Is today's scouting too prissy?

[Basementdweller 608]

Well, ok, I'm enjoying the context of the discussion very much. It's rare to get in deep philosophical and intelectual discussions on this forum because emotions tend to take over. Brewmeister's post is profound to me because it says the issue isn't about tradition and trying to get back to the old ways, it's about understanding why some of the old ways worked. At the root, boys of today are the same of boys of yesterday and we need to understand what makes them tick to understand why the program is more prissy (sissy) or not. I do appreciate Kudus part of the discussion, but sometimes quotes without reasoning just aren't enough. Because of the challenges of WWII, my dad was not only an Eagle, but also a teenage Scoutmaster of his troop back in the early 40's. Through him I can learn what actual scouting was like at least that far back. When I ask him about hiking 14 miles for 1st class, well he laughed. Mind you my dad's troop rarely used vehicles to go camping because of the cost of fuel, they met at the church and hike out of town to their camp site. So it's not like they didn't hike. They were literly a back packing troop. I have a lot of respect for Kudu's vision of scouting and mean no disrepect, but how far back do we have to go to not be prissy or sissy? How far do our sons have to hike alone in the woods over night to prove themselves? As Brewmeister says "We go camping because it is the most useful way of achieving the aims of Scouting". Everything else is just clutter that slows down or even stops that process. I really think that is what Kudu is also trying to say. I would love to ask more questions, but my pragmatic nature sometimes pushes discussions off the edge. So I will just watch and enjoy. Barry

Lots of boys....

 

Many so buried in the World of War Craft or Black ops they for sake real adventure and friends for virtual ones. They lack the stomach for physical discomfort and stress of being outdoors.

[Kudu 186]

Well, ok, I'm enjoying the context of the discussion very much. It's rare to get in deep philosophical and intelectual discussions on this forum because emotions tend to take over. Brewmeister's post is profound to me because it says the issue isn't about tradition and trying to get back to the old ways, it's about understanding why some of the old ways worked. At the root, boys of today are the same of boys of yesterday and we need to understand what makes them tick to understand why the program is more prissy (sissy) or not. I do appreciate Kudus part of the discussion, but sometimes quotes without reasoning just aren't enough. Because of the challenges of WWII, my dad was not only an Eagle, but also a teenage Scoutmaster of his troop back in the early 40's. Through him I can learn what actual scouting was like at least that far back. When I ask him about hiking 14 miles for 1st class, well he laughed. Mind you my dad's troop rarely used vehicles to go camping because of the cost of fuel, they met at the church and hike out of town to their camp site. So it's not like they didn't hike. They were literly a back packing troop. I have a lot of respect for Kudu's vision of scouting and mean no disrepect, but how far back do we have to go to not be prissy or sissy? How far do our sons have to hike alone in the woods over night to prove themselves? As Brewmeister says "We go camping because it is the most useful way of achieving the aims of Scouting". Everything else is just clutter that slows down or even stops that process. I really think that is what Kudu is also trying to say. I would love to ask more questions, but my pragmatic nature sometimes pushes discussions off the edge. So I will just watch and enjoy. Barry

You don't understand peer pressure.

 

If you actually stand in front of an audience of skeptical sixth-graders and present Scouting as the adventure of June 15, 1916 (knives, matches, rattlesnakes, and bears), 70-80% of them will, in front of their peers, sign a list asking you to call their parents so they can be a Boy Scout.

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting_boy_scouts_public_schools.htm

 

That 70-80% does NOT include the Cub Scout survivors in the audience that are ALREADY Boy Scouts. 2%? 5?

[Basementdweller 608]

Well, ok, I'm enjoying the context of the discussion very much. It's rare to get in deep philosophical and intelectual discussions on this forum because emotions tend to take over. Brewmeister's post is profound to me because it says the issue isn't about tradition and trying to get back to the old ways, it's about understanding why some of the old ways worked. At the root, boys of today are the same of boys of yesterday and we need to understand what makes them tick to understand why the program is more prissy (sissy) or not. I do appreciate Kudus part of the discussion, but sometimes quotes without reasoning just aren't enough. Because of the challenges of WWII, my dad was not only an Eagle, but also a teenage Scoutmaster of his troop back in the early 40's. Through him I can learn what actual scouting was like at least that far back. When I ask him about hiking 14 miles for 1st class, well he laughed. Mind you my dad's troop rarely used vehicles to go camping because of the cost of fuel, they met at the church and hike out of town to their camp site. So it's not like they didn't hike. They were literly a back packing troop. I have a lot of respect for Kudu's vision of scouting and mean no disrepect, but how far back do we have to go to not be prissy or sissy? How far do our sons have to hike alone in the woods over night to prove themselves? As Brewmeister says "We go camping because it is the most useful way of achieving the aims of Scouting". Everything else is just clutter that slows down or even stops that process. I really think that is what Kudu is also trying to say. I would love to ask more questions, but my pragmatic nature sometimes pushes discussions off the edge. So I will just watch and enjoy. Barry

Sure I do,

 

While standing at the open house night, with Backpacks and tents, some rappelling helmets and crap for show.......Pictures of them shooting rifles and shotguns....

