Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by gblotter

  1. 36 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

    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. :)

    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.

  2. 2 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

    This was your training in California, right?   I'm midwestern and I don't want to pick on your state too much, but California sometimes gets a reputation for being a little ... special.

    Oh - you have no idea. Special does not begin to describe the situation here. I have no doubt that our California activists will be all over this girl thing.

  3. 5 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    page 22 of the Guide to Safe Scouting has this to say about family camping. And since 'OUTING is three-fourths of ScOUTING," I think this will apply to 'Family Scouting"


    Family Camping
    Family camping is an outdoor experience, other than resident camping,
    that involves Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, or Venturing program elements in
    overnight settings with two or more family members, including at least one
    BSA member of that family. Parents are responsible for the supervision of their
    children, and Youth Protection policies apply. (emphasis added)

    I think there is a difference between Family Camping and Family Scouting. Family Camping has been around for a while. Family Scouting is a new term introduced to support the introduction of girls into BSA.

  4. 1 minute ago, Tampa Turtle said:

    @gblotter to make up for centuries of the past sins of male domination your 'collateral damage' to this generation of boys is not of consequence. It will only matter IF the drop in boys as a result of girls causes a sudden, large, and consistent drop in overall BSA membership that National cannot ignore. Anything short of that, including the loss of experienced scouters who walk away will be swept under the rug. Victory will be declared, further corporate donors will be secured, 

    You speak the truth.

    • Sad 1

  5. 18 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

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

    All they have to say is that the girl program is being phased out for new registrations because the impact on overall membership has been disappointing. Existing girls can finish their journey. No suicide involved. But I agree that it is extremely unlikely.


    18 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

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

    But no worry that the backlash from the departure of existing Scouts and Scouters may kill the organization?


    18 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

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

    I wouldn’t tell someone directly to leave. That’s a decision each person has to make.

    • Upvote 1

  6. 6 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

    So like I said, it's taboo to go back to what worked, we must maintain all change regardless.

    The disastrous changes the 1970s were reversed. More recently, the 2nd Class/1st Class camping requirements were reversed. I maintain a sliver of hope that common sense may yet prevail and that Boy Scouting can continue to be a program for boys. Extremely unlikely, though.

  7. 1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

    Personally, After watching how they handled this whole thing, I think this was a knew-jerk action without much consideration of failure. They wanted it, so they did it.

    With the giant balloon payment looming for financing of The Summit, I think BSA National leadership figured they had nothing to lose if the girl program drives away boys and overall membership falls. BSA finances would be in ruin either way, so why not roll the dice? In this gamble, they assume BSA will be luckier than Scouts Canada.

    • Haha 1

  8. 2 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

    It's possible but unlikely.  The girls might not show up.  That's going to be the most interesting thing to watch.

    And when/if the girls do not show up in the desired numbers, the geniuses at National will continue changing the program to make it more girl-friendly - because that is where Scouting's future lies. No matter the boys who will be driven away in the process.

    • Upvote 2

  9. 4 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

    Unless of course, the ultimate answer is to change it back, because that was the best way to work the program.  A truly open mind would be tolerant and accepting of that as a possible outcome.  I still don't quite get why as a society, going back to something that worked, after something that sounded good failed, is so taboo.  

    With the Scouting debacle of the 1970s, BSA membership dropped by more than 2 million boys. The bleeding had to stop, so the CSE was forced into early retirement, the Scout Handbook was rewritten, and almost all the experimental changes were reversed. It was a lesson learned at horrific cost. Sadly, some lessons need to be relearned.

  10. 2 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

    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. 

    The infographic on the same Family Scouting web page is not so clear in defining Family Scouting. The term applies to girls entering BSA at all levels.


    • Thanks 1

  11. 1 hour ago, gblotter said:

    BSA has given up trying to attract new types of male Boy Scouts. They view girls as the future of Scouting and are modifying the program to accommodate that future vision.

    In support of my assertion, it appears that BSA has already created a new Ballet merit badge.


    <a little humor is merited in this serious discussion - no?>


  12. 17 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

    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.

    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?

