Jump to content
Jameson76

And yet more changes - even Pedro is not spared

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, blw2 said:

...and no, in a healthy family the roles are most definitely not interchangeable.  I don't mean that in the ways that there are women's jobs and men's jobs.....  I do the dishes most of the time in my family which is a traditionally "women's job" & I'm a dad.  No, men and women are inherently different and both of those very different roles are healthy for kids...IMO

I guess I just don't understand.

Please explain to me what in fact is the role of the father...what is the role of the mother?  

To me those roles are exactly the same: love, nurture, educate and discipline as needed.  None of those are unique to either a mother or father, nor are they specific to a certain sex when a one parent of a same-sex couple "assumes" the role of the opposite sex parent.  In a traditional family, a mother and father may approach those tasks in different fashions, just like I would approach it differently than other dads out there.  Doesn't mean one of us isn't fulfilling our role in the family.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blw2 said:

 

Well aren't they inferior?

 

Absolutely not.  To even think that one family is inferior than another is beyond the pale.

I'm sure there's things that everybody wishes were different about their family or life (inlaws anyone?), but to feel that because of how life works out somehow makes it inferior is quite alarming.

To extend your argument about it being more difficult for single parent families, would a traditional middle-class family be inferior to one in the upper class? After all it's more difficult to raise kids on your own without the help of a nanny.  Difficulty does not equal inferiority.  Some may even argue the opposite.

Edited by Pale Horse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was growing up, we had several TV shows that dealt with children growing up with one parent. On Spin and Marty and Lassie, the fathers had died in WWII. On Julia, the father had died in Viet Nam. On Bonanza, High Chaparral, Andy Griffith Show, and My Three Sons, it was the mothers who had died (from various causes).

They didn't present single parenthood as an ideal situation, it was just a fact of life. These things happen.

 

Edited by David CO
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Pale Horse said:

I guess I just don't understand.

Please explain to me what in fact is the role of the father...what is the role of the mother?  

To me those roles are exactly the same: love, nurture, educate and discipline as needed.  None of those are unique to either a mother or father, nor are they specific to a certain sex when a one parent of a same-sex couple "assumes" the role of the opposite sex parent.  In a traditional family, a mother and father may approach those tasks in different fashions, just like I would approach it differently than other dads out there.  Doesn't mean one of us isn't fulfilling our role in the family.

@Pale Horse, you seem to be citing exceptions that prove the rule. I have had a handful of college-age men who, being raised absent a father, look to me and other men for guidance. Were I to respond that the women in their lives provided everything they needed, their Moms would have come and slapped me silly.

So, maybe, role #1

  • of a mother: steer your children clear of fools.
  • of a father: don't be one of those fools.:eek:

But you are really missing the larger purpose. This is a big country .. with varying expectations on what a young person should grow up to be, especially in regards to raising progeny. Those expectations are sex-specific and vary by the many cultures welcome in our country. It is a delusion to think one can pretend those roles are immaterial, expect one's partner to ignore them, then start spawning or adopting children and getting a result that would mutually satisfactory to one's partner, one's extended family, or one's progeny.

There certainly will be scouts who might have the same answer for both Mom's role and Pop's role. But, the requirement is not about what makes a better or worse family. The spirit of the question is "where will I fit in". And if a girl is working through the MB, she might have a clear understanding of a father's role, but knowing that won't help her reflect on the role that she will most likely be called to fulfill. Generalizing to "parent" may work for some, but the personal ramifications may be lost on others.

Besides, for families raising their youth with a complementarian world view, maybe we should have been asking a boy about what makes and effective mother all along.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Absolutely not.  To even think that one family is inferior than another is beyond the pale.

I'm sure there's things that everybody wishes were different about their family or life (inlaws anyone?), but to feel that because of how life works out somehow makes it inferior is quite alarming.

To extend your argument about it being more difficult for single parent families, would a traditional middle-class family be inferior to one in the upper class? After all it's more difficult to raise kids on your own without the help of a nanny.  Difficulty does not equal inferiority.  Some may even argue the opposite.