 

I can't tell you how many times a boy would stop to look and his friends would pull him a long and say scouting is for pussys or it is gay and for whimps.

 

Yep I understand peer pressure

[Kudu 186]

how far back do we have to go to not be prissy?

 

Answer: June 15, 1916

 

The Boy Scouts of America agreed to that standard because the 1916 program (as defined by the advancement requirements) is a timeless, perfectly reasonable 21st century "core program" standard of Scoutcraft:

 

http://inquiry.net/advancement/tf-1st_require_1911.htm

 

Given modern lightweight equipment and the invention of the backpack waist strap, our nation's legal definition of Scouting is far easier to meet now than it was in 1916.

 

"Prissy" is a polite euphemism for the term used by tens of millions of boys who have quit (or would never join a Cub Scout program for teens).

 

How far do our sons have to hike alone in the woods over night to prove themselves?

 

Answer: 14 miles

 

To prove themselves equal to the international standard of a First Class Scout.

 

Star (Scout Cord) is a similar two day, one night Journey

 

Life (Bushman's Cord) requires a Journey of at least 20 miles on foot or by boat, with not more than 3 other Scouts.

 

Eagle (King's Scout) requires the Scout to lead an "Expedition" of not more than 5 other Scouts at least 50 miles in wild country by land or water, with 3 nights spent at different campsites, or by horse back at least 200 miles in wild country.

 

http://inquiry.net/advancement/traditional/journey_requirements.htm

 

What red-blooded American boy would not prefer to "prove" his leadership skills in such an outdoor-specific program?

[Kudu 186]

Well, ok, I'm enjoying the context of the discussion very much. It's rare to get in deep philosophical and intelectual discussions on this forum because emotions tend to take over. Brewmeister's post is profound to me because it says the issue isn't about tradition and trying to get back to the old ways, it's about understanding why some of the old ways worked. At the root, boys of today are the same of boys of yesterday and we need to understand what makes them tick to understand why the program is more prissy (sissy) or not. I do appreciate Kudus part of the discussion, but sometimes quotes without reasoning just aren't enough. Because of the challenges of WWII, my dad was not only an Eagle, but also a teenage Scoutmaster of his troop back in the early 40's. Through him I can learn what actual scouting was like at least that far back. When I ask him about hiking 14 miles for 1st class, well he laughed. Mind you my dad's troop rarely used vehicles to go camping because of the cost of fuel, they met at the church and hike out of town to their camp site. So it's not like they didn't hike. They were literly a back packing troop. I have a lot of respect for Kudu's vision of scouting and mean no disrepect, but how far back do we have to go to not be prissy or sissy? How far do our sons have to hike alone in the woods over night to prove themselves? As Brewmeister says "We go camping because it is the most useful way of achieving the aims of Scouting". Everything else is just clutter that slows down or even stops that process. I really think that is what Kudu is also trying to say. I would love to ask more questions, but my pragmatic nature sometimes pushes discussions off the edge. So I will just watch and enjoy. Barry

Our experience of peer pressure is PASSIVE when we sell retail rather than wholesale (an auditorium at a time).

 

"his friends would pull him a long and say scouting is for pussys or it is gay and for whimps"

 

The point of this thread is that his friends are correct.

 

When I give my recruiting presentation, a couple such "hooligans" always sit in the first row and say the same kind of things as we wait for the auditorium to fill. They tell truth to power. Those are my future Patrol Leaders.

 

"One of our methods in the Scout movement for taming a hooligan is to appoint him head of a Patrol. He has all the necessary initiative, the spirit and the magnetism for leadership, and when responsibility is thus put upon him it gives him the outlet he needs for his exuberance of activity, but gives it in a right direction."

 

--Baden-Powell http://inquiry.net/patrol/index.htm

 

Scientific Method: Anyone can walk away with the signatures of 80% of sixth-grade boys by thinking like a sixth-grader and using ACTIVE peer pressure:

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm

 

The enemy of Scouting is not the virtual adventure of World of War Craft or Black Ops.

