Jump to content
John-in-KC

From National: Official Name

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I don't think Scouts will go fully co-ed, if as volunteers we can get girl Troops and Packs off to a strong start. 

I don't like to make predictions, but I have difficulty seeing how there are going to be very many all-girl packs.  While National is making it an option, it seems to me that they are really pushing the other option, mixed packs with all-girl dens.  The whole "early adopter" thing seems to have been built around all-girl dens in existing packs, not creating new packs that would be girl-only.  My guess is that that is going to carry over into the "regular adopter" process, and that of the packs that end up having female Cub Scouts, the large majority are going to be pre-existing packs that have added girl dens, rather than new all-girl packs.  Then when it comes time for those girls to cross over, it seems likely to me that most of the parents, leaders and girls are going to want to go for the "linked troop" concept - which is more likely than the freestanding all-girl troop to end up looking like one troop with single-gender patrols.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

*psst* Someone might point out that our country was also once founded on the idea that only white males mattered too but then we evolved.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible.

 

Ummm...Whut? Thanks for doing the research to invalidate your opinion on the matter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

There is no requirement under this new system that male and female "Scouts BSA" be in the same meeting at all times.  In fact there is no requirement that they EVER be in the same meeting - that's an option, not a requirement.  You can have that kind of talk with the boys alone (though personally I would add having respect for themselves as well), and the female SM or ASM of the female "linked troop" can have the talk with the girls about having respect for themselves, and boys and men.

I'm not concerned about my own troop. Our plan is to ignore it all. District or council events will be a different matter (which was also my concern about the last membership policy change).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJCubScouter said:

I don't like to make predictions, but I have difficulty seeing how there are going to be very many all-girl packs.  While National is making it an option, it seems to me that they are really pushing the other option, mixed packs with all-girl dens.  The whole "early adopter" thing seems to have been built around all-girl dens in existing packs, not creating new packs that would be girl-only.  My guess is that that is going to carry over into the "regular adopter" process, and that of the packs that end up having female Cub Scouts, the large majority are going to be pre-existing packs that have added girl dens, rather than new all-girl packs.  Then when it comes time for those girls to cross over, it seems likely to me that most of the parents, leaders and girls are going to want to go for the "linked troop" concept - which is more likely than the freestanding all-girl troop to end up looking like one troop with single-gender patrols.

Yes, but.... as volunteers we have influence over this, and we can say -- let's have an all girls troop -- and encourage that path rather than single gender patrols in a mixed troop path.  Sell it -- girls will flourish with other girls.   Plus, BSA wants girls Troops, not single gender mixed troop troops, so let's help them get there.  The best defense is a good offense??  Or the best offense is a good defense??   Eh, you know what I mean.  The parents are going to go to wherever the girls are welcomed.  So let's make some all girl Troops that have good foundations to build on.  Districts should get on this. 

Edited by WisconsinMomma
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

What misinformation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote.

-------------

If you can't vote, then you don't really matter.

Here is part of your original statement

"our country was also once founded on the idea that only white males mattered"

This is pure hogwash.  While I can accept the above as your opinion of the state of the founding of the country their are no facts to back it up.

As you say above the constitution did not say who was eligible to vote.  So if that's true your other statement is obviously  false.

If you had said male landowners then you might have a leg to stand on.  And it might also help to do a little research as to why before ascribing a fallacious reason

for said rules.

Share this post


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

 

"our country was also once founded on the idea that only white males mattered"

This is pure hogwash. ...

If you had said male landowners then you might have a leg to stand on. 

 

???

So you would have been OK if I stated this country was founded on the idea that only [white] male (landowners) mattered? You'd grant my position a leg to stand on if I simply had not stated white and had included landowners? You have no major complaint with "male?"

And in a thread that is discussing the exclusion of women?

Anyone else see that elephant run through here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Not disputing that the activities can be done by anyone of any gender.

At the risk of revealing myself as a not entirely serious person, and to add some levity to the debate: boys have a distinct advantage when it comes to writing their names in the snow...

Sorry.  It just popped into my warped mind.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Not disputing that the activities can be done by anyone of any gender.

That being said, the first sections of the older SM guides are clearly about boys, male youths.  The intent is to focus on the boys, and the program is interpreted and (at the time) designed for boys.  The discussion is about boys.

From the British - About the Boy Scouts Association - Royal Charter 1912

The aim of the Association is to develop good citizenship among boys by forming their character -- -training them in habits of observation, obedience, and self-reliance --- inculcating loyalty and thoughtfulness for others --- teaching them services useful to the public, and handicrafts useful to themselves --- promoting their physical, mental, and spiritual development.

From 1913 Scoutmaster Handbook - The ultimate Aim of Scouting

Aim to secure balanced, symmetrical activities for your patrols. Remember your Scout is four sided, that he is physical, mental, social and religious in his nature. Do not neglect any one side of him, but get the proper agencies to cooperate with you for these ends. Let the boys do what ever they can. Merely insist on adequate adult supervision. Above all be patient, practical and business like and remember that old heads never grow on young shoulders. The Scout Master should take his place in the community by the side of the teacher of secular and religious instruction. He is an educator and is dealing with the most plastic and most valuable asset in the community — boyhood. Let him take his task seriously, look upon his privilege with a desire to accomplish great things, and always remember that the good of the boys is his ultimate aim.