I would argue that the vast majority of single parent house holds, if given the choice (or the ability to make different life choices that led to the current status) would choose to not be a single family house hold.  You're conflating the amount of love and care a parent has for a child, with the optimal/sub-optimal environment for which the child could be raised.  Do single mothers love their children any less than mothers from two-parent homes?  I would argue no, of course not.  But is it optimal for the child to be brought up in a single parent home?  I would also argue no, of course not.  Single parent families happen.  It's a part of life.  But they are inferior, by which I mean sub-optimal for the rearing of the child.  I would also argue that the data on this, as we have progressed and gathered such data, is becoming more and more clear. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, blw2 said:

 

Well aren't they inferior?

No of course there are exceptions.... a family with an abusive father is better off without that father

but generally speaking single parent families are a real shame.  Nothing wrong or shameful about them...hey, it happens.... and it is awesome that one parent goes that extra mile to raise the kids....but they are a sad situation and should not be looked at as a good goal to shoot for....IMHO.

I guess I feel the same about "non traditional families".  Sure some work well perhaps, and a kid raised in one of those is much better off than they would be in a abusive or otherwise broken "traditional" family....but again IMHO it's not the goal to strive for.  And besides....you might even argue that in many cases Latin Scott's "rules" still apply in at least some cases, probably most as far as I know, that of the non-traditional parent takes on the father role and one the mother role, regardless of gender. 

...and no, in a healthy family the roles are most definitely not interchangeable.  I don't mean that in the ways that there are women's jobs and men's jobs.....  I do the dishes most of the time in my family which is a traditionally "women's job" & I'm a dad.  No, men and women are inherently different and both of those very different roles are healthy for kids...IMO

Since you clearly view nontraditional families as inferior, what’s your response when the two fathers of a new Scout come to join your unit? Or the two mothers of one of your PLs show up to help on a service project? Or a single grandparent who is raising a Scout comes to register the youth? Or what about a family by adoption - also clearly nontraditional? Do you welcome these families?

Share this post


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

Since you clearly view nontraditional families as inferior, what’s your response when the two fathers of a new Scout come to join your unit? Or the two mothers of one of your PLs show up to help on a service project? Or a single grandparent who is raising a Scout comes to register the youth? Or what about a family by adoption - also clearly nontraditional? Do you welcome these families?

I thing you are putting words into someone's mouth. Are you asking father & step father or Man/Man marriage because the answer would be different for both to be a registered adult with our unit per our CO.  Now the youth from all of the above would be treated the same.  

Share this post


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

Since you clearly view nontraditional families as inferior, what’s your response when the two fathers of a new Scout come to join your unit? Or the two mothers of one of your PLs show up to help on a service project? Or a single grandparent who is raising a Scout comes to register the youth? Or what about a family by adoption - also clearly nontraditional? Do you welcome these families?

I was once given some sound advice from a forum member to hold off responses until our emotions and judgement don't control the content. I haven't always followed that advice, but it has saved me much embarrassment over the years.

Barry

Edited by Eagledad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m simply using the words of the poster:  

 

Well aren't they inferior?

...

but generally speaking single parent families are a real shame.  Nothing wrong or shameful about them...hey, it happens.... and it is awesome that one parent goes that extra mile to raise the kids....but they are a sad situation and should not be looked at as a good goal to shoot for....IMHO.

 

I guess I feel the same about "non traditional families".  Sure some work well perhaps, and a kid raised in one of those is much better off than they would be in a abusive or otherwise broken "traditional" family....but again IMHO it's not the goal to strive for.”

Share this post


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

I’m simply using the words of the poster:  

Yah, I think it was more than simply using the words of the poster.

1 hour ago, shortridge said:

Since you clearly view nontraditional families as inferior, what’s your response when the two fathers of a new Scout come to join your unit? Or the two mothers of one of your PLs show up to help on a service project? Or a single grandparent who is raising a Scout comes to register the youth? Or what about a family by adoption - also clearly nontraditional? Do you welcome these families?

The question was for me offensive and out of line. It was not inquisitive to understand the poster better. It was derogatory by implying the poster for you was too judgemental. 

