow morning (well, California morning at any rate). Thank you so much for reaching out to us!

Thank you all for your input. It wasn't merely the extra, non-standard issue items flowing off their hats and shirts, but Scout shirts with bermuda shorts, frilly blue skirts on the ladies, long beaded belts with silly designs - I have all the love in the world for a hand-carved neckerchief slide or even a hand-tooled leather belt, but this motley crew included flamingo socks, silly hats, et cetera. Honestly if they had just stayed in their camp t's I wouldn't have minded as much, but they exchanged those for what seemed like a step down in uniforming.

Mind you, not all of them were that bad, and most were clearly being respectful. But those who went off the deep end were down-right distracting, and while I am all for having fun at Day Camp (heaven forbid!), I didn't feel a solemn flag retiring ceremony was the right time for games. Maybe I am wrong; it wouldn't be the first time. But for myself, and for the Scouts around me I could tell, it was a bag of mixed messages which caused no small degree of confusion.

I am sure there is some thread in here started back when I was in Scouts, but I figured I would start a fresh one so that I can get the input of the currect membership. With the 4th of July fast approaching, I figure this is a timely subject in any case.

I was at our Cub Day Camp closing ceremonies last week, and they had a lovely flag retiring ceremony at the end which I found rather lovely. All the camp staff traded in their camp t-shirt for "full" uniforms (which I will address in a moment), and they conducted a solemn retiring ceremony while also handing out a number of awards and some recognition for parents and leaders.

Well, a number of the uniforms paraded in front of us were embarrassingly, if not defiantly incorrect. There were medals and ribbons and sashes and ornamentation to a degree of ostentation and attention-grabbing I hadn't thought possible before. These people go to my district table, and I never this this kind of panoply there, so my hope is that they were simply trying to be silly for the last day of Day Camp (I really hope that was the goal).

As we were saluting the flag in the embers, however, one of my Scouts asked me a few questions that rather stumped me. I pose them before you all for your thoughts. For the sake of internet privacy, I will say this Scout addressed me as Brother Latin-Scot.

Scout: "Brother Latin-Scot, don't you have to wear the complete uniform to be considered 'in uniform?'"

Me: "Yes, that's correct."

Scout: "So, most of these leaders wouldn't officially be 'in uniform,' would they?"

Me: "Not properly, no."

Scout: "So then since they aren't officially in uniform, shouldn't they have to put their right hands over their hearts? You know, like they say 'those not in uniform place your right hand over your heart?' Isn't it incorrect for them to salute since they aren't really in uniform?"

Me: "Um. Er ....... ?"

After some hesitation, I suggested to him that I would need to find a more definitive answer before stating anything catagorically, but that, personally, I feel that those who aren't fully in uniform should indeed place their hands over their hearts - but also that it was important not to allow propriety to interfere with patriotism, and that it is something people should be taught at appropriate times and places, without resorting to correcting them in public during such a ceremony. But since he and I knew better, it would be our duty to model correct behavior and teach it to others whenever we could.

Any other thoughts on this while as I study the matter more fully?

7 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

The way we act and dress are entirely social and cultural (and religious) constructs that have clearly evolved since the time of Abraham (and prior).

But to intentionally dress TODAY in a manner that conveys the identity of the opposite sex, as I see it, wrong. It's the intent, not the technicalities of what is done to accomplish it. So I don't see how this argument relates at all to the subject at hand. If a person dresses in a style that people associate as pertaining to that of the opposite gender, specifically to bend one's perception of their actual sex, is wrong. It demeans who they really are, and who they are meant to be. 

2 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

@The Latin Scot I understand and respect all of what you said in your post.  I think that what you said about making everyone feel loved, appreciated and safe is the common ground I was looking for.  If people start with an agreement on that idea, the disagreements become less heated and maybe as @Eagledad suggests, the discussion becomes more pragmatic. 

I agree. When we begin our discussions on common ground, it's easier to be compassionate and understanding when our paths do diverge.

3 hours ago, David CO said:

There are many good reasons for home schooling, but home schooling in order to avoid learning how to socialize with one's peers is not one of them.

Thank goodness that wasn't the reason I was homeschooled! 

9 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

You are still confusing sex with gender.  Everything you've mentioned is about the sex of a person (and humans have been able to surgically change someone's sex for decades - we won't even get in to the animals that are able to change their sex to fit conditions).

Aaahhhh ... but you see, 

I'm not. 

Almost the entire strength of your argument lies in that idea though - that gender is a choice, something you can pick and choose and create on your own. If that assumption were correct, then what you say might be true.

But it isn't. 

