Jump to content
Jameson76

And yet more changes - even Pedro is not spared

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

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."

NJC was being a lawyer, and his point stands.  "BSA" means "Boy Scouts of America", which is the corporation, and under than corporation Venturing, Explorers, Sea Scouts and the ridiculous Learning for Life programs all exist and are co-ed.  You were referring to "Boy Scouts" the program, which the CSE has stated wouldn't be co-ed.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 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.

Unfortunately, the terminology not being straight is a direct reflection that National hasn't had their terminology straight from the get go.  Remember, it was going to be a "separate program" for girls.  Do I believe that what they were referring to was simply "separate troops"? Yes, in hindsight, fully I do believe that was their intent.  Did everyone read it that way? No, I feel the posting on these forums reflect that. 

 

8 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

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."

Again, knowing more now and looking back at these comments from the CSE, I'm finding myself looking to read between the lines.  "We're not mandating" now feels to me more like "we are not telling you you must, but we are not going to get in the way of".

  • 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.

Sorry, I have to disagree.  Regardless of anyone's feelings either way on the issue, by their very nature and setup, the 3 above requirements infer all-too-bluntly, that single parent or non-traditional families are inferior to those with both a mother and father.   For many (most?) families the role of Mother and Father are interchangeable. We won't even begin down the path of families with 2 mothers or fathers.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Unfortunately, the terminology not being straight is a direct reflection that National hasn't had their terminology straight from the get go.  Remember, it was going to be a "separate program" for girls.  Do I believe that what they were referring to was simply "separate troops"? Yes, in hindsight, fully I do believe that was their intent.  Did everyone read it that way? No, I feel the posting on these forums reflect that. 

 

Again, knowing more now and looking back at these comments from the CSE, I'm finding myself looking to read between the lines.  "We're not mandating" now feels to me more like "we are not telling you you must, but we are not going to get in the way of".

Only Lawyers and Politicians have to rev up a spin machine to interpret plain language.  If you're interpretation is correct, the word your looking for to describe the CSEs words is "dissemble."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

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."

 

2 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

NJC was being a lawyer, and his point stands.  "BSA" means "Boy Scouts of America", which is the corporation, and under than corporation Venturing, Explorers, Sea Scouts and the ridiculous Learning for Life programs all exist and are co-ed.  You were referring to "Boy Scouts" the program, which the CSE has stated wouldn't be co-ed.   

Gwaihir (who doesn't usually agree with me) correctly states what I meant.  But it does bring up a point that I should clarify, which is that when I said we all need to get our terminology straight, I was including National.  I have posted a number of times (maybe including in this thread) about various ways in which National was using vague and sometimes misleading terms, and sometimes using them in self-contradictory ways.  The prime example in my opinion is the phrase "Family Scouting," which I have posted about several times.  A close second is "linked troops."  They need to come out with a detailed set of guidelines as to how "linked troops" will relate to each other and how they won't, including the terminology to be used, so hopefully we who labor out here in the field can accurately relate the facts to others, and comply with the rules.  (Maybe they have, but I haven't seen it, and my troop may need it soon, as it seems that we (including our CO) probably will be "open" to the idea if someone asks us.)

2 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Unfortunately, the terminology not being straight is a direct reflection that National hasn't had their terminology straight from the get go.  Remember, it was going to be a "separate program" for girls.  Do I believe that what they were referring to was simply "separate troops"? Yes, in hindsight, fully I do believe that was their intent.  Did everyone read it that way? No, I feel the posting on these forums reflect that. 

...

Again, knowing more now and looking back at these comments from the CSE, I'm finding myself looking to read between the lines.  "We're not mandating" now feels to me more like "we are not telling you you must, but we are not going to get in the way of".

