yknot

Sometimes that's true but sometimes it's more perception than reality. Case in point one camp out upon arrival a female ASM immediately pointed out scouts were setting up hammocks under deadfall with high winds forecast. The SM told her not to interfere with scouts. An hour later a male ASM upon arrival immediately ordered scouts to move the hammocks because they had set them up under deadfall with high winds forecast. He was thanked by the SM. It was the attempt at tactfulness by the female ASM vs. the direct approach by the male ASM that made the difference in how the action was perceived.

It's not allowed but it definitely occurs. Sometimes it's obvious sometimes it's just suspected.

I think your Blue and Gold can be whatever you want. We used to do potluck for this and Red and White but it's true people seem much busier and less enthused about bringing a tray of ziti or whatever. We've done a catered meal and charged a per head cost. Easier, but it's more costly. The most current iteration is unit buys pizzas, people bring their own drinks and the potluck part is a dessert to share, which can be as simple as a package of cookies. Don't get hung up on the food is my advice. Whatever it is that gets you together, is good. Also with covid the less shared utensils, etc., the

I think it's a function of unit/community culture and what it is that you want to encourage. I've looked out over district roundtables and seen plenty of women involved at the cub level as den leaders who camp and do all things outdoors -- some more gung ho than others but still very willing to be part of the outdoor program. Then at Troop most of them vanish to serve mostly in committee positions. There is a lot of discouragement, some overt but some very subtle and not obvious to people who believe they are otherwise being open to women. I agree it's a smaller percentage of women vs.

There are millions of moms with scouting experience. They started in cub scouts and then followed their sons to troop. Who do you think camped with them as Webelos?

Frankly, I don't think many units try very hard at all to involve women in their outdoor programing.

I think that's a failure of BSA and not a reflection of the interest level of women. Before I suffered a disability I tried very much to be a part of the outdoor program at the Troop level and was pretty much shut out. If you have a pack environment that develops women leaders and involves them in crossover, then you'll have female ASMs at Troop.

Why? What's so awful about having women involved?

Probably not a bad idea going forward.

The reason for that is statistically men abuse children at rates much higher than women. Women do abuse, but it's usually to please or enable abuse by a controlling male counterpart or an older teen situation. The most horrific abuse scenarios frequently occur in settings where women are less likely to be present -- church, scouting, sports.

It seems to me that above and beyond compensation or perhaps equal to it, many claimants also want to ensure that if BSA continues it will create a next order youth protection program. They don't want what happened to them happening to other children. I'm not seeing where the current plan addresses that other than a few bones and some promises? I wonder how much of a role that might play for claimants. The TCC does seem to keep trying to keep that on the table.

I got that impression too although it's hard to tell. That would be extremely weird if not concerning if UMC/RC churches were somehow committed to helping BSA grow membership for financial not philosophical reasons. Especially without any clarity regarding what is happening with youth protection. And it would put BSA back in bed with a religious organization a la LDS, which was problematic. Not to mention those two denominations have different views on some key topics. Or... this may mean something else entirely.

It might not be a clear absolute power but there are factors that can bring about closure and sale regardless. A church that is already struggling would have a hard time affording insurance outside of the group rates obtained by the conference for example. It is not 100% clear who owns church properties and it can get very tricky, especially in towns where tax assessors are questioning nonprofit status of things like parsonages if they are rented out for income. If UMC is offering to put money in, there must be some strategic plans to unload white elephant properties.

I don't know how UMC oversight works but in my area there is a state conference that oversees the individual congregations. That Council has had the power to consolidate and sell properties to some extent. There are a number of failing churches with valuable property. It seems that those properties could be sold off to save other functional congregations. Not that I'd want to see that happen -- they are all historic buildings to start -- but many of these denominations are in the same boat as BSA is with camps. BSA has excess camp properties to serve a membership level that no longer exists. M

There are logistics involved with learning how to function optimally in an organization when you are defined as being in a racial or gender category or trying to survive as a member of. I was involved with a Black student organization at university and they met to address everything from how to make sure students from families with no transportation could get home for winter break to dealing with overly attentive campus security. It's a problem when one kid heading to his dorm at night gets stopped six times while his friend heading the opposite way across campus doesn't get stopped at all. I

If I may, I think you're getting hung up something that's maybe not as significant as you think it is. Instead of calling it an affinity group or whatever just think of it as subcommittees: Engineering, Finance, LGBTQ. That's how I view it. Everybody has a specific task to work on and bring back to the group.

I don't think the relationship has been at all transactional for most COs. Most of them have sponsored units for various altruistic reasons -- they want to support scouts or youth or the community. Most of the small church COs around here are sponsoring units where hardly anyone in the unit even goes to that church so its been for the greater good. I think it's presumptous for anyone to think that a struggling CO will risk bankruptcy itself for the privilege of continuing to sponsor a unit for BSA. BSA is treating the CO relationship as a business relationship and not a fellowship because at i

My point is that there is no real upside for a CO to be involved in scouting. The upside is all on the BSA end.

How does that work? Do the scouts lug the trees from cars and the adults chip them? Also, while adults are able to handle power tools around scouts, COs around here would never let anyone other than a contracted tree service do wood chipping on their property due to liability issues. Adults do it on work days at camps and such but the COs don't necessarily know... One of the COs I'm affiliated with has a retreat camp property of its own that we have access to and they won't let anyone chip -- they get wood chips donated by tree services. Interesting how different things are depending on

That's truly admirable but others realize you can't preach anything if the doors are shut. Right now BSA's business model is hinged on failing COs risking closure to sponsor a unit. Churches can meet a mission of youth ministry without being part of BSA's business model.

In general of course, but individually that's kind of a given? My kids intuitively know that if anyone threatens them, whatever that threat is, it will also face me and hopefully die a painful death. But -- myself, school teachers, coaches, 4-H leaders -- no one greets people at the doors of their activity saying that you'll die if you mess with these kids.

I think you're lucky.

That is very impressive but do you ever wonder what is wrong with us if we are involved with an organization where we think we actually need to say that before we head out with kids in our care?

It just highlights the need to have the co-ed troop option available because that would solve something that is only going to come up more and more frequently. Many units are operating that way in practice anyway, so there is not much BSA precedent to stand on when so many councils are already "looking the other way." There is no way for BSA to "win" on this issue, even if the mom should lose a lawsuit.

I was referring to a couple specific posts on this thread, but that is not exactly a novel perspective in scouting. I've heard it before and seen it elsewhere.