Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

[FireStone 423]

51 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Do you really think the Scouts do not notice these things? They do observe, and do see the double standards. And yes some adults do talk to their kids about YP and why things cannot be done. And those Scouts who work day camp and summer camp do indeed get the YPT training as it is mandated in the NCAP.

I can't speak for all, but in my Pack and Den, no, the scouts are not exposed to any gender bias. If other folks are passing along a "boys are bad" message to their scouts based on how they interpret YPT, I'm not sure why they choose to do that. Even if that is their interpretation, why they elect to then make that a visible message to scouts is beyond my understanding.

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

13 minutes ago, FireStone said:

I can't speak for all, but in my Pack and Den, no, the scouts are not exposed to any gender bias. If other folks are passing along a "boys are bad" message to their scouts based on how they interpret YPT, I'm not sure why they choose to do that. Even if that is their interpretation, why they elect to then make that a visible message to scouts is beyond my understanding.

So none of your boys' dens  have 2 female leaders running them? If that is the case OUTSTANDING!

As for how folks are interpreting the YP standards, see @yknot's post above.

[Jameson76 1481]

On 12/7/2020 at 5:16 PM, Cburkhardt said:

·       YPT policy compliance might not be assumed.  Paid or volunteer YPT policy compliance personnel might make visits to unit meetings and activities.

 

Good Lord, that would be the end for many people.  Just want we need, YPT zealots descending on a meeting to "evaluate" and offer their sage advice.  All I can think of is the political officers spread throughout the Soviet Union to keep an eye on stuff and make sure everyone drank the appropriate amount of party Kool Aid

That would in fact be the end of Scouting.

Also, the family Scouting concept (for Scouts older than 11 years old or middle school) will be the final nail in the coffin

[John-in-KC 311]

25 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Good Lord, that would be the end for many people.  Just want we need, YPT zealots descending on a meeting to "evaluate" and offer their sage advice.  All I can think of is the political officers spread throughout the Soviet Union to keep an eye on stuff and make sure everyone drank the appropriate amount of party Kool Aid

That would in fact be the end of Scouting.

Also, the family Scouting concept (for Scouts older than 11 years old or middle school) will be the final nail in the coffin

If the chartered partnership model changes to more of a council owned model, then those folks won’t be offering advice ... it’ll be directive in nature. 

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

33 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Good Lord, that would be the end for many people.  Just want we need, YPT zealots descending on a meeting to "evaluate" and offer their sage advice.  All I can think of is the political officers spread throughout the Soviet Union to keep an eye on stuff and make sure everyone drank the appropriate amount of party Kool Aid

 

COMRADE!

They do not have enough volunteers to be Unit Commissioners as it is. And the pros have been overworked and underpaid for as long as I can remember, and it is a heck of a lot worse now. Remember, DEs were suppose to visit the IHs every year as part of the Charter Agreement, and how often did it actually happen? Heck when my DFS found out I actually did one back in the day, I was told to stop because I had more important things to do. So I  do not see this happening

 

Quote

That would in fact be the end of Scouting.

Also, the family Scouting concept (for Scouts older than 11 years old or middle school) will be the final nail in the coffin

I think "Family Scouting" will be the end. Youth want independence and time to discover things on their own. But sadly I am seeing more and more parents and adults doing things for the Scouts instead of letting them do things for themselves. You can read about my family's experience with "Family Scouting" with the troop they left. And look at some of the questions being asked on the various FB groups. And when folks state that the Scouts need to deal with the issue and not the adults, the responder is villainized.

I am thankful there are still a few of us "old fogeys" around who understand youth development, the need for independance, and letting the Scouts figure things out for themselves. We had a visitor at my troop last nite who was an Eagle from the 1990s, and his son is getting ready to Cross Over. he was not impressed with other troops he visited.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Eagle94-A1

[Jameson76 1481]

32 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

We had a visitor at my troop last nite who was an Eagle from the 1990s, and his son is getting ready to Cross Over. he was not impressed with other troops he visited.