 

The enemy of Scouting is the ADULT peer-pressure of Leadership Development; Schoolwork Merit Badges; Position of Responsibility requirements; Scout Spirit requirements; Scoutmaster Conferences; Boards of Review; Eagle Projects; a Cub-Scout "Controlled Failure" Outdoor Program for Teens, and all the other anti-Baden-Powell things that boys hate, have always hated, and will continue to hate until the end of time.

[Basementdweller 608]

Well, ok, I'm enjoying the context of the discussion very much. It's rare to get in deep philosophical and intelectual discussions on this forum because emotions tend to take over. Brewmeister's post is profound to me because it says the issue isn't about tradition and trying to get back to the old ways, it's about understanding why some of the old ways worked. At the root, boys of today are the same of boys of yesterday and we need to understand what makes them tick to understand why the program is more prissy (sissy) or not. I do appreciate Kudus part of the discussion, but sometimes quotes without reasoning just aren't enough. Because of the challenges of WWII, my dad was not only an Eagle, but also a teenage Scoutmaster of his troop back in the early 40's. Through him I can learn what actual scouting was like at least that far back. When I ask him about hiking 14 miles for 1st class, well he laughed. Mind you my dad's troop rarely used vehicles to go camping because of the cost of fuel, they met at the church and hike out of town to their camp site. So it's not like they didn't hike. They were literly a back packing troop. I have a lot of respect for Kudu's vision of scouting and mean no disrepect, but how far back do we have to go to not be prissy or sissy? How far do our sons have to hike alone in the woods over night to prove themselves? As Brewmeister says "We go camping because it is the most useful way of achieving the aims of Scouting". Everything else is just clutter that slows down or even stops that process. I really think that is what Kudu is also trying to say. I would love to ask more questions, but my pragmatic nature sometimes pushes discussions off the edge. So I will just watch and enjoy. Barry

It is all irrelevant anyhow,

 

You said you can't get access to a school auditorium, I have been told no as well.

 

If I can get them to a meeting I can get them to join.

[Kudu 186]

Well, ok, I'm enjoying the context of the discussion very much. It's rare to get in deep philosophical and intelectual discussions on this forum because emotions tend to take over. Brewmeister's post is profound to me because it says the issue isn't about tradition and trying to get back to the old ways, it's about understanding why some of the old ways worked. At the root, boys of today are the same of boys of yesterday and we need to understand what makes them tick to understand why the program is more prissy (sissy) or not. I do appreciate Kudus part of the discussion, but sometimes quotes without reasoning just aren't enough. Because of the challenges of WWII, my dad was not only an Eagle, but also a teenage Scoutmaster of his troop back in the early 40's. Through him I can learn what actual scouting was like at least that far back. When I ask him about hiking 14 miles for 1st class, well he laughed. Mind you my dad's troop rarely used vehicles to go camping because of the cost of fuel, they met at the church and hike out of town to their camp site. So it's not like they didn't hike. They were literly a back packing troop. I have a lot of respect for Kudu's vision of scouting and mean no disrepect, but how far back do we have to go to not be prissy or sissy? How far do our sons have to hike alone in the woods over night to prove themselves? As Brewmeister says "We go camping because it is the most useful way of achieving the aims of Scouting". Everything else is just clutter that slows down or even stops that process. I really think that is what Kudu is also trying to say. I would love to ask more questions, but my pragmatic nature sometimes pushes discussions off the edge. So I will just watch and enjoy. Barry

A potential 80% market-share is irrelevant? In that you share common ground with Wood Badge!

[Basementdweller 608]

Well, ok, I'm enjoying the context of the discussion very much. It's rare to get in deep philosophical and intelectual discussions on this forum because emotions tend to take over. Brewmeister's post is profound to me because it says the issue isn't about tradition and trying to get back to the old ways, it's about understanding why some of the old ways worked. At the root, boys of today are the same of boys of yesterday and we need to understand what makes them tick to understand why the program is more prissy (sissy) or not. I do appreciate Kudus part of the discussion, but sometimes quotes without reasoning just aren't enough. Because of the challenges of WWII, my dad was not only an Eagle, but also a teenage Scoutmaster of his troop back in the early 40's. Through him I can learn what actual scouting was like at least that far back. When I ask him about hiking 14 miles for 1st class, well he laughed. Mind you my dad's troop rarely used vehicles to go camping because of the cost of fuel, they met at the church and hike out of town to their camp site. So it's not like they didn't hike. They were literly a back packing troop. I have a lot of respect for Kudu's vision of scouting and mean no disrepect, but how far back do we have to go to not be prissy or sissy? How far do our sons have to hike alone in the woods over night to prove themselves? As Brewmeister says "We go camping because it is the most useful way of achieving the aims of Scouting". Everything else is just clutter that slows down or even stops that process. I really think that is what Kudu is also trying to say. I would love to ask more questions, but my pragmatic nature sometimes pushes discussions off the edge. So I will just watch and enjoy. Barry