    • Upvote 1

  13. 36 minutes ago, qwazse said:

    For reference and enjoyment,  this snapshot by WOSM may serve:


    As an engineer, this is data I can dig into and appreciate. I would like to see what the graphs look like minus the Indonesia influence. Why can't BSA National treat us like grown-ups and share such statistical motivations, rather than concoct manipulative surveys as a pretext for a predetermined outcome?

    • Upvote 4

  14. 9 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    But I can tell you many things I use to do as a Scout are not allowed anymore, and it has been since women were allowed to be SMs and ASMs, i.e. pioneering projects over 6 feet, smudge pots, etc.

    I am not a fan of female Scoutmasters, but I don't think we can blame them for such changes. Rather, blame the BSA lawyers for no pioneering projects over 6 feet, and the fact that you must be 16+ years old to operate a lawn mower. That is not because of female influence (unless those females happen to be BSA lawyers).

    • Upvote 1

  15. 1 minute ago, EmberMike said:

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

    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?).

    • Upvote 1

  16. 15 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

    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.

    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.

    • Downvote 1

  17. 3 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

    In this way, Boy Scout camp need not really change. The girls that want to join and attend camp are self-selecting for the sort of activities that we already offer. This isn't like a summer Y camp that has to try and appeal to everyone with all interests.

    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.

    • Upvote 2

  18. 6 hours ago, Cambridgeskip said:

    The handful that do turn up don't last long at all.

    For co-ed Scouting programs, perhaps that is true. Many boys don’t last long at all (as reflected in the low percentages of UK Scouting and Scouts Canada). In the single-gender BSA program, there seems to be evidence for a formula where more boys can last longer without the distractions of the gender issues I have listed.

    Nothing scientifically based in my observations,, but perhaps the numbers speak for themselves.

    As I have mentioned in a previous post ... when people choose to ignore or dismiss these truths about differences between boys and girls (insisting that they function the same as in single-gender environments), it is the boys who suffer most because they will ultimately step-back or opt-out altogether. Or in your words “the handful that do turn up don’t last long at all.” I see strength in a single-gender solution that fosters greater participation from boys.

    Some food for thought.

    • Upvote 2

  19. 6 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

    I'm sure there's going to be a lot of disdain for this idea here on the forums. But although I'm not that personally interested in going I can see there being some merit to the idea.

    The things I love most about Scouting revolve around fostering fun and adventure with the boys, and (in a selfish fatherly way) participating in those experiences with my son.

    Removing boys from the adventure equation deflates my motivation. If required I can endure a BSA adult leader training course for a weekend, but I am not in this for the adult interaction with other Scouters (no offense, folks). I’d rather be home remodeling my kitchen.

  20. 1 hour ago, EmberMike said:

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

    Having attended summer camp (multiple times) with my daughters and Boy Scout camp (multiple times) with my son, I can tell you from personal experience that what defines a good camp experience differs widely between boys and girls. The format of the two camp programs is dramatically different. I could go into specifics, but some here would surely label my observations as sexist. Nevertheless, these differences are very real. My daughters would not enjoy many of the things my son loves about camp, and vice-versa.

    Also from person experience, I can tell you that the behavior and focus of boys and girls changes dramatically when in the presence of the opposite sex. I have experienced this firsthand as a chaperone on overnight school science camps. The distractions can degenerate into a mini soap opera with all the intrigue over "he said, she said".

    And lastly, I can tell you from person experience that when girls step to fore, boys will step to the rear. They are happy to avoid work and let others take the lead. A "too cool for school" attitude surfaces among the boys who become conscious about the image they are projecting to the girls around them. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 2

  21. 1 minute ago, RememberSchiff said:

    IMO they wanted girl "Boy Scouts" at Jambo 2019 and to be there, those girls needed time to meet the same attendance prerequisites as boys.

    Those girl boys scouts will already be at World Jamboree as part of Venturing Crews.

    Any girls who are newly registered in 2019 will have already missed the deadline to join the World Jamboree expeditions sent from the local councils. Applications for those expeditions are being accepted and processed now (in our council, at least).