walk in the woods

4 hours ago, ParkMan said:

what if the boys want a detail one way, but the girls another?

If they are being treated as two different troops, with separate leadership, then they can both have what they want.  I think that's the point for those arguing they need to be separate.

Saw this on my FB feed this morning.

I despise meetings that have more than a few seconds dedicated to reports and status updates.  Send those in 10 days in advance of the meeting and disseminate to the attendees a week in advance.  At the meeting the chair asks "any questions or concerns on the reports?  No? Next item."  They rank right up with announcements as biggest time wasters.  If I'm going to drive an hour to a meeting don't waste my time with something that can be handled in an email.

2 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

I'll ask it:  With young women in ScoutsBSA and the Order of the Arrow, is there any role for Venturing?  Any need for Venturing?  Is there anything in the Venturing program not already available in ScoutsBSA?

I've argued before that Scouts BSA should be the Jr. High program focused exclusively on T21 skills.  Move Star, Life Eagle into Venturing as the advancement/recognition track along with all merit badges.  Make service to a troop as a TG or SPL part of advancement/recognition for the youth that care to pursue Eagle.  Doing this would eliminate merit badge mill summer camps letting them focus on patrol method activities (e.g. patrols sign up for daily activities at camp and participate as patrols). It would also allow youth to master T21 skills.

3 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

Gone are the days when parents accepted the risk of injuries to their children in exchange for the benefits of a program

Nah.  18 year olds join the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force everyday.  Lots of parents accept the risk of injury or death in exchange for "program."  Courageous parents very well understand train them, trust them, let them lead.

Adventurous young adults leave our programs because they are, and this is a word youth have used in my presence, lame.

42 minutes ago, SSScout said:

This Scouter is acronymically challenged.  OEF EOD?   

Operation Enduring Freedom 

Explosive Ordinance Disposal 

$25 site fee plus $2 a person per night for in council units.

8 hours ago, ParkMan said:

The BSA requires that we follow them at a Scouting event.  The BSA is telling us that we really ought to be taking these same precautions outside of Scouting too.

No the BSA is talking out of both sides of their mouth, to quote the FAQ referenced in the G2SS:

Quote

Q. The Barriers to Abuse states “One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.” What does ‘inside and outside of Scouting’ mean?

A. The BSA has adopted its youth protection policies for the safety and well-being of its members. These policies primarily protect youth members; however, they also serve to protect adult leaders. All parents and caregivers should understand that our leaders are to abide by these safeguards. Registered leaders must follow these guidelines with all Scouting youth outside of Scouting activities. There are careers that may require one-on-one contact with youth, however aside from those roles, volunteers must abide by the youth protection policies of the BSA even outside of Scouting activities.

This policy is in place to prevent abuse in and out of Scouting.   Adults should never be alone with youth who are not their children.

Q. Does this mean my son cannot have a sleepover if I am the only adult present?

A. Yes, if any of the children other than your own child is a Scout, we strongly encourage all adults to use the Barriers to Abuse in and out of Scouting.  

You can't say in the first question that "volunteers must abide by the youth protection policies of the BSA even outside of Scouting activities" and then in the VERY NEXT QUESTION say "we strongly encourage all adults to use the Barriers to Abuse in and out of Scouting."

Words have meaning.  The BSA is playing both sides of the issue.  Time for our "leadership" to pick a frickin position.  Or at least hire a proofreader who understands the English language.

28 minutes ago, MattR said:

Did I miss something? I thought that show ended decades ago.

Either way, I always thought that character was very scoutish. We once had a guy take apart a flooded outboard motor and replaced a gasket with a coffee can lid. Making do with what you have is a great skill, and not something that any  syllabus can cover.

It's season 4 of the reboot.  In this version MacGyver is an OEF EOD tech vet.

