Jump to content
Jameson76

Concerns with coed rules, leadership, liability

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I think we're in a place where we need to figure out the best ways to work with the program.  The change is made, now we get to work on making the best of the situation. 

Unless of course, the ultimate answer is to change it back, because that was the best way to work the program.  A truly open mind would be tolerant and accepting of that as a possible outcome.  I still don't quite get why as a society, going back to something that worked, after something that sounded good failed, is so taboo.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gwaihir said:

Unless of course, the ultimate answer is to change it back, because that was the best way to work the program.  A truly open mind would be tolerant and accepting of that as a possible outcome.  I still don't quite get why as a society, going back to something that worked, after something that sounded good failed, is so taboo.  

Sorry while you were writing that me and another guy just disrupted your job. Must be a good thing because it is a new change. All change is good. Stability is boring. Tradition is boring*. Are we addicted to change? Yea...we can quit anytime we want!

(*tradition is great when it results in donations from misty eyed wealthy donors)

The funny thing is BSA is saying they want to stay traditional and co-coed and membership has been dropping. GSUSA has always been progressive and female only and membership is dropping. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STEM SCOUTS ARE JUST LIKE REGULAR SCOUTS

EVERYONE WANTS GIRLS

FAMILY CAMPING WILL NOT AFFECT BOY SCOUTS

TRADITIONAL SCOUTING WILL NOT CHANGE

Yeah all of this should work...no problem...

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

Sorry while you were writing that me and another guy just disrupted your job. Must be a good thing because it is a new change. All change is good. Stability is boring. Tradition is boring*. Are we addicted to change? Yea...we can quit anytime we want!

(*tradition is great when it results in donations from misty eyed wealthy donors)

The funny thing is BSA is saying they want to stay traditional and co-coed and membership has been dropping. GSUSA has always been progressive and female only and membership is dropping. 

I didn't say any and all change was bad, merely that change that is proven to be bad change, should logically result in going back to how it was working most successfully, not continually pushing forward bad change.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

Unless of course, the ultimate answer is to change it back, because that was the best way to work the program.  A truly open mind would be tolerant and accepting of that as a possible outcome.  I still don't quite get why as a society, going back to something that worked, after something that sounded good failed, is so taboo.  

It's possible but unlikely.  The girls might not show up.  That's going to be the most interesting thing to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

Unless of course, the ultimate answer is to change it back, because that was the best way to work the program.  A truly open mind would be tolerant and accepting of that as a possible outcome.  I still don't quite get why as a society, going back to something that worked, after something that sounded good failed, is so taboo.  

With the Scouting debacle of the 1970s, BSA membership dropped by more than 2 million boys. The bleeding had to stop, so the CSE was forced into early retirement, the Scout Handbook was rewritten, and almost all the experimental changes were reversed. It was a lesson learned at horrific cost. Sadly, some lessons need to be relearned.

Share this post


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

That's not what Family Scouting is. It's a specific program level, age 10 and under. At the troop level, "Family" is not a part of it. This is in the BSA Fact Sheet document on Family Scouting.

First question and answer on the "Family Scouting FAQ"...  https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Family-Scouting-FAQ.pdf

Family Scouting FAQ

Q: What decision did the BSA make regarding girls’ involvement in the organization? Starting in 2018, families can choose Cub Scouts for their sons and daughters, enabling them to take advantage of the life-changing experiences provided through Scouting. A program for older girls will be announced in 2018 with projected implementation in 2019 to deliver the Boy Scout program to girls, allowing for participating girls to earn the highest rank of Eagle. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WisconsinMomma said:

It's possible but unlikely.  The girls might not show up.  That's going to be the most interesting thing to watch.

Not my point... my point is, if the addition of 2% of girls results in the subtraction of 15% of boys (specifically because of the addition of the 2% of girls, rightly or wrongly)... does anyone have the bravery to tell the 2% of girls, co-ed scouting is ending in an attempt to get the 15% back, or do we just ride the bad decision train into oblivion?  

 

3 minutes ago, gblotter said:

With the Scouting debacle of the 1970s, BSA membership dropped by more than 2 million boys. The bleeding had to stop, so the CSE was forced into early retirement, the Scout Handbook was rewritten, and almost all the experimental changes were reversed. It was a lesson learned at horrific cost. Sadly, some lessons need to be relearned.

reversing those decisions meant change books, reversing this decision means telling some people they can't participate any longer.   big difference. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gwaihir said:

Not my point... my point is, if the addition of 2% of girls results in the subtraction of 15% of boys (specifically because of the addition of the 2% of girls, rightly or wrongly)... does anyone have the bravery to tell the 2% of girls, co-ed scouting is ending in an attempt to get the 15% back, or do we just ride the bad decision train into oblivion?  

 

Would you tell the 2% of girls to get lost?   How do you think that would work out for you and for the BSA? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

It's possible but unlikely.  The girls might not show up.  That's going to be the most interesting thing to watch.

And when/if the girls do not show up in the desired numbers, the geniuses at National will continue changing the program to make it more girl-friendly - because that is where Scouting's future lies. No matter the boys who will be driven away in the process.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WisconsinMomma said:

Would you tell the 2% of girls to get lost?   How do you think that would work out for you and for the BSA? 

before I answer, my train of thought is predicated on the yet to be clearly decided concept of "co-ed" troops.   It's certainly more difficult to do because national specifically steered clear of using words like "pilot" or "trial".  But yes, I would.  Would it work out well?  who knows, I didn't think Trump would win either, but here we are. 

 

conversely, telling the 15% of boys to get lost is ok?  Because that is what the policy change was saying to them (in this hypothetical scenario) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

I didn't say any and all change was bad, merely that change that is proven to be bad change, should logically result in going back to how it was working most successfully, not continually pushing forward bad change.  

 

I think the hard thing is proving that a change is a bad change.  Who decides what is good change and what is bad change and the measurement criteria?  There are a lot of opinions out there.   Since this change is just beginning, it's impossible to know yet if it will be "good" or "bad". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Would you tell the 2% of girls to get lost?   How do you think that would work out for you and for the BSA?

But the loss of boys is viewed as necessary collateral damage to accommodate new girls?

Edited by gblotter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I think the hard thing is proving that a change is a bad change.  Who decides what is good change and what is bad change and the measurement criteria?  There are a lot of opinions out there.   Since this change is just beginning, it's impossible to know yet if it will be "good" or "bad". 

I agree, we don't know yet, this is all thought exercise.  

I'd say membership dropping by a sizable percentage, maybe double+ of the annual trend in the next 2-4 years would be a good indicator of "bad change"  Unless removing boys from boy scouts is not considered bad change... 

Edited by Gwaihir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gwaihir said:

I didn't think Trump would win either, but here we are. 

conversely, telling the 15% of boys to get lost is ok?  Because that is what the policy change was saying to them (in this hypothetical scenario) 

I've heard a lot of the phrase, "not my President" and this has a similar feeling with some of the reactions -- "not my BSA"???  As if either group has much of a choice in the result.

I disagree on the interpretation of the message -- adding girl dens and troops does not equal telling the boys to get lost.   Though there may be some rogue troops doing coed, that's not what has been shared from national.

4 minutes ago, gblotter said:

But the loss of boys is viewed as necessary collateral damage to accommodate new girls?

No.

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

×