It is irrelevant, Because like you I am not permited that kind of access. I would never be permited to hold a recruiting assembly in the middle of the day in a middle school.

 

I am permitted to put up a table at open house, curriculum and dance nights.

 

So while your grand presentation from your website is great and effective, Locally it is no longer permitted.

[Kudu 186]

Well, ok, I'm enjoying the context of the discussion very much. It's rare to get in deep philosophical and intelectual discussions on this forum because emotions tend to take over. Brewmeister's post is profound to me because it says the issue isn't about tradition and trying to get back to the old ways, it's about understanding why some of the old ways worked. At the root, boys of today are the same of boys of yesterday and we need to understand what makes them tick to understand why the program is more prissy (sissy) or not. I do appreciate Kudus part of the discussion, but sometimes quotes without reasoning just aren't enough. Because of the challenges of WWII, my dad was not only an Eagle, but also a teenage Scoutmaster of his troop back in the early 40's. Through him I can learn what actual scouting was like at least that far back. When I ask him about hiking 14 miles for 1st class, well he laughed. Mind you my dad's troop rarely used vehicles to go camping because of the cost of fuel, they met at the church and hike out of town to their camp site. So it's not like they didn't hike. They were literly a back packing troop. I have a lot of respect for Kudu's vision of scouting and mean no disrepect, but how far back do we have to go to not be prissy or sissy? How far do our sons have to hike alone in the woods over night to prove themselves? As Brewmeister says "We go camping because it is the most useful way of achieving the aims of Scouting". Everything else is just clutter that slows down or even stops that process. I really think that is what Kudu is also trying to say. I would love to ask more questions, but my pragmatic nature sometimes pushes discussions off the edge. So I will just watch and enjoy. Barry

I was told the same thing up north: Policy forbids recruitment during school hours. One of my hooligans knew that the vice principal in charge of detention was a Scoutmaster, and he (the hooligan) arranged the recruiting assemblies "in the middle of the day in a middle school" that I describe. When I left, the new Eagle Scoutmaster made excuses for not recruiting, as do 99% of all the Scoutmasters reading this sentence.

 

When I moved here the DE did the school hours presentations. When he moved people told me the policy had changed, but a couple days ago our feeder Pack's Cubmaster told me the local schools allow him to recruit on their morning shows. I didn't know that. I substitute for a gym teacher that needs an Eagle Project done for his school, if I was a Scoutmaster I would follow up on that. I would also look for private schools, university "laboratory" schools, as well as public school administers involved in Scouting.

 

Seek Logic: The fact that it is irrelevant to you that 80% of sixth-grade boys can get just as excited about outdoor adventure as sixth-graders did on June 15, 1916, does NOT in turn prove your assertion that they don't join because of the competition of World of War Craft or Black Ops, because "they lack the stomach for physical discomfort and stress of being outdoors," or because their friends point out that the prissy program promoted by our Chief Scout Executive is "for pussys, or it is gay and for whimps."

[Basementdweller 608]

Scout son's OA lodge had it's fall ordeal weekend, picked up scout son from it late yesterday afternoon. This was the first ordeal weekend he staffed and he was an assistant supervisor on a work crew.

 

On the return trip he said that by breakfast saturday morning 3 boys were homesick and had to leave, by lunch 2 more left and by dinner 5 left. Really 10 boys out of 60 or so candidates had to leave because they were home sick.

 

Did I miss something?

 

These guys are supposed to be honor campers, the cream of BSA's crop. So explain to me exactly how they got their nights camping in????? or did they?????

 

 

I don't think the BSA has become prissy, It is society......and the type of boys who are now active in the BSA. a couple of years ago, the first time we took the new crossovers on a camping trip, had a mom and son in tears in the parking lot as we were trying to leave......Scout hid in his tent the second it was up and mom found us Saturday morning and took the boy home.......She even came with mcdonalds for him to eat so he wouldn't be hungry......Well we never saw him again.