While I agree with the sentiment in your post @ParkMan, the progressive/post-modern movement doesn't.  After Obergfell there was a concerted effort to find and make an example of conservative bakers, florists, and wedding facilities.  Similarly progressive California attempted to compel pro-abortion speech on conservative Crisis Pregnancy Centers.  The idea that a conservative pack will be allowed to exist as progressives take control of the BSA seems unrealistic.  Even if the internal desire is local option peaceful coexistence, outside forces won't allow that to happen.  FWIW, I'm a live and let live libertarian.  The forces that previously controlled the BSA and those taking control now, have no desire for live and let live.  

This past week's MacGyver episode (2/28 air date) featured Cub Scouts in full uniform at a Nova Stem presentation being led by MacGyver in full BSA uniform with Scout Me In neckers tied in friendship knots.  

29 minutes ago, RainShine said:

Related, we now have patrol corners during every troop meeting. At the last one the Scouts in one patrol decided to have a sleepover at one of the guys house. He asked his mom and dad, they will both be home, but neither are registered. They're just regular parents. Obviously no other adults, like me, will be there.

I didn't block it at the time. I'm more of a 'go for it, that sounds cool' kind of guy. But now I realize I should have blocked it. I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes.

It was their idea. They were on the far side of the room, no adults could hear what they were saying. I only got wind of it later. They are going to order pizza and play video games and hang out. But... I will shut it down.

Why block it.  Doesn't sound like a scout outing to me.

17 minutes ago, ValleyBoy said:

And we  wonder why the patrol method does not work when the patrol tries to plan something on there own.  Then have to inform them that they can not do that.

Patrol Method works fine, just outside the auspices of the BSA.

22 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

In this process, you can certainly remove some of the more toxic elements that the movement is highlighting - physical violence, bullying, hazing, derogatory comments toward others.  You can have lots of competition, success, and leadership without it turning into a "Lord of the Flies" kind of environment.

We could argue about how broad and meaningless the terms bullying and hazing have become but that's for another thread.

My responses started to some hand-wringing about people involved in the chapter 11 process attempting to destroy the boy scouts, the impact that will have on current members of scouting, and how unfair it all seems.  My point is simple.  There are people outside of scouting, beyond the lawyers, who want to see scouting destroyed, for reasons other than money.  It doesn't matter who we let into the movement or who is excluded or how much we change the program, the BSA will always be on the outside of the post-modernist construct of the good simply because we pre-date the philosophy.  As such, we will always have enemies that seek our destruction in pursuit of their view of the greater good.  If this hit doesn't kill us there is a long line of attacks coming.

On 2/29/2020 at 9:46 AM, DuctTape said:

no. those are not hallmarks of "toxic masculinity". 

Hallmarks of toxic masculinity are: denying young men the opportunity to express emotion except for anger. Promoting violence as the only acceptable means for conflict resolution. Treating women as objects. And defending all of these as the way to define "manliness". 

 

Yes, this is the gender studies textbook definition, but has little to do with how the true believers interpret toxic masculinity.

44 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

That statement invalidates toxic masculinity.  The boys I know were naturally inclined toward fire, knives, shooting sports, skills mastery, etc.  Boys have a natural tendancy toward agression.  I've always connected it with testosterone and hormones.  

I place toxic masculinity with emphasizing destructive hormonal behaviors.  For example, the old days of fighting it out to solve your differences.  Or when the boss was the toughest guy who could keep people in line.  Think of the old westerns with John Wayne pounding heads until everyone agrees.   Or John Wayne fighting Maureen O'hara's brother for her hand in marriage.  

You know those things are natural and so do I.  That does change the belief system of the true believers arrayed against the BSA.  A "natural tendency toward aggression" is exactly what the true believers think can be eliminated because it is a social construct not a natural truth.  Remember for the post modernist there are no natural tendencies just social constructs.  Because those tendencies are a social construct, in their world view those tendencies can be eliminated by eliminating groups like the BSA that acknowledge them.

24 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

That seems like a very strange comment from their council CEO: "Together, the camps cost about $375,000 each year to operate. That cost was determined to be too high, while offering experiences Girl Scouts could get elsewhere in the area".  Organizations provide competing services because it lets the differentiate or do it at an economic advantage.  What does Scouting become without the outdoor part?

