Question to run by you all ... thought the topic was safer here :)

[cubbingcarol 10]

JD,

 

As for our family, we (my husband and I) are our children's first and foremost role models. Their information and experiences will come from us in alot of instances. And just for the record I never said that women couldn't or shouldn't lead. But, I've never been a boy and therefore could not say, "I've been there done that, felt that way, etc." from the Scouts perspective.

 

Carol

[johndaigler 10]

Hey Rooster - your deep sigh made me laugh out loud!!!!! 80)

 

I can't believe you're dissin' poor ol' Bella's good memory!!!! I'm not surprised, but I can't believe it!!! Well, all right, I could have predicted it, but I just can't believe it!!! And, I suppose, you're going to tell me you didn't like her hats, too!!!

 

Ok, so neither of us is afraid. That SHOULD make it easier to talk to each other.

 

I never said there was something wrong with being a man -- what I've been saying is that it's not enough. I don't get that there are significant differences between men and women, beside the physically obvious. I'm sure I'm missing some point that is obvious to you, but I just don't.

 

jd

[johndaigler 10]

Hi, Carol,

 

Sure, I agree with parents being the key role model. I'm just wondering where we go to show them additional role models. ?? As parents, we are who we are. In most families, we're the ones who offer our children most of what they will become. Still, our kids will benefit from being exposed to others who can demonstrate and offer Different experiences. They'll certainly need to relate to, and in fact, work with, fall in love with, grow old with, etc. people who aren't us.

 

I'm sorry, did I imply you said women couldn't lead? I didn't mean for you to read anything like that into what I wrote.

 

You make a good point about an adult male being able to say to a Scout, "Been there, Done that." That's a good thing, and I hope I haven't been read by anyone as having said something to the contrary. But, unless it's a gender based situation, why wouldn't a woman be able to say, "Been there, Done that"? Now, if it is a gender based situation, wouldn't it be a good thing for the boy (in addition to hearing from the above male) to hear, ". . .and this is how it is for girls. . ."?

 

I'm afraid that our biggest stumbling block is that we (I'm not directing this at CC, but at all of us) have different expectations of behavior for men and women, and for boys and girls.

 

jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Backpacker

 

Fr. Stempora would think unkindly of me if I did not point out its Carpe Diem or Seize the Day (as in "per diem") Carpe Deum translates out to Seize God, which I don't reccommend to anyone and I don't think thats where you were going. I wouldn't want anyone to think I had lost the lustre of my Latin with Wheeler's departure.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[boleta 10]

Significant segments of our society are now single parent with women being the only adult. Most experts agree that this is not the ideal situation and most kids do better with 2 parents and a male role model when boys are involved. This is not conservative or liberal philosophy, it is reality.

 

The best Advancement Chair in a Troop that I have seen was a woman. The best Committee Chair that I have seen was a woman. Women have been involved at every level of Scouting that I have participated in. At the same time, boys absolutely need men involved in Scouting to show what it is to be a responsible, honest, and trustworthy adults.

 

Hey! I agree with Rooster!

(This message has been edited by boleta)

[Backpacker 11]

OGE

 

Thanks for the clarification, I knew it didn't look right after I posted it. I will refer to my Latin 101 text in the future, lol.

[BadenP 93]

Hey Rooster7

 

I have a question for you. Do you believe that you could not be a good mentor or a good role model to your daughter because you are a male?

 

Even though I agree with your basic premise, how do we deal with the reality of today that we have all been talking about and still make scouting work without women being involved in leadership roles? I guess thats two questions.

[KoreaScouter 13]

In my opinion, if your desired end-state has some gender specificity, then the criteria and methods used to get there must also. The reverse would be true if your desired end-state is gender-neutral. An oversimplification, but suggests this is not an either-or issue, but somewhat situational.

 

I'm always amused when men are "bashed" for creating most of the conflict in the world. That may be true, but I would submit that it's also largely irrelevant if who we're talking about are people in positions of national leadership and power. Men have traditionally held most of these positions and the means to wield that power, so of course they've created most of the conflict. But, by the same token, men have resolved most of the conflict in the world, for the same reasons. If women have not created their fair share of world conflict, it's only because they have not held the reins of power in proportion to their share of the population. If you look at situations in which women have held the reins of power in given countries, they are no less involved in conflict than men are. Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Megawati Sukarnoputri, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Indira Gandhi, and the recent female Pakistani PM whose name I can't recall, are all examples that come quickly to mind. They may not have started it, but took measures to deal with it decisively. In other words, if you smooth the data to account for the sample size, are female national leaders any less likely to be involed in conflict than male national leaders? My guess is no; regardless of gender, they deal with the reality that's presented to them. I don't think that's a negative.

 

If you want a boy to be a good carpenter, the person who teaches him may be a good male or female carpenter -- doesn't matter one whit. If you want a boy to be a good man, the person who teaches him should be a good man. Am I a Neanderthal?

