Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sherminator505

Venturing Eligibility for OA - An Idea...

Recommended Posts

"You know an old mule gets pretty set in his ways and when he doesn't want to move sometimes he just needs a good ole slap on the ass to get him to see that stubborness is not to his benefit. Reminds me of some people."

So to whom are you referring? Me or Sherminator? There's a lack of willingness to move from both sides. We're standing at a distance lobbing pebbles at each other. One side has a desire for change on their side, and the other side keeps stating what they think should be obvious.

If one wants change, then wave the argument in front of those who can make changes. Arguing here is nothing more than that...arguing. The longer we just pound the table, the more hostile we become.

BDPT00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BDPT

 

If the shoe fits...... You are very welcome to your opinion as are we all. This is a discussion forum where different sides of an issue are presented and commented on, this is not arguing, it is debating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BDPT00 -

 

I can't speak for BadenP. He could very well be talking about me.

 

At this point in the discussion, I'd just like the other side to go ahead and state "what should be obvious." I feel that I have taken great pains to explain exactly why I'm for the idea, and I guess I have an unrealistic expectation that you will follow suit.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be correct.

I see Boy Scouts getting squeezed from both sides (Webelos and Venturing). Webelos want to do BS programs, and now so does Venturing. I haven't yet seen what will happen to NYLT, but I'm not a fan of it. JLTC and NYLT and the courses that came before were to demonstrate how the patrol method works while the participants lived and worked and played in a model environment. Now what? From the other end, by the time kids get to their first year of summer camp, they've already done most of the good stuff in Webelos. It seems that nothing in the BS program is protected from the parasites that surround it. There ... how's that for inflamatory?

I'm resistant to change. When a new program comes out, I'll embrace it. I always do, even if I don't like it. I do make waves on occasion, sometimes big ones, but not on this issue.

BDPT00

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't view your comment as inflammatory. You see Scouting as a group of distinct boxes, whereas I see it as a continuum. As for your not wishing to make waves, due to your unwillingness to be forthcoming I can only imagine to what waves you infer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Webelos want to do BS programs, and now so does Venturing...

 

I agree that maybe Webelos do like to try the BS programs. But, I think it is the BS that wants to do the Venturing stuff. We have a lot of boys in our Troop that wish they could do the Venturing stuff out Crew does. Not until recently could these boys do the Scuba. There are numerous other activities that Venturers can do that Boy Scouts can't.

 

When I heard about the changes to NYLT, I about hit the floor. I understand what the "powers that be" are trying to do, however I believe to make this work, will require some changes to NYLT that don't need to be made. NYLT is modeled around the "patrol method". Venturing does not utilize this. Venturing does have an excellent set of "leadership" opportunities. Why not take VLSC and the Kodiak programs and "tweak" them to fall more in line with NYLT and Wood Badge syllabi. Instead of trying to fit the Venturing program into the Boy Scout program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. It was meant to be inflammatory.

Regarding my unwillingness to be forthcoming, I have no clue what you're saying. You have an opinion. I have an opinion. They're not the same. It's clear then that that obviously means I'm wrong. You were curious to get the thoughts of the group. I shared my position. What more do you want?

My position on this, when taken to an extreme, is that we may as well just go directly from Webelos to Venturing. How's that?

BDPT00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have stated my opinion, and I have stated why I hold it. You have stated your opinion. Yours may be absolutely correct, but the rest of us may never know as you haven't yet explained why you hold it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BDPT00: "My position on this, when taken to an extreme, is that we may as well just go directly from Webelos to Venturing. How's that?"

 

Sherminator: "I have stated my opinion, and I have stated why I hold it. You have stated your opinion. Yours may be absolutely correct, but the rest of us may never know as you haven't yet explained why you hold it."

 

I don't know what more I need to say. You don't agree with me, and I don't expect you to. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I didn't explain it well enough. So now I've just said it again.

"Absolutely correct?" Who cares?! I'm stating an opinion. And who is "the rest of us?" That makes it sound like everyone else agrees with you. I don't believe that to be true... but that, of course, is also only an opinion.

BDPT00

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a say "the rest of us" I do refer to the rest of the forum, but I do not mean to suggest that the rest of the forum agrees with me. I am saying flat out that the rest of us don't know whether you might be right or not because you have not displayed the courage of your convictions and said why you hold the opinion that you do. Is it really that hard to say the words?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sherminator505,

 

OA is part of the Boy Scouting division. Boy Scouting is not Co-Ed, I do not want the Boy Scout division to go Co-Ed. That said I would not quit or make my sons quit if it did go Co-Ed. My reason has to do with development. Girls are generally more mature in the middle school/high school age group and because of this they tend to take over Co-Ed organizations in this age group. I see it in Church youth groups, I see it in school organizations, and I see it in Venturing. Boy Scouting needs to be boys only so they can come into their own without the added issues that having girls around will cause. Boys that do want a Co-Ed experience have only to wait till 13 and 9th grade to join Venturing. Since OA was founded within and is an integral program of Boy Scouting but not Venturing and Boy Scouting is not Co-Ed, I agree with the policy of no Venturers who were not Boy Scouts.

 

Now a question for you. Why not support a seperate Venturing program like Corps of Discovery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I see anything *wrong* with a separate organization like Corps of Discovery? Not on its face. But I do think that it more deeply entrenches the divisions within the BSA that create a certain "us vs. them" mentality that eventually killed the old Exploring program. I feel that we should be developing the next generation of older youth to carry on the Scouting movement, and I feel that this is best accomplished by more interaction, not less.

 

I also feel that there is a certain redundancy to having a separate Corps of Discovery, and further, I fear that such an organization would have a stigma of "trying to be like the OA." I don't think that such an impression would speak well to either organization. So no, I don't see this as either the best option or even a particularly desirable compromise option.

 

As for the whole coed bugaboo, the Boy Scout program is boys only, as is Varsity Scouts. And the vast majority of OA members are Venturing age anyway. At some point, they will have to work with young women, and I really think it is healthier and less awkward to remove the mystique sooner rather than later.

(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My role in the Scouting program as an adult is to be a positive male role model. I'm here to help young men learn to be good, male citizens. I prefer that the Boy Scouting program remain an organization for young men and boys.

 

By having a Co-ed Venturing program the BSA has given young women an opportunity to learn the values held by the organization.

 

I suspect that if troops became co-ed then I would find something else to do with my time. Same holds true for the Order of the Arrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Corps of Discovery is not a co-ed OA. It is a service society, not an honor society. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

As for Boys Scouts becoming co-ed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the United States one of the few countries where the Scouting program is not completly co-ed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deacon Lance and BDPT

 

Using your own philosophies about boy scouting then there should also be no women leaders allowed in the boy scouts or the OA, and yet there they are and getting more numerous every year. The boy scouts have changed the rules in these two instances why is the OA any different? Do you propose all women boy scout leaders and OA members should be removed?

 

Doesn't this really all boil down to an all or nothing scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×