Hawkwin

39 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

You can simplify it and say "it's about cookies", but it is about more than that. It is about integrity and safety. I am sure you wouldn't advocate she sell cookies in any other area that might have questionable activities going on, so it really isn't just about cookies now, is it?

Point of clarification. While it might be an issue of integrity to some/many, it should not be considered an issue of either safety or questionable activities inside the business. While the feds can't seem to make up their mind on this topic, the state has deemed it legal and is heavily regulating it. There is no reason to assume that the customers that visit that store are any more dangerous or have a desire to be any more questionable than the person that goes to the local grocery store (where they are likely selling GS cookies) to buy a bottle whiskey.

34 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I guess my point is that it is getting harder to know where the landmines are now and when you step on one real dialogue seems to stop. And I mean face to face communication. I shudder to think about social media.

There was an outstanding program on NPR about this very topic a few days ago:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/637/words-you-cant-say

43 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

there should be a surplus of fresh volunteers ready to carry the flag for this historic change.  

I emailed my SDE shortly after the announcement offering my support and volunteering to help make it a success.

Will have to wait and see if I am called on my offer as implementation gets closer.

In the meantime, I might volunteer for an early adopter pack.

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 1:21 PM, Col. Flagg said:

so what's the draw of Venturing?

The same draw that exists now for boys and girls, yet more existing boy scout girls will have an awareness of it?

I don't assume to know what will happen but my hypothesis is that having more girls in BSA is probably better for girls in Venturing than having no girls in BSA.

1 minute ago, Col. Flagg said:

Right. I makes them poor planners and leaders, but not liars.

I can agree with that.

3 minutes ago, qwazse said:

2. National has no way to prevent any two troops from working in lock-step. Any two PLC's could decide they want to camp, hike, and  meet together

That isn't my contention. They can do as much as they like together, and probably will, but per the graphic put out by Nationals, they will be a separate program. For example, the boys will elect their own SPL and the girls will elect their own SPL.

Now Nationals may indeed change from what was initially put out but until they do, it doesn't benefit any of us to operate on rumor or assumption.

1 minute ago, Gwaihir said:

Meaning Michael Surbaugh and the rest of National are in fact a liar and sold the idea of Family Scouting on a lie. 

Let's not jump to conclusions by calling people liars.

Their intent may indeed be and have been to keep them completely separate but upon further examination of the plans for implementation, they may end up determining that the final result has to be different. That doesn't make them liars. I often tell my kids we are going to do this or the other but sometimes life happens and we have to change our plans.

1 hour ago, Pselb said:

This will extend well into the high school years...

and...

50 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think leadership of coed Packs and BSA4G Troop who will run like coed will have to watch for this ...

As I understand, and assuming the final product for Boy Scouts is the same as has been previously published, none of the above can happen. Boy Scouts and (Girl) Boy Scouts will be two entirely different programs. Even if they meet together and do joint activities, the boys should have their own separate leadership channel.

10 minutes ago, Back Pack said:

But when all the other knots are for achievements you cheapen the whole process by giving a knot for giving money.

Cheapen the whole process? A bit of hyperbole? I don't know how long that knot has been in existence but prior to you knowing about it, did you feel as though what you accomplished was somehow less significant?

I think you are giving that simple knot way too much weight. I would bet 95% of all scouts and adult volunteers don't even have an awareness of it.

And personally, I would never let the accomplishments, swag, or little pieces of cloth others wear or even "buy" make me feel anything less about what I accomplish on my own. It is not in any way a reflection on who or what I am as a person.

1 hour ago, Back Pack said:

Knots are supposed to be achievements not purchases. Sends the wrong message. Want to donate $1000 then donate and get your plaque. A knot for this is a participation trophy that you buy. 

“Give me enough medals and I’ll win you any war”

If giving people a $0.50 piece of cloth inspires them to financially support a critical organization, who am I to judge either party.

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 9:15 AM, Back Pack said:

There’s a knot for giving money? What message does that send to scouts. 

Recognition for charitable donations is extremely common in non-religious charitable organizations. I've personally never seen one that did not provide some form of recognition based on donations. It could be as simple as printing your name in their magazine, free (paid for) swag, or naming something after you.

Many also give recognition for naming the charitable org in your will.

4 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I am more concerned with the kid

Understood, but you didn't put that section under scouts, you put it under families. Might want to clarify who and what you mean.

50 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Don’t bring food and beverages into meetings unless it’s for the whole group.

You might consider revisiting or clarifying this. I know many parents that travel with their coffee mug glued to their palm. My son's den/pack would often meet in a cafeteria at their local school and us parents would gather at a table in the far corner. It was common for many of us to have a drink in hand.

Uh oh, she is really going to get it for this:

Quote

 

"When we learn that a girl is in violation of a standard/guideline, we almost always discover that the parent was unaware of the rules."

Doyle also told the San Diego Union-Tribune that booth sales don’t officially commence until Feb. 9, but girls are allowed to walk “door to door” or do “walk-abouts” before then.

 

Started selling before the official start of the sale. What does BSA do when they catch someone selling popcorn before the official start date?

