walk in the woods

This. I'd add, your job shouldn't be to "help" the new SPL but to mentor/coach when and if asked. If the new SPL asks for help, ask open ended questions rather than offer processes and procedures.

Depends on where you live. Many of the changes/losses you describe still exist and thrive in small-town middle America. There's been some impact but not nearly like I see in larger towns/metros.

I read the article and comments. I'm reminded of the immortal words of George Strait I got some ocean front property in ArizonaFrom my front porch you can see the seaI got some ocean front property in ArizonaIf you'll buy that I'll throw the golden gate in free

Clearly Obi-Wan lied to Luke to protect the integrity of the timeline and Luke's future development.

"Do not take flimflamasol if you are allergic to flimflamasol" is my favorite.

That certainly is the way I used to understand the rules, and it's certainly in keeping with my community's norms, but, it's not clear to me that's still the official policy. One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting. In situations requiring a personal conference, the meeting is to be conducted with the knowledge and in view of other adults and/or youth. The first statement is direct and surprisingly clear for the BSA, even if it is a ridiculous overreach of policy. The second makes a particular statement about the observer needing to have knowledge of the conference. Can I walk across camp with a scout any more? IDK. But if somebody in camp reads this policy like a petty bureaucrat/tyrant I could be reported to the BSA hotline. Not sure it's worth the effort any more.

The BSA gave the go ahead for neckers with t-shirts a couple years back, https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/08/21/scout-neckerchiefs-now-approved-wear-nonuniform-clothing/. They may be showcasing it as a preferred option for future uniform method changes.

'Mothers and Fathers are interchangable" should be included in your list of views that can be considered inherently offensive......

Sort of, maybe, not really.... https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/blog/clarifying-misinformation-about-2019-world-scout-jamboree-policies/

Thanks, that makes more sense to me. Or perhaps the BSA needs to "simplify, simplify."

I look at the program and wonder if we haven't been defined out of business.... http://troopleader.org/ https://www.scouting.org/resources/ http://bsatap.org/ http://www.programresources.org/ https://www.scouting.org/programs/boy-scouts/planning/ Not to mention the G2SS, The Guide to Advancement, Shooting Sports Manual, Aquatics Manual, Paddle Sports Manual, hours of online training for every position, IOLS, etc. So I'm curious what a focus on defining program would look like for you.

There's a fair amount of that discussion in https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Scouts-BSA-FAQ-050218-2.pdf.

Only Lawyers and Politicians have to rev up a spin machine to interpret plain language. If you're interpretation is correct, the word your looking for to describe the CSEs words is "dissemble."

The video on the front page of the Family Scouting website, about the 8:15 mark, "We're not mandating that scouting becomes co-ed."

Peace TT.

Actually the CSE very specifically said, on multiple occasions, the BSA is not going co-ed. Are you saying the CSE lied to us? 😱

Q the name change has nothing to do with youth or what they want. References to anything male will have to be struck from the program in order to deconstruct the patriarchal oppression it represents.The women on the thread who noted they wouldn't be bothered to read Boy's Life just don't realize they are victims of the oppression. The Navy attempted to remove the word man from all it's rates in 2016 (e.g corpsman was deemed a sexist job title). They failed not for lack of trying but due to general outrage from the rank and file. The BSA won't face such headwinds.

In general, the courses don't cross-count. BALOO is a one-day training for Cub Camping, IOLS is an overnight focused on Boy Scout skills. If you see yourself as an ASM/SM next year I'd say take the drive (within reason, say an hour or less), camp, and get both done.

I hope you are right.

This was exactly my experience in HS when Physical Education went co-ed. Dodgeball, gym hockey, wrestling all disappeared from the curriculum. Flag football went from a contact game to being kicked out of class if you bumped into a girl. Boys weren't allowed to block shots in basketball or hit spikes in volleyball if the person on the other side was a girl. Again, kicked out of class for the day. They added square dancing for the love of Pete!

It's about the same era, close enough anyway. The alternatives are tough. It probably involves harshly punishing the perpetrators of bad deeds while not restricting the rights of innocent actors. It's the same philosophy as the knife discussion. Blanket policies restricting anything mostly serve to punish the innocent. Anyway, thank you for acknowledging the YPT does affect program.