Respecting opinions of which don't agree is challenging, but it is scout like.

Barry

Share this post


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

It would be interesting to explore how the BSA could have approached the gay and transgender membership decisions in a way that would have kept us above the political hot potato it became.

On the "gay issue," and considering both the decisions not to change the policy, and the decision to change the policy, I do not see any way that the BSA could have avoided the controversies that both caused and resulted from those decisions.  The issue implicated strongly-held religious and/or moral beliefs on both sides.  To a large degree the controversy mirrored the nationwide public debate that was going on at the same time regarding marriage equality.  (I am not equating the two issuees, but I think they are parts of the same larger issue.)  And then there were both the internal dynamics within the BSA, including large CO's being on one side of the issue, but at the same time the BSA wishing to remain a nationwide organization rather than risking the disappearance of Scouting in certain areas (like mine.)  When the final decision was made, the BSA did do one thing to try to make the opponents of the decision less unhappy, which was to allow a "local option" for religious organizations - which from all indications, seems to be working reasonably well.  (I know someone is going to say that the departure of the LDS Church indicates otherwise, but I think they were going to leave regardless of any particular decision.) (And no, I am not defending the process, either the process, that could have been handled better  from 2012 200

On the transgender decision, as I said at the time, I think the cause of that was simply fatigue. The BSA had just finished 15 years of intense controversy (and probably about 20 years of less intense controversy before that) on the "gay issue."  They didn't want to deal with another hot-button issue, so they didn't.  Plus, they probably already knew that they were about to go into a decision-making process regarding the "girls" issue and did not want the two issues to get tangled up  

Share this post


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

It's clear that as a country - this is an unsettled question.

...or is it an agenda?  Personally, I don't think there's a question in all of this.

5 hours ago, ParkMan said:

It strikes me that it doesn't help the BSA or the Scouts to take a position on it.  Of course those that agree will be glad the BSA is teaching that through the advancement process.  Feels like the best role for the BSA is to stick to developing youth in non-controversial areas. 

absolutely agree

but

when we are trying to build  'Character' it's hard not to trip through that definition minefield

so, maybe it would have been better to take a firm stand one way or the other rather than walking the tightrope

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry, you can assume whatever you want about my motivation, but you’ll still be wrong.

I was frankly shocked to see a Scouter express the opinion that certain types of families are inferior to the traditional heterosexual two-parent nuclear family. Considering that nearly a third of children in America do not live with two parents, that’s a pretty broad brush to paint potential members’ families with. I am genuinely curious how someone with those opinions would react if a nontraditional family - remember, he regards them as inferior - approached their unit or asked them about Scouting.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, @shortridge, you weren't merely using @blw2's words. You were using a non-sequitur to set up a false dichotomy. And using that to put his posts in the worst possible light.

It does not follow that someone who disdains my restrictive sexual ethics would be less welcoming to me and my family in their scout unit. Nor, would it follow that someone who thinks less of a family built on a permissive sexual ethic would be less welcoming to that family. In fact often the reverse is true. Many times people go out of their way to point out they don't like my world view (or even how I may parent, at times), but will gladly let me hike and camp with them. I certainly pass that kindness along to others.

And part of that kindness has been to point out to certain parents (once I've earned their trust) that they aren't being very effective in their roles.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Yah, I think it was more than simply using the words of the poster.

The question was for me offensive and out of line. It was not inquisitive to understand the poster better. It was derogatory by implying the poster for you was too judgemental. 

Respecting opinions of which don't agree is challenging, but it is scout like.

Barry

I can't believe I'm making this point, but here goes....

The challenge is that we're entering a realm of discussion where the views themselves can be considered inherently offensive.  "Some families are superior to others", "being gay is morally wrong".

While I agree that we want respectful dialog, the very dialog itself is offensive to some.  I am not surprised to see the pushback.  For example, I have a gay sister in law.  I could never imagine having a discussion about whether being gay was morally wrong.  I have divorced friends - I could not imagine having a discussion about whether a two parent family was superior to theirs.  

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

×