We have had recent visitors (AOL's) who the family definitely wants the Webelos III experience.  Not so much Family Scouting but they want to stay in their group, advance together, etc etc.  They also want the 60 page Troop handbook, specific advancement steps, very scheduled on outings and summer camp; etc etc. 

Our input is this is a boy led troop.  The method is YOUTH led and each Scout finds their own path.  We can facilitate, but it is driven by each Scout.  Our success (IMHO) is judged by the number of Scouts we have a active that are in High School and come when they can because (wait for it....) our Troop is FUN and they get away from the parents for a weekend.  Also the downtime on the outings in the afternoons is very welcome for them.

[Cburkhardt 382]

Reactions to your Comments on Culture Change

Thanks all for sharing solid opinions on these significant issues that can define the future of Scouting.  Thanks for staying on the “big picture” level, because this posting was not intended to debate specific implementation or bankruptcy issues.  Below are a few reactions to the themes I am reading, based only on my thoughts and not inside information.

“Eventuality of mixed-gender units”  

I have been roundly criticized on this site for being SM of DC’s 43-girl Troop and being a believer of single-sex and stand-alone female units.  Now that I am two years into the project, I know that the girls themselves want to be as separate from the boys as they can be.  Parents with a boy and a girl assume the “linked” Troops (often having a “girl patrol” in a boy Troop) are all that is available.  When they find out about our girl-separate approach, they always have their girl to join us.  When I took them to summer camp at the Summit this last summer, they had no interest whatsoever in mixing with the boy Troops.  Rather, they sought out the other girl Troops.  My conclusion at this point is that the girls themselves at Scout age want to be separate.  Linked Troops that offer a practically speaking “co-ed environment” by fully-integrating a small girl patrol into a big boy unit will never maximize membership and will not offer the environment that girls want. I do not believe the Scouts themselves want to be “co-ed”.

“Boys bad/Girls good”

I know very well what is being encouraged in the schools on this issue and do not like it.  My experience in our very large council is that this has not been a factor.  The girls are not receiving any discernable preferences – and I would know being SM of a big girl Troop.  This is surely a fear and dynamic we want to avoid.  I just have no evidence that it is present at this time.

“Men bad/Women good double standard”

Any Troop that wishes to survive and thrive in the current and coming environment will need to adopt a practice of going beyond the minimum adult leader presence at activities.  As SM of a large all-girl Troop, I could never favor a practice allowing only men to take our girls on a campout.  It is important in the girl Troop setting to present strong outdoorswoman examples and women of great character with a variety of experiences.  Given the horrific number and quality of abuse accounts filed in the bankruptcy, it is just unthinkable to imagine that parents would allow otherwise.  The current policy has a whiff of inequity, but it is simply necessary to have female leaders at girl Troop events.  If I were SM of a boy Troop, I would also include women leaders on every campout.  Boys also need to see strong outdoorswomen as great character examples.  They are entering a world where they will interact with women as colleagues, employees and supervisors.  The culture of men-only taking boys-only out in the woods will evolve.

“Let’s only discuss what the bankruptcy presents to us”

Everyone on this site knows big cultural changes are going to occur over the next couple of years.  It is healthy and appropriate for us to discuss what major changes are possible or likely.  The structure of the bankruptcy will largely determine the possibilities of our financial, property-owing and organizational issues.  It is not the right device to resolve our important cultural change issues. 

“Family Scouting”

I do not dispute a single observation made by commenters on this.  What I do understand is that Scouting-type organizations will have to be quite open – perhaps wide open to direct participation of parents and guardians if the organizations are to survive and Scouting-type programs are to have a future.  Our treasured memories of getting away from the family and growing-up on our own at distant camps with unrelated adults are wonderful.  However, this is already in Scouting’s past.  When our troop got ready of our latest socially distanced campout and we had only four adults to accompany 32 Scouts, we upped the adult component to nine.  The adults included seven parents, who camped as a separate patrol and did not “hover” over their children.  This culture change is necessary.  We can handle it.