 

KS

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

KS

"Good Man".While maybe I might be seen as splitting hairs. I don't see that we are in the business of making good men. I think good Person and good people is a better fit.

While I do admit to calling OJ "A good little Lad". Or "A great little fellow".

Eamonn.

[fotoscout 15]

What part of the Scout Oath is male specific?

 

The simple fact here is that there are not enough men willing to step up and become involved in Scouting anymore. If you want your programs to continue and thrive, you are going to have to accept women in leadership positions within Scouting.

 

Just look around, in this area many (sometimes most) of the District and Council Committees are filled with women. Our Council Programs Chair is female as are both our CS & Scout RT Comm. We have female Scoutmasters, and Cubmasters as well as a whole slew of ASM's. Why, because there are jobs to done and they are stepping up to do them. Fully 1/3 of our WB Staff is female.

 

So like it or leave it, todays' reality is that you'll have to embrace it if you want your programs to continue as they are today.

(This message has been edited by fotoscout)

[Rooster7 11]

BadenP,

 

I have a question for you. Do you believe that you could not be a good mentor or a good role model to your daughter because you are a male?

 

Yes, I can be a role model to my daughterBut her education would be painfully incomplete without a woman of good character as her mentor.

 

how do we deal with the reality of today that we have all been talking about and still make scouting work without women being involved in leadership roles?

 

I never said women should not take leadership roles in Scouts. My basic premise was, assuming there are no other obvious discriminators; men are better suited for these roles because of the need for boys to have male mentors. I suppose, though it pains me to say it, Bob White answered that question fairly well.

 

KS,

 

At the risk of sounding like my 15 year-old, you rock buddy! You really do get it or perhaps I get you. Either way, were in agreement.

 

Eamonn,

 

Perhaps my life experiences are extraordinarily different than most on these boards. But I have observed many men and women of good character throughout my years and I have discovered many differences. For example, Ive seen a multitude of women embrace the profession of nursing with not only compassion and love, but a willingness to perform the most repulsive acts of service without so much as a peep of complaint. While there are certainly a few male nurses whove joined their ranks and performed the job admirably, they are not the rule. I have to ask myself, what did God instill in women that enables them to care for the sick with such great kindness. Perhaps, those of you that had to witness a loved one under such care in a hospital or hospice understand what I am saying. Regardless, this is but one example. Conversely, I have seen men perform acts of heroics, which seemed to be instinctive and without regard to personal safety, to save the life of someone theyve never met. Again, there may well be examples of females doing the same. Yet, I remain convince that it is much more common among men, because of the way God created us. Both of these traits demonstrate self-sacrifice, and each speaks well of the gender that they represent; yet they are different. Man and women are not the same. They have gifts and character traits that God has imparted that are unique. I stand convinced that this is true. Not only because Gods Word makes it plain to me, but by my lifes experiences.

 

Fotoscout,

 

What part of the Scout Oath is male specific?

 

The Boy Scout program is male specific. Why? Could it be that there are differences among the sexes? Could it be that those differences extend into adulthood? Do you plan to raise your son and daughter in the exact same manner, blind to their gender? I truly hope not.

 

If you want your programs to continue and thrive, you are going to have to accept women in leadership positions within Scouting.

 

I know this thread is under Issues and Politics, but do you have to act like a politician? I have not seen a single post, which stated that women should not be in leadership roles. Yet you and others continue to post as if that is the crux of the argument. This is a political strategy and its known as a straw man argument. Heres how it works:

 

1) Create a feeble and indefensible argument (i.e. Women cannot be good leaders).

2) Attribute the premise to your opponent.

3) Add enough truths to make it sound as if your opponent believes and supports the premise.

4) Then proceed to knock down the argument, which is rather easy since most folks universally accept the opposing view without descent.

 

Its called a straw man, because its so easy to knock down. Of course, the reason its so easy to knock down is because it was contrived specifically for that purpose.

 

BUT TO BE CLEAR, many women are good leaders and their energy and skills are needed in the BSA. They just cant be men. And boys, need to see how good men act in a given situation. They need to have male role models. These two ideas female leaders and male role models, do not have to be mutually exclusive. Both can be present without hindering the other. If you want to know my personal preference Yes, Id like to see a man of good character act as my sons Scoutmaster. If given the choice between a woman of good character and a man of questionable character, Id take the woman every time. But all things being relatively equal, I think a man is better for the job for the reasons I already stated.

 

[fotoscout 15]

Im not a student of politics, nor do I know anything of political strategy. However, those of us in the NY area are sure getting a dose of it this week

[johndaigler 10]

One of the problems of believing in gender-based attributes is the self-fulfilling prophecy of culture training. We believe women work well (better than men) with little children, so we believe women make great ELEMENTARY teachers, so we train them to act like elementary teachers, so when we see women working well with children as elementary teachers we validate to ourselves that women work well with children.