 

We're the Boy Scouts of America - we don't have a royal charter so what's the point of bringing it up?

As for the 1913 Scoutmaster handbook - my response is it doesn't matter what it says - the Scoutmaster Handbook has changed a number of times since 1913 - and it will change a number of times in the future.  A Scoutmaster Handbook from 1913 is irrelevant to 2018.  Like a physics or chemistry textbook from the 1960's, its now mostly just a window to the past - with many outdated concepts.  You can probably even find a more contemporary Scoutmaster(s) Handbook that uses the word Boy a lot - and it will be superseded and outdated when the BSA simply replaces Boy with Youth.  Society evolves - always has - there are things that were done 200 years ago that we would just not put up with anymore.  There are things that were done 105 years ago that we would just not put up with anymore.  Why should anyone be shocked if the BSA handbooks change to emphasis youth over boys?  If that instrument that many consider to be the infallible word of G-D can change (spelled that way out of respect for others) to change Thou Shalt Not Kill to You Will Not Murder, then by goodness, the Scoutmaster Handbook isn't exempt from being changed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 9:28 AM, SB_Eagle said:

You are completely out of line with this post.  Conservatives supported the right to vote for women and blacks amongst strong democratic opposition.  Democrats still only pretend to care about all women and minorities just so far as to gain votes, and as long as they don't have their own opinions against the party line.

This is about preserving a program dedicated to helping boys, and we have just told boys in the BSA that they are no longer a priority and that they are undeserving of their own program. 

You are confusing conservative with political parties - it was southern conservative democrats that opposed those rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalicoPenn said:

We're the Boy Scouts of America - we don't have a royal charter so what's the point of bringing it up?

As for the 1913 Scoutmaster handbook - my response is it doesn't matter what it says - the Scoutmaster Handbook has changed a number of times since 1913 - and it will change a number of times in the future.  A Scoutmaster Handbook from 1913 is irrelevant to 2018.  Like a physics or chemistry textbook from the 1960's, its now mostly just a window to the past - with many outdated concepts.  You can probably even find a more contemporary Scoutmaster(s) Handbook that uses the word Boy a lot - and it will be superseded and outdated when the BSA simply replaces Boy with Youth.  Society evolves - always has - there are things that were done 200 years ago that we would just not put up with anymore.  There are things that were done 105 years ago that we would just not put up with anymore.  Why should anyone be shocked if the BSA handbooks change to emphasis youth over boys?  If that instrument that many consider to be the infallible word of G-D can change (spelled that way out of respect for others) to change Thou Shalt Not Kill to You Will Not Murder, then by goodness, the Scoutmaster Handbook isn't exempt from being changed.

Correct we are the Boy Scouts of America, but as a point of historical fact the BSA grew out of association with the English Scouts.  If you are not cognizant and aware of the basic roots of the organization, then the shift of emphasis can be missed.

The point is that BSA and earlier the English scouts were founded and fostered to meet a need to work with and help develop boys into men who can be a positive asset to their community.  The leaders, movers and shakers, and people of influence saw that need.  They also saw a need for a similar organization for girls.

Now, yes society has changed.  The point is there is still that needed for an organization to work with and help develop boys into men who can be a positive asset to their community.  The current BSA has expanded their reach into many many things, not sure all of them are that focus.  The Girl Scouts (and they do have issues) at least continue to focus on their core mission.

Though you many want to, you are not able to rewrite or ignore history.  It it not 1984

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Correct we are the Boy Scouts of America, but as a point of historical fact the BSA grew out of association with the English Scouts.  If you are not cognizant and aware of the basic roots of the organization, then the shift of emphasis can be missed.

The point is that BSA and earlier the English scouts were founded and fostered to meet a need to work with and help develop boys into men who can be a positive asset to their community.  The leaders, movers and shakers, and people of influence saw that need.  They also saw a need for a similar organization for girls.

Now, yes society has changed.  The point is there is still that needed for an organization to work with and help develop boys into men who can be a positive asset to their community.  The current BSA has expanded their reach into many many things, not sure all of them are that focus.  The Girl Scouts (and they do have issues) at least continue to focus on their core mission.

Though you many want to, you are not able to rewrite or ignore history.  It it not 1984

 

And where do the English stand now on the subject of coed Scouting?  Not separate dens or patrols or linked troops, coed as in coed.  And @Cambridgeskip says they sometimes have boys and girls tenting together.  (!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

???

So you would have been OK if I stated this country was founded on the idea that only [white] male (landowners) mattered? You'd grant my position a leg to stand on if I simply had not stated white and had included landowners? You have no major complaint with "male?"

And in a thread that is discussing the exclusion of women?

Anyone else see that elephant run through here?

I was stating facts not the right or wrongness of it.   I also said to look up why it was that way.   You can look at it through a modern day lens and ignore the situation at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Correct we are the Boy Scouts of America, but as a point of historical fact the BSA grew out of association with the English Scouts.  If you are not cognizant and aware of the basic roots of the organization, then the shift of emphasis can be missed.

I still wonder the relevancy of a 1912 Royal Charter to an American organization founded in 1910.  

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

×