yknot

I've received more information and I see why you said that. I just realized it will put some of us in a conflict of interest situation.

Just received a statement from state annual conference of United Methodist Church regarding child sex abuse. It noted that the BSA has filed for bankruptcy, "which limits their exposure to lawsuits and may increase the church's exposure." It further adds that the conference leadership in consult with its lawyers as well as conferences around the country is taking "appropriate steps". It additionally notes that the UMC has more scouting programs in its buildings than any other denomination. I guess that's maybe true after the LDS departure. It seems a very measured statement but still co

I just saw this article: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-22/boy-scouts-sexual-abuse-claims-bankruptcy Not much new but speculation in this article ups the potential payout to 3 billion -- double the 1.4 billion estimate I've seen elsewhere.

Very sweet essay. Thanks for sharing. We're all in it for our kids but many of us are also in it because someone else was also good to us along the way and we want to share and repay it. Or, we want to leave the world a better place because we have a passion for something or because we believe in something we think is bigger than ourselves. Despite our vastly different perspectives and experiences and our adamant beliefs, which sometimes create some very heated discussions, I think we can all share in our grief that scouting is in trouble and none of us really knows how to save it.

I also check out sometimes. I come here for hope but often leave depressed. However, just to share some uplifting info I just discovered: We all know about Bear Grylls but famous U.K. scouts also include John Lennon, Paul McCartney, David Beckham, David Bowie, Richard Branson, Tony Blair, Keith Richards (!!!!) and, my favorite, Sir David Attenborough. You have to laugh. Could you imagine having a young Keith Richards in your Pack or Troop?

Ugh. None that doesn't involve adult intervention, which is why I asked about guard rails when trying to be youth led. To some degree I think the traditional scout leadership system rewards the more articulate, self motivated, Type A scouts. The standard answer you will often get is more adult training in the patrol method is needed in order to properly train SPLs and Troop Guides, but in my neck of the woods there are so many disconnects in that process that the scouts are simply gone. If you are seeing it I do think it's worth a discussion with your SM to try and get him to have a discussion

I think the focus on false metrics is such an apt phrase. I think it's part of why scouting has lost the sense of fun for some scouts. I return to youth led however. I myself struggle with what the guard rails are. What is an acceptable mistake? If you don't store or cook your meat properly and make everyone sick, that is certainly a lesson learned but then that camp out has not been fun. A patrol where the Type A personalities constantly over shout the Type B personalities until the Type B's eventually leave is maybe a lesson learned for the Type A's -- be overbearing enough and you'l

We keep talking about the lack of clear adult training about patrol method but I wonder if it would help if we focused on the kids more before they get to Troop. I've mentioned before, youth seem to be coming to scouting today with fewer interpersonal and conflict resolution skills. All the adults see is the confusion. I know people are sick of messing with program but maybe there is more need for direct curriculum starting in Cubs about youth leadership and what youth led is. I don't think the kids understand it themselves, so it's hard for them to push back on other kids or adults. The youth

Just to clarify, when I say that there is nothing magical about youth led what I mean is that it is not the sole determinant for kids to have fun. Kids also have fun in more adult led activities like sports, robotics, 4-H. None of those are youth led but they still have fun. What I was musing on more was why does this come up so much in scouting? There is no doubt the kids have more fun in scouting when they get to do what they want but from general feedback it seems like it can be really hard to do. It's not just that parents helicopter it's that liability, bullying and youth protection issue

Absolutely not. It's just weird that the concept of "fun" for kids has to be discussed in an organization devoted to kids at all. Does that make any sense? I'm not trying to be adversarial I'm just noting that this never comes up for discussion in other forums I participate in for sports coaches or 4-H or whatever. The activity itself is always fun. The discussions are always about admin stuff or how to make it better or how to recruit more kids. I just realized it tonight reading that comment how strange that is that we discuss it here.

There are plenty of youth programs that are fun for youth without youth running the program and that are very popular and youth can't wait to participate in them. Sports, robotics, 4-H, etc., etc. There is nothing magical about youth led. In scouting, I think it helps make a sometimes tedious program more enjoyable for youth when we let the youth have more free rein and they truly do learn something if they are able to try to figure out the process themselves. However, the whole advancement system is an adult originated structure. Kids didn't come up with that. When you let them do what they w

Multiple times throughout this thread I have pointed out that scouting needs to be fun -- a game with a purpose. That fun has to be relevant for younger generations coming up though. Lotta people here seem to get their jam from doing things their way and holding on to old grievances. Every other youth organization I'm involved with is worried more about keeping and serving the kids than clinging to traditions. I don't hear or see this kind of talk anywhere but in scouts.