 

Historically speaking, the feminization of teaching in the US occurred as a direct result of the Civil War. Men teachers were in short supply, women filled the role. Previous to this cultural revolution, no one doubted that teaching was a MAN'S profession. Of course, it was all very convenient that girls, in general, were not expected to be educated beyond home skills - including that much math and reading that they could manage the household. Factually, you can validate many cultural norms as pushed upon one gender or the other, though you can imagine how vague and obscure historical trends are as truth definers. The origins of few gender norms are as blatantly clear as teaching, but they're there.

 

If we accept ourselves and our gender roles as they exist today, we accept the lack of a need to grow and improve. Yes, I agree with boys needing men, and yes, girls need women. But, if we create program and experiences that show boys need men more than women, we'll just prove to ourselves what we already believe.

 

Our Scouts, and all of us, as well, need to continue to grow and learn and improve. Boys need to become men, but men need to learn all they can from women and vice versa. We'll all be better for it. Imagine a boy as a 8" round pie, cut into 8 slices. Do we want to be sure he gets 6 slices worth of "man" mentoring and coaching and associating? Should he have all 8 slices be "all man"? Is he something less than other boys if he's only 4 slices of "man"?

 

All I'm saying is that we're better off making him into a 9" pie. We don't need to take away any of his "manness" we need to actively look around and find good things outside of "manness" and be sure he gets those, too. If it's outside of "manness" we tend to categorize it as "womanness" (not that anyone ever used such a word, but I hope you can see what I mean).

 

We need to stop seeing character traits as gender based!

 

Being HEROIC is NOT a man thing - it's a thing that our culture gives men more opportunity to be than it gives to women. If we don't help teach our daughters to be heroic, we do them a disservice, and ourselves as a community, a disservice.

 

Being NURTURING is NOT a woman thing - it's a thing that our culture gives women more opprtunity to be than it gives to men. If we don't help teach our sons to be nurturing, then we do them a disservice, and ourselves as a community, a disservice.

 

I know I'm thick-headed, but if you believe women and men are "different", other than their physical bodies and their culture training, please tell me how. Give me a truth for boys that isn't a truth for girls. Separate them in such a way that they can't be unseparated. I don't know how to do that, so I don't know how to agree with you.

 

jd

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

...and the recent female Pakistani PM whose name I can't recall

 

Benazir Bhutto, I presume. She was Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1988-90 and 1993-96 and was ousted the second time on charges of corruption in her government. (The name and the corruption charges I knew by heart, the dates I had to look up. I also remember that the news stories at the time she was booted out did not make clear whether there was really anything to the corruption charges, or whether they were just an excuse for getting rid of her in favor of someone who was more military-friendly.)

 

KS, I have one comment on your list of female leaders who dealt with conflict. (And I don't think this contradicts the point you were making, it is just something to add into the mix.) First I should say that this comment really has NOTHING to do with the roles of female and male leaders in Scouting. I have been watching the rhetorical tennis ball bounce back and forth on that issue in this thread, and if I have time later to write something, I will.

 

So here's the comment: While there have been female leaders who engaged in conflicts that were "started" by someone else (either externally or internally), I am having a difficult time thinking of a female leader who, herself, "created" the conflict, in the negative sense. In other words, if you think back on the "evil leaders" of the past century or two, leaders whose thirst for power or national supremacy plunged the world into war, or created regional conflcits, or who slaughtered their own people, all the ones I can think of were (or are) men. (I am limiting it to the past couple centuries, because before that things were so different that historical comparisons become very distorted. So, yes, I suppose I could list Queen Mary I ("Bloody Mary"), but I think that goes back a bit too far to have much relevance.) Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Colonel Khadaffi (sp?), Idi Amin, Pol Pot... where is a female leader who could compare to any of them, in terms of evil? (This is obviously an incomplete list, and I kept off any names that could start an argument; I personally would also include General Pinochet of Chile, Ayatollah Khomeini and Fransisco Franco (who, at last report, is still dead), others might nominate Mao and Ho Chi Minh, but the point is not who should be in the rogue's gallery, rather it is that all of them that I can think of are men.)

 

Though I suppose the answer to my comment might be, it isn't that a woman can't rise to this level of evil, it is more that they haven't had as much of a chance, and given time, women will make the list as well. That would be a whole other debate, and since it would just be speculation, is probably not worth getting into. It is just interesting that, up to this point, in recent history, the "bad list" seems to be an all (or almost all) male club.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

After re-reading my post, I guess I should emphasize, I am talking about people who are truly, seriously, mass-murderously EVIL. There have been female leaders who have, at least arguably, done things that were "wrong," corrupt, incompetent or whatever. I remember when Indira Ghandi declared martial law and suspended elections (mid 70's?), so during that period one could have classified her as a "dictator." As I mentioned, Benazir Bhutto was chased out of office on corruption charges, though there were other forces at work as well. Even someone as genuinely good and even beloved as Golda Meir lost her position involuntarily, after many in Israel blamed her for not adequately preparing for an invasion (Yom Kippur War, 1973.) But that's not the list I'm talking about; that's the "nobody's perfect" list. I'm talking about the really, really bad list.