“Touching” and “Good touch/Bad touch”

Credible allegations assert sickening accounts of severe abuse by horrible people “teaching” lessons central to the Scouting curriculum as their “excuse” for inappropriate touching.  It starts as grooming and progresses to horror.  A culture of generous touching of youth to teach merit badges, first aid, and other lessons will need to end.  The experience is that while a Scout might know what a “bad touch” is, Scouts have often been unable to prevent the eventual abuse from taking place.  We can teach these Scouting lessons by example without touching a child.  We need to be open to these changes if we are to regain the trust we have lost – or even be able to operate.

“Properties”

What will roll out over the next six months will make clear that we can no longer operate the vast number of properties we currently own.  It will cause us to rapidly prioritize what we need and what is financial sustainable.  The culture that each local Scouting entity must have access to a nearby comprehensive residential camp was already fading due to economics.  That process will greatly accelerate due to the bankruptcy and many will be disappointed with the closing of facilities.  A culture of property operation cooperation will emerge.

“Professionals, National, Councils, etc.”

There is great discussion of these details elsewhere on the site.  As a matter of cultural change though, I believe some commenters are not yet internalizing what is coming.  “National” will be different from the current BSA version of “National”.  National might very well continue as the same formal corporate entity if we successfully get through the Chapter 11. It might largely be a shell that manages the IP, supply services and whatever is required to be done at a national scale.  The field presence of the new “National” will be a trace of its earlier composition, and almost all volunteer.   “Council” will vary from place to place, but professionally may be skeletal versions of their former selves – mainly providing a smaller number of unit-serving executives.  They will morph into mostly volunteer-dominated entities.  Some councils will operate a residential camp with the attendance support of many other nearby councils.  Those commenters disfavoring personnel and activity above the unit level will be cheering.  Those commenters who enjoyed the events, services, offices, scout shops, awards, professional staff assistance, locally owned camps and our previously pristine public image will regret some changes.  The emerging culture will be overwhelmingly local and unit-focused.  There will be a lot less in the way of organizational politics to dispute.

[David CO 1783]

30 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

 

“Touching” and “Good touch/Bad touch”

Credible allegations assert sickening accounts of severe abuse by horrible people “teaching” lessons central to the Scouting curriculum as their “excuse” for inappropriate touching.  It starts as grooming and progresses to horror.  A culture of generous touching of youth to teach merit badges, first aid, and other lessons will need to end.  The experience is that while a Scout might know what a “bad touch” is, Scouts have often been unable to prevent the eventual abuse from taking place.  We can teach these Scouting lessons by example without touching a child.  We need to be open to these changes if we are to regain the trust we have lost – or even be able to operate.

 

This sounds like some dystopian sci-fi movie in which children are raised without physical contact.  Maybe we should change the name again from BSA to Scouts BSA to Bubble Boys BSA.

 

[Cburkhardt 382]

“This sounds like some dystopian sci-fi movie in which children are raised without physical contact.“

 

Do you think children are adequately protected under the current policy?    Are we doing a exemplary job in this regard?

[yknot 1338]

5 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Thank you for proving my point that society in general, and now the BSA, does view  men as abusers and evil because of the deeds of a few, yet the abuse that women do gets overlooked and does not affect all women.

In scouting, I think it's partly a practical reason based on biology. I don't know too many unrelated males who would be comfortable instructing a 12 or 13 girl on first time tampon use while on a hike or camp out. There really isn't anything similar to worry about with boys. 

It's also likely that if  BSA was dealing with claims perpetrated by women, it would have a different policy. It will be instructive to see if any of the 95,000 claims that have just been filed involve women as perpetrators. If so, that might drive a change.  
 