You are on the tail end of fall migration. Have each scout bring bins and look for Bald Eagles. They migrate into November. Lot of hawks still overhead too. Depending on where you are a lot of water birds are also showing up to overwinter. I've just started seeing wood ducks, common mergansers, black ducks, bufflehead, etc. If you are camping near a water source, might see something interesting. Bins can be used again at night to check out whatever is up there. There are apps and sites that can tell you what you can look for depending on what nights you are out. Watching the ISS go by o

I so appreciate your viewpoint and agree. I will do my best not to sally forth to do battle the next time something yanks my chain.

Also, I agree about the GSUSA. I don't like double standards. I think everything should be integrated and kids should be tracked by ability or interest not by gender or anything else. If a girl is good enough to play little league, let her play. If a boy is more successful playing on a rec league vs. a travel team of any gender, let him play there.

Again, I ask what we are debating here. Up until the post WWII era in the US, and even in many parts of present day Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Asia, and Africa, many women have mastered and still have many of the outdoors or rural living related skills that most US men have forgotten and no longer have simply because they need them to survive. This is not a discussion on what women are capable or not capable of. It is a discussion of what US men's perceptions are regarding women in scouting.

That is a cri de couer. I don't know. All I know is we have to get through it and somehow figure out a way to have some version of scouting survive even if it's simply a vestige of what was because some version of scouting is better than no scouting.

Again, I'm asking you what is your point. It repeatedly sounds through your posts as if you are arguing that women and girls don't belong in scouting. That's OK if that's your opinion and we can agree to disagree. Just be scout like and be honest about what it is you are trying to say. On the one hand you appear to dissemble and say the only problem with women was a training issue in the 1970s. On the other hand it appears you are saying that boys can't learn from women. Which is it?

I can't figure out how to repost the comments within your quote, so sorry if these responses aren't directly linked to what you said: Girls -- I agree that the girl exclusion wouldn't have become such an issue if the ban on gay scouts and scouters hadn't preceded it. However, it did add tinder to the perception that scouting was exclusionary. We also have to remember that the girl issue became much more volatile when it was linked to a couple recent high profile transgender scout cases because of course those scouts were biological girls. That created a devastating connection in th

That's only true in about 40% of the cases and in those cases the abusers are predominately male. Additionally, most of those cases are connected to adolescent exploration of sexuality and there is not the same threat/power/victim factors involved. However you bring up a really good point because that is why BSA instituted the two year tent camping rule. Older children can victimize younger children. However, it still certainly occurs among children who are of the same calendar age but have developed and grown differently.

OK I think I get what you are saying. You are talking about some of the research that shows that boys learn better from male teachers? As a parent of two boys I would agree there is something to that. However, there is also research showing that women are far less likely to abuse children and abuse has a tremendously negative effect on ability to learn in both genders. There is also the teacher gene at play. Some people are inherently good at teaching and managing children. Others, despite whatever degrees or training they have, are not. There are also teachers, male or female, who seem to be

To elaborate on this, I learned archery, and many other things, with scouts. That was back in the day when the local troop did archery in the local park. My love for scouting is based on how kind and patient my older neighbors were in letting me tagalong and do what they did.

Careful there. Some of us were tagalongs or grew up in families with scouting dads, brothers, cousins, etc. The full experience? No. Exposure to components and the process and some experiences? Yes.

Boy, Eagle Dad, once again you've stopped me in my tracks. I literally do not know how to take your comments. When you combine the words you just did in a single paragraph, it is inherently sexist. How does quality of growth not implicate sexism when you are talking about natural youth brains? I think you may have misspoke. Or at least I hope you did.

I understand your point to some degree but it doesn't take much browsing on this forum to find comments from posters who take issue with the inclusion of women and later girls to the program. It's also a pretty ubiquitous opinion still expressed sotto voce at the unit through council levels. If the vast majority of complaints about women joining scouting truly were based solely on the challenges that were faced by having to do a lot of remedial training at the time, I wouldn't expect to still hear and read so many negatives today. Maybe this would be a good discussion thread. At some point I'l