In fairness i suspect there were no activities happening in the camps that can't also be procurred from a commercial outfitter somewhere in the Shawnee or Ozarks.  I suspect that's what the CEO was trying to get at.  But that experience won't be as controlled as an owned camp.

Interesting quote from the comments:

"My kids are in the Girl Scouts specifically to camp, hike, canoe, do archery. We can get leadership experiences, girl-led activities, etc. in a dozen different places nowadays. Camping is something we only get from Girl Scouts. The opportunity to be in nature, to appreciate the world we live in, to gain the camping skills that make the kids feel self-sufficient--these are the things camp provides. If the Girl Scouts doesn't offer those things, why would we remain a part of this group? (Co-ed "Scouting" is starting to look more and more attractive.)"

46 minutes ago, David CO said:

Toxic masculinity?   If only that were true.  Most kids today think the boy scouts are a bunch of wimps.  

But the organization supposedly promotes self-reliance, personal responsibility, and leadership until recently in boys exclusively.   Knives, fire building, shooting sports, skill mastery,  all hallmarks of toxic masculinity. 

7 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

We can't blame the evolution of society for membership decline

I think we can at some level.  Society, post-modern society specifically, targets any values oriented institution because those institutions stand in stark relief to the no objective truth/reality/values philosophy.  Many institutions have abandon their values to the mob but the mob always wants another pound of flesh.  They won't be satisfied until all values oriented institutions are dead and buried. 

10 hours ago, skeptic said:

4th:  Explain to me, all you experts and finger pointers and so on how destroying BSA serves anybody's best interests, when the overall good over the past century plus of such magnitude, and continues to overall fulfill its aims?  

The post-modernists that run our Universities and public schools believe that any organization like the BSA is a remnant of the patriarchical hierarchy oppression machine.  There is no good that can be done in service to the hierarchy and therefore the organization  must be destroyed to free society.  BSA is a paragon of toxic masculinity.

Public schools, their extra curricular programs, and GSUSA get a pass because they are on the team.

Nobody benefits except the people who believe everything is relative, there are no truths, and that any structure/hierarchy/value system is racist, sexist, or *-phobic.

Others may have already posted this but it came across my news feed today.  There's more than land at stake, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/02/27/boy-scouts-chapter-11-bankruptcy-rockwell-paintings-sexual-abuse-victims/4820331002/.  

On 2/25/2020 at 3:40 PM, Cburkhardt said:

Chicagoland:  The Pathway, Three Fires, Rainbow and Northeast Illinois councils should consider combining into a single council to provide Scouting to the greater Chicagoland/NW Indiana geography.  There is an overall cultural and economic unity to Scouting in that area

I'd take exception to your last sentence.  The outlying districts in Rainbow and TFC have zero in common with PTAC.  If this was to happen it would be more important than ever to give units the option to change councils.  

I've read there are nearly 30 councils in the Western Region with at least 35% LDS former membership. Start there. 

Transition-Report.pdf

12 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Those pursuing these cases are talking about ending the BSA

I and others on this board have pointed out many times that this is the goal of the forces arrayed against the BSA.

8 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:

Except that it's not. A program fee is strictly a council fee, none of that goes to the National Council. Program fee's usually come when FOS starts to dry up. Got to keep the lights on somehow. 

Please, stop pushing hysteria and false information. A Scout is trustworthy, sir. 

Except money is fungible.  Implement a program fee to replace FOS.  This then allows money from other sources that might have been spent on program for councils to invest in the BSA's victims fund.

10 hours ago, desertrat77 said:

Bear Grylls:  we could find one but I don't think the bureaucrats want to share the lime light.  Plus there are viable candidates who would decline because of the BSA's poor image. 

We had Eagle scout and survivalist Creek Stewart for a bit.  He used to mention his scouting background on his TV shows.  I learned about him at the 2013 NSJ.