I am perfectly cognizant of the difference between gender and sex which you are trying to impose on my opinions. But I do not believe in that differentiation, not in the way you promote it. Gender is NOT fluid, it is not a choice - it's an essential part of who we are. And it is possible for a person to behave and act according to the nature of the wrong gender. This is a nearly incendiary platform to assume when compared to the bent of today's shifting worldviews, but I firmly and clearly recognize that there is a right and a wrong to the way we live up to our sex AND GENDER. It is NOT RIGHT for a man to try to act, dress, or try to be identified as a woman. It is NOT RIGHT for a woman to try to act, dress, or try to be identified as a man. 

Now, some of you have wrongly assumed that this perspective is hateful, and that if I ever were to meet such a person, that I would somehow treat them unkindly, that I would be so utterly callous that I would speak down to them, insult them, or otherwise treat them as less than those who follow more closely the beliefs that I hold dear. Just wait until you meet them, you say.

But I have met such a person. I have met many of them! (I live in Southern California for pity's sake, we have EVERYTHING here)

And my understanding of their behavior is totally unrelated to my love for them as people - and as I look at them, as children of God. My brothers and sisters. Children who had a gender and a sex that was part of their nature even before they were born.

Why should a person's actions affect how I treat them? I have my own flaws and failings; it would be preposterous for me to treat them with any less love and respect than that which I hope to receive myself. I love them, with all my heart. Which is all the more reason for me to try and share what I believe is true - that sex and gender are one, and that happiness only comes when we can truly say that we are doing what is right, not what we want to be right. But our job is to do what we can to help EVERYBODY feel loved, appreciated, and safe. The way the live their life is irrelevant.

It is, frankly, silly and immature to asert that those who do not believe in gender fluidity are somehow therefore unkind or prejudiced against those who subscribe to that lifestyle. Those two are not related, however much useful their connection would be to the argument of those who try to support it; if they could make those who oppose gender fluidity into villians, it would certainly garner them an emotional edge. But those of use who want these people to recognize who they really are, not who they think they want to be, must remember always the beautiful counsel given by Thomas S. Monson:

Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved.

Congratulations! I went through my Brotherhood induction a few weeks ago; well done!

14 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. 

I just have to say I feel this ideology is egregiously false. Gender is an inherent, essential part of who we are. It is not at all fluid - a girl cannot become a man, nor can a boy become a woman. Those who disfigure their bodies in a desperate attempt to change from one to the other will only reap misery and regret. I refuse to accept that a boy who alters his biology to become, physically, a "woman," is a woman - he is still male inside, and nothing he does will ever change that. And vice versa. This, of course, is strongly related to my beliefs, which hold powerfully that we existed before we came to Earth, that we have s purpose for being here, and that we have an eternal destiny after this life. The deceit which claims we can change our sex or gender, just because we don't feel like we fit current societal perceptions of gender, is false. A male has always been and always will be male. A female has always been and always will be female. I am not fooled by modern suggestions that try to dis-establish the permanence of our sex - just because a child feels he doesn't fit the way the world personifies a man, doesn't mean he isn't one. The same for girls. I find the fact that this discussion is even current I find a sad commentary on the way the world perceives who it thinks we are.

8 hours ago, clemlaw said:

I forget which requirement it was for, but when I was a Tiger Cub leader, I had a Cub Scout from 1941 visit the meeting.  He wasn't from the same pack, but it was still a big hit with the kids.  And later, when chatting with someone at Roundtable, I learned that he had been a member of the pack, and I'm sure he would have been happy to come back and tell about what it was like back in the day. 

For a Boy Scout troop, I would encourage one or more of the scouts to work on Scouting Heritage Merit Badge.  One of the requirements is to prepare a history of the unit, and this would be a good time to do it.

What a FABULOUS idea!!! Our Pack and Troop turned 55 this year, and we haven't really done anything to commemorate that yet - I hadn't even considered putting the Scouting Heritage merit badge forward as a way to recognize our units' longevity, which is all the more embarrassing since I am the merit badge counselor for Scouting Heritage. 

I am so glad you posted this, haha!

No. My primary objection is that, while I believe the aims of Scouting are important goals for both boys and girls, I do not believe that the methods of Scouting are best suited to the learning and development of young women. I continue to object to the idea that Scouting will work for girls as it does for boys, as unpopular as that moral position may be these days.

Plus, as a single guy in his early 30's, the very idea of my joining an all-girl troop of minors as a leader is inappropriate. I wouldn't even countenance the thought.

Hey, I was homeschool for many years! Good for you. I highly recommend it; I got accepted into some of the best universities thanks to my time at home, and I was able to escape much of the social anguish that I suffered during the years that I was in the public school system. 