Thank you. Let me provide what I hope is an equally well stated rebuttal. I don't see the addition of girls to the program as adding a layer of richness, I see it as replacing a layer of richness that already exists. A place for boys to hang with their mates around the campfire is a rich and important experience. There's plenty of literature out there that suggests today's men don't have other male friends and it's impacting their mental health. The Boy Scouts has always been a place for boys to learn how to make male friends, nay, brothers. That process will be irrevocably changed with the addition of girls to the program. Men will suffer as a result. You said that we're preparing the boys for adulthood, and since they'll have to work with women, they should work with girls now. While I think there is truth in that argument, forcing co-ed scouts at all ages is using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. I believe that boys certainly in the 11-14 year age range, and probably in the 5 - 14 year age range need to learn how to deal with the transition to manhood first. We all remember what it was like to be that age. Having mentors and leaders and peers who have been or are going through that same period in life is critical. Yes, they need to learn how to work with women, but, I think that happens after they've learned how to be young men. I have no problem with co-ed scouting at the high school age level, as an option. If I honestly believe the separate troop thing was anything other than a short transition phase to fully co-ed Troops, designed to minimize losses, I might be onboard. In a spearate thread on this forum at least one scouter was already touting their co-ed patrols. Separate or linked troops are a fantasy. You earlier referenced Scouts UK as a model. The wikipedia page references their 2016/2017 report and says "Girls now make up 27% of all-age participants with a total of 99,989 female participants aged between 6 and 25 and a further 69,460 women involved in volunteer roles (being more than 1 adult female for every 2 female young people), while new recruits are now 71% girls (approx. 2.5 girls for every boy)" Emphasis is mine. If in 10 years our movement is 27% female, and we don't lose any marketshare in boys, then we'll just have made up the delta for the departures in the last few years. More importantly (and I haven't read the entire report so I'm taking the 2.5:1 comment at face value), if the UK Scout Association is recruiting 2.5 girls for every boy that enters the program, one has to question if they are in fact serving the general population of boys. It's not clear to me that set of numbers is a win for boys. The Scout Association is seeing 8% year-over-year growth, so it is clearly winning, but maybe at the expense of boys. I too have seen girls bring fun and enthusiasm to activities in Cub Scouts. But, I've also watched adult leaders, male and female, break up boys unstructured, loud, rough, and unstructured play in order to get them to attend to some boring, quiet, and structured activity. The girls thrive in the latter, the boys in the former. I've had more than a few conversations with leaders, male and female, to the effect of you have to let boys play. Requirements are nice, but, not nearly as important as unstructured, rowdy, play. Once they've blown off that steam you can probably get them to attend to whatever classroom stuff you have to offer. Finally, you said "It hasn't been a negative in school classrooms to have boys and girls working together." I can't begin to express how strongly I disagree with this statement. Boys are loud, squirmy, and active. Nobody who has ever actually worked with boys was shocked when taking away the unstructured play of recess, and the jungle gyms and swings, caused problems in the classroom. But, instead of giving boys the room to be boys, we've chosen to medicate the ones that can't act like their female counterparts. Scouting used to be a refuge from that mentality. I fear it will become more of the same, and worse than it is today (MBUs, Citizenship MBs at summer camp, etc.).

Well, first, the program for girls hasn't started at the Troop level yet. Second, you don't get to argue there will be no program changes, then, when program changes are pointed out, also argue program changes don't matter. Pick a position.

My last year of summer camp (between my Jr. and Sr. years of HS) my SM asked me to tent with and generally buddy with a first year camper. He was our only first year and his parents were concerned about home sickness. I was in camp to hang with my Tribal brothers so no big deal to me. For that week I was his big brother and he was my little brother. If there had been a two-year age differential tenting restriction at the time that relationship wouldn't have been a beneficial for him or me. Program goes way beyond activities, merit badges, and rank requirements.

Keeping the word boy in the name of the organization or the magazine would be perpetuating the patriarchal hierarchy of oppression........