 

[qwazse 4342]

14 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

“This sounds like some dystopian sci-fi movie in which children are raised without physical contact.“

Do you think children are adequately protected under the current policy?    Are we doing a exemplary job in this regard?

Based on my experience at World Jambo (and other places), America is enduring rapid cultural swings on the boundaries of touching. Scouts in other countries -- within their own boundaries -- have been content with their norms, and continue to be perplexed that we can't seem to make up our mind on this issue. So, depending on where an observer comes from we can be menacingly affectionate, exemplary, or atrociously callous.

If Saint Paul were to visit our troops -- especially those chartered by Christian COs -- he'd be fine with the sex segregation, but mortified that we don't "greet one another with a holy kiss." It would be small consolation that we are the most "the hand-shakiest people" in the country. (I think I'm quoting @yknot).

It's hard to say where the boots-on-the-ground boundaries will land post-pandemic. But I imagine that, once vaccinated, many of us will cherish returning to hugs and handshakes.

[qwazse 4342]

1 minute ago, yknot said:

... It's also likely that if  BSA was dealing with claims perpetrated by women, it would have a different policy. It will be instructive to see if any of the 95,000 claims that have just been filed involve women as perpetrators. If so, that might drive a change.

Can't say about the current filings, but among the "banned from scouting" files are some erstwhile explorer post leaders. And of the assaults on females that I've heard of, the perpetrators were male. But, we also need to consider that most mentors in professional positions at the time (officers, doctors, etc ...) were primarily male. That landscape is rapidly changing, and across all organizations we can expect the rate of acts by female perpetrators to rise as more women assume those roles.

[yknot 1338]

6 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Can't say about the current filings, but among the "banned from scouting" files are some erstwhile explorer post leaders. And of the assaults on females that I've heard of, the perpetrators were male. But, we also need to consider that most mentors in professional positions at the time (officers, doctors, etc ...) were primarily male. That landscape is rapidly changing, and across all organizations we can expect the rate of acts by female perpetrators to rise as more women assume those roles.

Interesting point. There are a couple other things to consider as well. It's not just that far fewer women are abusers, it's that the type of abuse they perpetrate is different. Profiles for female abusers typically include a woman who is participating in an abuse situation under the direction of a dominant male or a woman who is targeting an older child -- teacher/student type relationships. The Me Too movement has also shed a lot of light on the incidence of abuse in women and girls. Girls suffer abuse at significantly higher rates than boys: 1 in 4 vs. 1 in 6 by adulthood. Since abused children often grow into adult abusers of children themselves, fewer women being traumatized as girls may in turn lead to fewer adult female abusers, 

BSA, the Catholic Church, the US Gymnastics Team have been very high profile events highlighting this problem. A lot of other smaller and lower profile organizations are coming to grips dealing with child predation among their members as well. It may indeed result in significant changes to how youth organizations are run, but if this scourge is that prevalent, maybe that's not a bad thing. I don't know that the answer is to simply keep children away from unrelated adults though because tragically much abuse also occurs within the home, committed by relatives. One of the methods of protecting children has been to arm them with information about dangers, whether drugs or abuse, at younger and younger ages. I don't know that that is the right approach either because you eventually get to an age where you've put an image or a thought in a child's head that I don't think should be there in childhood.... I sense that I'm getting off on an tangent so I'm going to stop now.   

 

[David CO 1783]

1 hour ago, Cburkhardt said:

Do you think children are adequately protected under the current policy?    Are we doing a exemplary job in this regard?

No.  I do not.  BSA is doing a terrible job.

[David CO 1783]

50 minutes ago, yknot said:

In scouting, I think it's partly a practical reason based on biology. I don't know too many unrelated males who would be comfortable instructing a 12 or 13 girl on first time tampon use while on a hike or camp out. 

Been there.  Done that.  

52 minutes ago, yknot said:

There really isn't anything similar to worry about with boys. 

I suppose then that your boys never have nocturnal emissions.  My boys have this occur at the usual rate (about 3.5% of nights).