Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, EmberMike said:

I've been circling back through this thread and I think I've picked up on what I've been missing here. 

So the main issue is family camping. Not a new thing, but something that there is now concern will become more of a challenge to units that traditionally didn't do much (or any) family camping if the latest push for family-friendly activities at the cub level trickles up to the troop level. And even though the new push for being more family-friendly at the cub level doesn't officially extendup to the troop level, family camping (not Family Scouting) can be used to circumvent this and make troops water down their activities. Possibly even force a unit to change their whole activities plan for the year and incorporate more family-friendly trips. 

Is that an accurate summarization of your views on this?

My initial response was that Family Scouting (the official program) is capped at age 10, and so parents attempting to use that to push for more "family" activities at the troop level could just be referred to the Family Scouting documentation that basically says the Family Scouting program is over when your kids cross over to the troop, so don't bother trying to bring that stuff around here. My paraphrasing, of course.

I still stand by that assessment. If some parents want to see a family camping trip added to the calendar, sure, let's do it. But if they want to shift the balance to more heavily favor family camping throughout the year, that (to me) goes against the intent of the program and the very deliberate age limit expressed in the documentation about Family Scouting.

Obviously that isn't going to end the discussion for every parent who wants more family camping trips. But in some cases it will, maybe in a lot of cases. In units where parents push harder, I hope the will and intent of the scouts, leaders, and committee will ensure that the unit continues to operate in a way that matches their goals for the program and also fits with what I thnk is the BSA model for troop-level activities. 

You now have captured what I have been trying to convey (in red).

But you are wrong in that the "Family Scouting" program is capped. Even now the idea of coed patrols is being discussed by national. We don't know yet if coed patrols or even single-sex troops will be the end result. But let's say that national allows all options (single-sex troops, separate gender patrols but coed troops, and coed patrols in coed troops), you don't think those wanting "Family Scouting" will use this program (and the idea of family camping) to crowbar open a single-sex troop? Or even a separate gender but coed troop to being fully coed? 

Just look at how many things BSA has caved in on in the last five years. Single-sex troops will be the targets of all those groups looking to take down the last bastion of this formerly boy-only program. And yes, I think they will use all the tools at their disposal to further water down the program to make it what THEY want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

And yes, I think they will use all the tools at their disposal to further water down the program to make it what THEY want.

Completely agree. Parents pushing their own personal agenda to make the Troop tailor the program to suit their vision (NOT the troop vision) is a daily problem. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

But you are wrong in that the "Family Scouting" program is capped. Even now the idea of coed patrols is being discussed by national...

 

How does co-ed = "Family Scouting"? The two aren't mutually inclusive. Girls in a troop does not necessitate the whole family being involved. 

23 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Just look at how many things BSA has caved in on in the last five years. Single-sex troops will be the targets of all those groups looking to take down the last bastion of this formerly boy-only program. And yes, I think they will use all the tools at their disposal to further water down the program to make it what THEY want.

 

I love when people remind me that issues I fought for, issues I believed in and petitioned the BSA to address, along with thousands of other Scouters, that the result of all of that was really just that the BSA "caved in" to my agenda. This nefarious "THEY" is right here. People wearing the same uniform that you do. I'm not some outsider working to poison this program. We're all here because we love this thing. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

How does co-ed = "Family Scouting"? The two aren't mutually inclusive. Girls in a troop does not necessitate the whole family being involved. 

My point exactly. These are completely different things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

How does co-ed = "Family Scouting"? The two aren't mutually inclusive. Girls in a troop does not necessitate the whole family being involved. 

They are not mutually exclusive either. This is already happening. Families have been trying to water down Scouting for years. This is just another avenue for them to use. And when you look at how BSA has been marketing family this and family that, can "compelling" troops and crews to be more "family-friendly" really be un-thinkable? I can tell you from personal experience it is already happening.

10 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

I love when people remind me that issues I fought for, issues I believed in and petitioned the BSA to address, along with thousands of other Scouters, that the result of all of that was really just that the BSA "caved in" to my agenda. This nefarious "THEY" is right here. People wearing the same uniform that you do. I'm not some outsider working to poison this program. We're all here because we love this thing. 

And the majority of people in Scouting who didn't want the change are right here too. What makes your position any more correct than ours? We were working to keep BSA the way it was but you imply with your response that you hold the moral high ground. Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BSA is simply using the term Family Scouting in place of coed as they are attempting to keep some single gender aspects of the program intact. 

For example, in my.scouting.org if you go to Organization Manager and are the CC for a Pack, you can click on setting you will see a new section called “Family Scouting”.  That appears to be able to be set to is or is not available.  I believe they use this term instead of coed.  Again, as they want to say the family (both boy and girls) are invited to join.  I don’t see this as a strategic change to also include mom and dad earning ranks or going on all activities.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

They are not mutually exclusive either. This is already happening. Families have been trying to water down Scouting for years. This is just another avenue for them to use. And when you look at how BSA has been marketing family this and family that, can "compelling" troops and crews to be more "family-friendly" really be un-thinkable? I can tell you from personal experience it is already happening.

 

So you're arguing against a current policy change using an old issue that already existed to further your point. Understood. 

14 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

And the majority of people in Scouting who didn't want the change are right here too. What makes your position any more correct than ours? We were working to keep BSA the way it was but you imply with your response that you hold the moral high ground. Really?

 

I have yet to see the data saying that the majority of people scouting wanted one thing or another in any of these issues. You know as well as I do that those surveys are very questionable when it comes to being impartial and accurate. 

I'm not claiming any moral high ground, I said in the post you quoted that we're all in this because we love it. The difference between you and me is that I'll debate these issues with you and treat you as an equal while doing so. Meanwhile you treat anyone who disagrees with you as that nefarious "they", the agenda-weilding nusiance bent on destrying the BSA. 

Edited by EmberMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the surveys and policy changes, I think it is safe to say national doesn't care what we in the field think. The homosexual membership policies had slim majorities against the change, and they did it anyway. And let's not forget the Instapalm survey in 2015. 94% agreed or strongly agreed with keeping the 3 months tenure for palms, and national created instapalms anyway.

 

And if the surveys, which were IMHO deliberately limited to avoid a good sample AND had such biased questions that it was ridiculous, truly reflected the majority of members, Scouters, and family members supports girls joining the program, then why don't they publish the results?

 

Again the decision was made by national, and it was made prior to July 2017 as the newest membership applications remove the words boys when describing Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, you seem to be arguing that your position is the right one and how dare anyone denigrate what you've worked for.

All I a saying is that many here see what you supported as denigrating our work to keep things the way they were. So you can't call out someone for opposing what you worked for when you oppose what they were working for. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

Mike, you seem to be arguing that your position is the right one and how dare anyone denigrate what you've worked for.

All I a saying is that many here see what you supported as denigrating our work to keep things the way they were. So you can't call out someone for opposing what you worked for when you oppose what they were working for. 

I'm not saying that at all. Not even sure what I've said that could be interpreted that way. 

Nevertheless, let's move on. 

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

×