 

 

Seriously homesick overnight??????

[JoeBob 606]

Scout son's OA lodge had it's fall ordeal weekend, picked up scout son from it late yesterday afternoon. This was the first ordeal weekend he staffed and he was an assistant supervisor on a work crew.

 

On the return trip he said that by breakfast saturday morning 3 boys were homesick and had to leave, by lunch 2 more left and by dinner 5 left. Really 10 boys out of 60 or so candidates had to leave because they were home sick.

 

Did I miss something?

 

These guys are supposed to be honor campers, the cream of BSA's crop. So explain to me exactly how they got their nights camping in????? or did they?????

 

 

I don't think the BSA has become prissy, It is society......and the type of boys who are now active in the BSA. a couple of years ago, the first time we took the new crossovers on a camping trip, had a mom and son in tears in the parking lot as we were trying to leave......Scout hid in his tent the second it was up and mom found us Saturday morning and took the boy home.......She even came with mcdonalds for him to eat so he wouldn't be hungry......Well we never saw him again.

 

 

Seriously homesick overnight??????

BD - You're right. Now we have to figure out what to do with about it.

 

As SM, I'm being pulled in different directions.

1- "Toughen 'em up!" Run an old-fashioned scouting program that challenges boys who are willing to stick it out.

2- Coddle the boys with enough screen time and car-camping to keep my enrollment up. And the city-dwelling adults off my back.

 

Every day is a compromise, but I'm weary of the right choice always being the hardest.

[Eagledad 2778]

Yes, my first ordel as an adult in 1995 was quite a shock. Compared to the Ordeals of the 60s and 70s, I am now ashamed of the OA. For those who don't understand, some of the requirements differences are that OA candidates in the 70s had to be at least 14 years old and only two scouts could be elected by their peers from each troop. Eleven year olds can go now and a troop can send all their scouts if they want. As a result, most scouts going to Ordeal have less than a year experience. Hardly enough time to earn the honor of honor camper. I don't know when OA changed the requirments, but I'm sure the pressure to change was a reflection of our culture. Barry

[perdidochas 658]

Scout son's OA lodge had it's fall ordeal weekend, picked up scout son from it late yesterday afternoon. This was the first ordeal weekend he staffed and he was an assistant supervisor on a work crew.

 

On the return trip he said that by breakfast saturday morning 3 boys were homesick and had to leave, by lunch 2 more left and by dinner 5 left. Really 10 boys out of 60 or so candidates had to leave because they were home sick.

 

Did I miss something?

 

These guys are supposed to be honor campers, the cream of BSA's crop. So explain to me exactly how they got their nights camping in????? or did they?????

 

 

I don't think the BSA has become prissy, It is society......and the type of boys who are now active in the BSA. a couple of years ago, the first time we took the new crossovers on a camping trip, had a mom and son in tears in the parking lot as we were trying to leave......Scout hid in his tent the second it was up and mom found us Saturday morning and took the boy home.......She even came with mcdonalds for him to eat so he wouldn't be hungry......Well we never saw him again.

 

 

Seriously homesick overnight??????

 

That's unbelievable. My boys were homesick their first (and second for the oldest, sympathy for homesick younger brother), but they never contemplated going home for that. By the time they did their Ordeal, homesickness was unthinkable.

 

I do agree that our society is producing prissier people, and it's most noticeable in Scout aged boys. When I was WDL, I had several boys that didn't crossover because they (and their mothers) didn't think they could take camping without their mother. I think the boy was lazy (Mom did everything on the Family/Webelos camps we did), and the Mom overprotective. Had others that did crossover that didn't last long--two or three campouts. IMHO, your son's OA lodge was lucky that those 10 boys didn't finish the Ordeal. They weren't mature enough to be in the OA.

 

[Basementdweller 608]

The OA thing is a failure of the Scoutmaster......You have got to know your boys. You know who is ready or not. Who can pitch a tent and follow directions.

 

But I remember Krampus and his parents saying that his opinion that a boys wasn't ready wasn't good enough. There had to be a rule in writing somewhere.....

[Eagledad 2778]

The OA thing is a failure of the Scoutmaster......You have got to know your boys. You know who is ready or not. Who can pitch a tent and follow directions.

 

But I remember Krampus and his parents saying that his opinion that a boys wasn't ready wasn't good enough. There had to be a rule in writing somewhere.....

I disagree, almost 1/2 of the SMs never had a scouting experience, they don't know what honor camping is. And, OA pushes really hard for troops to send as many scouts as they can, at least around here. Barry