I want to NOT have to read between the lines, but who am I?  Just a random troop committee member.  You are correct that it was announced as a separate program, which at least implied that the new program would have a separate name.  It didn't happen that way, which I think is a big mistake.  But the numbers will tell, eventually.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Gwaihir (who doesn't usually agree with me) correctly states what I meant.  But it does bring up a point that I should clarify, which is that when I said we all need to get our terminology straight, I was including National.  I have posted a number of times (maybe including in this thread) about various ways in which National was using vague and sometimes misleading terms, and sometimes using them in self-contradictory ways.  The prime example in my opinion is the phrase "Family Scouting," which I have posted about several times.  A close second is "linked troops."  They need to come out with a detailed set of guidelines as to how "linked troops" will relate to each other and how they won't, including the terminology to be used, so hopefully we who labor out here in the field can accurately relate the facts to others, and comply with the rules.  (Maybe they have, but I haven't seen it, and my troop may need it soon, as it seems that we (including our CO) probably will be "open" to the idea if someone asks us.)

I want to NOT have to read between the lines, but who am I?  Just a random troop committee member.  You are correct that it was announced as a separate program, which at least implied that the new program would have a separate name.  It didn't happen that way, which I think is a big mistake.  But the numbers will tell, eventually.

I'm not so sure that they do need to come out with more specifics.

The BSA is basically providing us a program that we implement locally.  Perhaps it would just be better if the BSA let's us all sort it out locally.  Does it really matter if some particularly progressive people in one part of the country want to have closely linked troops whereas some very conservative people in another part do not want boys and girls to mix at all?  Doesn't that really give us all the freedom to run troops according to our own values?

I do understand that this won't sit well with those who want the BSA to stand for a particular moral position.  But, perhaps it's best for the BSA to simply provide a program for us and to stay above the fray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I'm not so sure that they do need to come out with more specifics.

The BSA is basically providing us a program that we implement locally.  Perhaps it would just be better if the BSA let's us all sort it out locally.  Does it really matter if some particularly progressive people in one part of the country want to have closely linked troops whereas some very conservative people in another part do not want boys and girls to mix at all?  Doesn't that really give us all the freedom to run troops according to our own values?

I do understand that this won't sit well with those who want the BSA to stand for a particular moral position.  But, perhaps it's best for the BSA to simply provide a program for us and to stay above the fray.

I think the BSA will have to force some direction somehow. I believe the membership changes will heavily burden the program with unexperienced adults who will require some hand holding to keep the program moving forward. The induction of female leaders around 1990 forced National to completely overhaul the training program for troops. This membership change is going to be a lot worse because all the parents will view themselves as leaders. Even the few adults with experience will be pushed hard to conform to demands.

Barry

Edited by Eagledad
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

Gwaihir (who doesn't usually agree with me)

but respect you a great deal. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I think the BSA will have to force some direction somehow. I believe the membership changes will heavily burden the program with unexperienced adults who will require some hand holding to keep the program moving forward. The induction of female leaders around 1990 forced the National to completely overhaul the training program for troops. This membership change is going to be a lot worse because all the parents will view themselves as leaders. Even the few adults with experience will be pushed hard to conform to demands.

Barry

UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As some may recall, my troop is dealing with some major helicopter parents whose only experience in Scouting is being a Cub Scout Den Leader, Cubmaster, or Committee Member. They have are exerting a lot of pressure to change, and in some instances are in fact winning because some of the other adults do not see a problem. They have caused the troop to change 2 scheduled camp outs to fundraisers, one of which was cancelled. They are bringing their Cub age children on camp outs, which is disruptive although they do not see it because they are not paying full attention ot their children, they are allowing their Scouts to sleep with them at nite instead of their patrols, and they have turned one camp out into a "family camp out." And because they do not want to follow BSA Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat, they keep emphasizing it is a family camp out, a parent/guardian must be in attendance, and it has nothing to do with Scouting. (an aside, any lawyers out there can PM me if they also consider this a major liability issue if an accident happens on this family trip). Now that BSA is prototing "Family Scouting, they see no problems with going full blown family camping, and see them further eroding the program. My sons have told me their breaking point: "linked troop" with girls at every meeting and on every camp out..

