Jump to content
Jameson76

And yet more changes - even Pedro is not spared

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, FireStone said:

Changing the name of a magazine doesn't change the way we teach kids, in single-gender groups or otherwise. Nor does changing the name of a program.

He didn't lie. The original plan, what he spoke of, was single-gender Dens and/or single-gender Packs, and single-gender Troops. That's what we're going ahead with, still teaching kids in gender-specific groups. There was no "lying". 

So your implication that the Scout Law is "nonchalantly disregarded" by me or anyone else is, as you like to say, "trash." 

We have mixed dens now,   we have mixed troops now.  not some where in the future, not in a few years,  now.   Only a few but no one doubts that there  are going to be more and more of them until they are the norm.

If you really think that our CEO will be surprised by this,  I have a bridge to sell you.  No checks please, cash and in small bills 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Oldscout448 said:

We have mixed dens now,   we have mixed troops now.  not some where in the future, not in a few years,  now.   Only a few but no one doubts that there  are going to be more and more of them until they are the norm.

If you really think that our CEO will be surprised by this,  I have a bridge to sell you.  No checks please, cash and in small bills 

Where are there mixed troops now?

So we should call our CSE a liar because at the local unit level some people are going against the design of the program as it pertains to gender? 

Edited by FireStone
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic: Putting the pieces together, page 4: Bearess said:

"Well, my son’s Troop (in a rural but very liberal state) already has mixed patrols.  They currently have six girls, out of a troop of thirty. "

Did you forget?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FireStone said:

Where are there mixed troops now?

So we should call our CSE a liar because at the local unit level some people are going against the design of the program as it pertains to gender? 

This :rolleyes:. For 4 decades (5, if you count the rallying cries of agism and theism), the Moral Majority was using BSA as a social action cudgel. Therefore, there remains an expectation that national would reach out and pull the charter of a rogue troop. The opposite has happened, and that certainly can feel like a betrayal.

On the other hand, decades rife with gestures of scouters on one side of the country banning classes of scouters (and scouts) on the other side of the country was a form of slow betrayal of it's own.

Here on Lake Erie, retaining walls have buttressed bluffs against the property loss of owners who wanted an unobstructed view of the shore. It's sort of worked. Their cliff's have stopped eroding away. The beautiful homes - built up from fishing shanties, are preserved. But annual deposits of sand from seasonal run-off is gone. The beaches are eroded. And with the lake levels up, the assault on the concrete bases has begun. "Something there is that doesn't love a wall. That wants it down."

I guess it boils down to where we want the sands of our nation's youth: retained behind walls, or spaning a vast beach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow qwazse, that’s pretty deep. You never posted anything I didn’t enjoy reading (oh ya, there was Eagle thing, wasn’t there?), but I need some time with this one. Ok, Lake Erie, buttressed bluffs, and obstructed views. I’m sure those are key. Thinking...thinking...🤔

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, JoeBob said:

Topic: Putting the pieces together, page 4: Bearess said:

"Well, my son’s Troop (in a rural but very liberal state) already has mixed patrols.  They currently have six girls, out of a troop of thirty. "

Did you forget?

Apparently I did, but that wasn't what I had in mind. Or at least I should have phrased my response differently to clarify.

Rogue units jumping the gun or going against the program policies don't make the CSE a liar, which was the implication I was replying to. 

Edited by FireStone
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 7:14 AM, walk in the woods said:

Actually the CSE very specifically said, on multiple occasions, the BSA is not going co-ed.  Are you saying the CSE lied to us? 😱

I’ll bet you a dollar he never said “the BSA” is not going coed.  The BSA has been coed for 45 years.  In this time where program names are being changed, it’s especially important to get our terminology straight.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 4:32 PM, carebear3895 said:

Add a "girls life" if you wanted to be inclusive. 

That already exists, and it’s not from GSUSA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls'_Life_(magazine)

 

I’m fine with Scouts’ Life. It shows that it’s a unified program. All the content is already applicable to both genders. No need to reinvent the wheel.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 12:17 AM, The Latin Scot said:

I think it would be far more instructive if there were three parts to the requirement.

a. Explain the role and importance of the Father in the family.

b. Explain the role and importance of the Mother in the family.

c.Explain how they are different, and how both together contribute to building stronger family ties.

Whether the Scout is a boy or a girl, from a healthy family or a broken home, these questions are important, and will help develop stronger families in the future as the Scouts learn to understand the vital nature of each parental role in their families, whether present or future.

I'm on board with this approach

Share this post


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

I'm on board with this approach

I would be too.

Would be interesting to see if they'd go that far.  That's a pretty controversial topic these days.  I get the distinct imoression that the current leadership team doesn't want to be that involved in these kinds of social controversies anymore.

I get the sense that they just want to focus on program delivery and not so much what the program content implies.  They seem happy to leave it to us to decide the moral issues locally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't using the name pedro racist?

I hesitate making that joke, but it came to mind.  I see that reference so often to things like this....sports teams and the like... when that really isn't the definition of racism at all, using a name to revere something.  Even using it to make fun or whatever.... it in no way communicates any thought of feeling that one race is superior in any way to another.....so It is simply not racist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I get the sense National just wants girls to join, wants their parents to join, and wants the parents’ money—and is not too concerned about pesky details like Program requirements.

Now details like selling pink “Scout” t-shirts, new neckerchiefs and revamping a magazine? That’s a different story. National is all over brand management.

Edited by an_old_DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

I’ll bet you a dollar he never said “the BSA” is not going coed.  The BSA has been coed for 45 years.  In this time where program names are being changed, it’s especially important to get our terminology straight.

The video on the front page of the Family Scouting website, about the 8:15 mark, "We're not mandating that scouting becomes co-ed."

  • Upvote 1

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

×