I must confess, I find the comparing the job of a Webelos leader to a sales job equally unsettling. As a Webelos leader, I have NEVER looked at my boys in that light, nor my duties in that way. 

I am not a salesman. I am a teacher, a mentor, and a guardian to these boys. My job is to help them become better people, and I need to do it with my example, my encouragement, and my training. And I have to love them enough to accept the fact that not everything we do may be fun, but it all matters - and I have to let them know that. I have to be 100% transparent with them; my job is to prepare them for Scouting by teaching them how to develop essential skills and supplying them with the important knowledge they will need to succeed. Getting a boy to join a Troop right after Cub Scouts is no issue. But getting them to STAY, that's where many founder. Boys don't remain with anything they aren't succeeding in, and if a Webelos leader hasn't prepared his boys sufficiently, their first few weeks will not be worth their time.

HOWEVER, if they have been well prepared, trained for what's coming, so that they know how to start earning merit badges, are prepared to recite the oath, law and outdoor code - if they know how patrols function, and are ready to follow their youth leaders because they were taught how by adult Cub leaders - those first few weeks will be a resounding success, and the boy will stay, not because he has been convinced to stay in Scouting, but because he has been PREPARED for it. And THAT is what gets boys excited! When they realize that they will soon be part of a new patrol, and that they will go in with a HUGE head start, knowing the program, the duties, the knots, the badges, the requirements - the more they know, the more excited they are to get started!

A Webelos leader gives boys that first taste of what Scouting entails by teaching what Scouting is, showing them how it works (first by observation then by practice), and by simply talking with them about what is coming. My boys have heard all about my Scouting experiences - what I wish I had done better, what my patrols did well, what they didn't do well - everything. My Den Chief is always talking to them about how Boy Scouts is different than what they are currently doing, and what he is doing with his patrol and troop every month. And every half year, we switch from my leadership to that of the boys for a month as they practice the patrol method.

I also prepare the parents, not by selling them on Boy Scouting, but by helping prepare them with what to expect. I invite and accompany them to their first committee meetings with the troop. I introduce them to the boys' future leaders and fellow Scouts. I guess I simply treat every family as though all of my boys will of course go straight from my den to a new patrol, and that their parents will be prepared to get involved. And of course, I expect them to walk into their first meeting ready to earn their Scout rank right then and there. If they can't do that, what have I been doing with my time? 

The first job of a Webelos leader is to prepare his boys for Scouting by inspiring them to want to learn more, do more, and be more. It's not about sales; it's about learning.

Yeesh. That's terrible to hear, especially from a CE.

So, I was given a "long" sash when I received my Brotherhood honor last week. I am a smaller guy, and that thing went to my knees! Luckily the Scout Shop was understanding when I took it back and let me exchange it for the normal, smaller size, which fits perfectly.

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

So, if you don't use standard issue sheets for uniform inspection, have you done a technically correct inspection?

Well, is there any policy stating you have to use the Scout Shop-issued inspection sheets to conduct a "correct" inspection? If I have the Guide to Awards and Insignia on hand to check all the parts of a uniform during my inspection, do I need that paper at all, or do I not have all the material I need right there? 

Proper inspections are conducted based on following the established uniform guidelines and policies. You don't need the form to do that.

Back to the topic, if your meeting location allows for it, you could perhaps look into getting a plaque or certificate made that commemorates your unit's achievement. They needn't be expensive either; if anybody has good wood-burning skills or access to a high-quality printer, you can have something lovely produced quite inexpensively.

My apologies to all for getting so excited by this subject; I have let my zeal over-rule my discretion, and I am sorry for making a scene on this thread. I will do my best to exercise more restraint in the future, and will not badger this thread anymore with my crusade-parade. I apologize especially to @Scoutinglife - I hope this didn't scare you off the forum! This is NOT a normal incident, and the fault is mine. I hope you stay with us!

EDIT: Also, thank you @MattR for the kind reminder to keep my thoughts in check. I am grateful to have moderators here who are so diligent in keeping this forum civil and on-topic. 

I note, @David CO, that you have chosen to express your opposition with a downvote. Honestly though, I am just glad to know you have read and considered my thoughts. I am sorry you seem to disagree so strongly with my feelings, but a Scout is brave, so I as a Scout have to stand up for what I believe is right even in the face of opposition - or downvotes. I hope this does not cause you to resent my presence here, and please know that I have nothing but respect for you and your opinions insofar as they protect the safety of others. But there exists the possibility that a child's well-being is at risk here - isn't that more important than the petty disagreements of two online forum members?