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you - but it strikes me that the BSA needs to focus on defining program mechanics.  Advancement, how patrols work, how to organize a camping trip, what you do on a camping trip, etc...  The program is the same for a boy troop, girl troop, linked troop, co-ed troop, whatever.  

@Eagle94-A1 - you need to promote yourself to Scoutmaster or CC.  The stuff going on in your troop is the result of troop leadership that isn't translating the program into operational decisions.  There's lots of materials defining how camping trips work.  This whole family camping thing is some marketing bullets.  Some new parents coming in and upending BSA program because they heard something about family camping is not correct.  Someone once told me "a Boy Scout troop is not a democracy, it's a benelovent dictatorship."  You encourage engagement from parents, but the CC ultimately needs to keep the adults pointed in the right direction.  If the CC isn't doing that, then the troop needs a new CC or you need to find a new troop.

Edited by ParkMan
Left of some key words
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CC is largely hand off. I know there is some history for it, but do not it. A MC and ASM who know the history want to keep it that way.

While I have looked at other troops, my sons are not interested at the moment in changing. Oldest is seeing the challenges of dealing with the adults and situation as a learning experience. However he did say if the situation gets to a point he cannot stand, he will transfer. Middle son just got elected PL, so he is being optimistic and trying to change from within. But he too said if he starts getting bored, he will go. Wife commented that she hopes they transfer before youngest crosses over in Dec- Jan.

Share this post


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

The BSA is basically providing us a program that we implement locally.  Perhaps it would just be better if the BSA let's us all sort it out locally.  Does it really matter if some particularly progressive people in one part of the country want to have closely linked troops whereas some very conservative people in another part do not want boys and girls to mix at all?  Doesn't that really give us all the freedom to run troops according to our own values?

That is fine with me, but if they do that, they should TELL us they are letting us sort it out troop by troop.  As opposed to having rules that they don't intend to enforce.  Actually, they are already doing part of it.  It is clear that a CO that does "not want boys and girls to mix at all" does not have to take a charter for a girl's troop at all, so there will be no girls.  If it is an area where everybody thinks girls should not in Scouts BSA, then there probably will not be any other organization that wants to be CO of a girls troop, either - and for the same reason, there may be little to no demand for one.

Where the BSA is NOT being clear (as far as I know) is the degree of "closeness" (or joint activities) between the two units that is expected and/or permitted.  That is what we need to know.  If we are supposed to figure it out for ourselves, I want to see a memo or something from National that says "figure it out for yourselves."  I think most people want to follow the rules, but we need to know what the rules are.

Edited by NJCubScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

CC is largely hand off. I know there is some history for it, but do not it. A MC and ASM who know the history want to keep it that way.

While I have looked at other troops, my sons are not interested at the moment in changing. Oldest is seeing the challenges of dealing with the adults and situation as a learning experience. However he did say if the situation gets to a point he cannot stand, he will transfer. Middle son just got elected PL, so he is being optimistic and trying to change from within. But he too said if he starts getting bored, he will go. Wife commented that she hopes they transfer before youngest crosses over in Dec- Jan.

Vice-chair? :)

I'm not surprised that the new adults are running over the SM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

CC is largely hand off. I know there is some history for it, but do not it. A MC and ASM who know the history want to keep it that way.

While I have looked at other troops, my sons are not interested at the moment in changing. Oldest is seeing the challenges of dealing with the adults and situation as a learning experience. However he did say if the situation gets to a point he cannot stand, he will transfer. Middle son just got elected PL, so he is being optimistic and trying to change from within. But he too said if he starts getting bored, he will go. Wife commented that she hopes they transfer before youngest crosses over in Dec- Jan.

Would this be a situation in which the district could provide some assistance? I have no idea and am just asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Would this be a situation in which the district could provide some assistance? I have no idea and am just asking.

No as it is "a unit matter." If we had a commissioner corps, all of them save two left when the membership policies changed, that might be able to give some help. But professionally it is a unit responsibility. Only person who can fix the situation is the IH.

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

×