1 minute ago, Jameson76 said:

There was a Playboy patrol 

From articles in May of 1974

See! Now we finally learned why membership dropped off so much in the 70s. Atlanta killed the Playboy Patrol. This was the start of the death of boy-led!

20 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

I want to say I'm overthinking this, but sadly I'm probably not...

There are early adopters, then there are EARLY adopters.

There was probably some coordination between BSA National or the local council and the tv show. It isn't like the tv show producers could easily call around to find a pack that is an early adopter. The council or Nationals obviously would want to put their best face forward so it isn't overly surprising that some uniform coordination was likely involved.

And let's be honest, if this was completely staged and choreographed, there is NO WAY they would have used that first boy to comment on what he thinks about girls in scouts. Even the second boy standing next to his sister looked demoralized.

Could also be just the opposite. Opening BSA to girls could help fuel their eventual recruitment to Venturing. My guess is that Venturing pulls very few girls from Girl Scouts and instead gets most who are not members of either (for now at least).

A stereotyped opinion follows but I would guess that girls, in general, are less interested in the various swag of membership and advancement and are more interested in the experiences of such. Venturing would seem to fit that well.

41 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I routinely hear that the drop in membership in 70's was caused by the program change.

I hypothesize that it was the dreary times that we lived in. I bet if one were to look up membership numbers of many similar organizations that existed that that time, that we would see similar numbers. I think fraternal organizations experienced something similar as well.

This was the decade of stagflation, gas lines, Watergate, hostage crises, austerity, to name a few.

This was when "latchkey kids" became a household term. I was one. As one study put it, " [this generation] went through its all-important, formative years as one of the least parented, least nurtured generations in U.S. history." Whether due to increases in the divorce rate or both parents working, as kids, we were home alone more than any other generation.

In summary, people/kids joining organizations when they feel hope. I don't feel (and don't recall) a lot of hope in the 1970s as a kid. Such is probably why I also didn't last more than a few years in scouts as a kid.

For those of us that don't do Facebook or that cannot access such through work computers, mind a simple copy and paste?

Update: No early adopters in my district

There is one early adopter in a neighbor district and we are in communication with them to join their pack. About a 20-25 minute one-way drive so not too bad but not too great either.

19 hours ago, ParkMan said:

If our troop was run by the dads alone, we'd show up in the parking lot on a Friday afternoon and wing every camping trip.

Hah! Sounds like my household as of late. My wife recently sent me an 8 page google doc link with plans for our next vacation.

1 hour ago, The Latin Scot said:

the very idea of Scouting, the core of its foundation and the center of all its facets, was the idea that boys are different from girls, with a greater need for active, adventurous learning, and that society lacks, indeed, desperately needs, a channel through which restless boys could learn the skills and knowledge they need to become strong, intelligent, honorable men. 

Perhaps it really is that what BSA offers, "the skills and knowledge [kids] need to become strong, intelligent, honorable [adults], is also greatly desired by girls (and their parents) in this modern age and they don't think they can get the same experience from Girl Scouts. I think of the so-called "masculine skills" as things that adults of both genders need in our society. One hundred years ago, those skills were neither needed nor really desired by girls. Now with girls/women being active in all aspects of our society and economy, they are looking for the same (or very similar) experience.

*shrug*

1 hour ago, The Latin Scot said:

You cannot take that idea of "making boys into better men" out of Scouting unless you completely and utterly ignore its very raison d'etre. It is meant to help develop positive masculine virtues in boys to create better men, who then become better leaders, citizens, and family members.

Just spit-balling again but is it making them better "men" or simply making them better adults and citizens? Is there something inherently masculine about BSA skills? I don't think so. Maybe 100 years ago but not today. Every kid wants to become a better leader, citizen, and family member. BSA offers something that apparently both genders crave. That IS A GOOD THING. Doesn't mean it can't get better but I would think BSA is at least doing something correctly if girls and parents of girls are fighting so hard to be a part of it. 

*Shrug*

3 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

It would be better if there was a client app that synced for offline use

Very true!

4 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

As long as I can, I'll encourage my son to use his paper scout handbook to track advancement.  

The book is not necessarily the best utility for documenting or tracking progress. It is a good reference but not as good of a tracking tool. My son's is already starting to have damaged pages. It works fairly well for rank tracking but IMO it doesn't do a good job at all as it pertains to merit badges - and it really can't since there are so many. If we tried to print and list all the requirements for all merit badges on paper, it would easily run 1000 pages.

He already has to use the computer every time he wants to research a merit badge and print off the requirements. The book simply can't help with that. They book also cannot be updated as rules and requirements change as they have in recent years.

18 hours ago, David CO said:

Yes, I do. The main reason being that boys and girls are different. Their needs are different.

While they are different, and their needs are different, we should not treat their opportunities differently. Under the proposed rule, if no female volunteer is present, then girls may be disadvantaged - they may not be able to participate.

Additionally, this rule is so "2000 and late." There is nothing about someone's gender that protects a scout of the same gender from being assaulted. Two-deep is the best solution regardless of gender. Anything beyond that isn't likely to make someone more safe from a real predator.

Lastly, this rule assumes two more negatives, that the other male is also likely to be a predator and/or is complicit where as the female leader would not be either.

In the end, all this might be moot as legal defense probably trumps common sense. We all can relate to that outcome.