Jump to content

2022 Membership Numbers


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, yknot said:

The Bureau of Labor statistics fact sheet clearly states it does not include any infectious event not linked to an injury. That is not the same as saying that no one is at risk of dying, which I think we both clearly agree is a high risk event. The thing about the health care profession though is that infectious disease events are not outliers, they are inherent to the work.  The type of fatality risk might be different for some professions -- falling out of tree for a logger for example vs. contracting a fatal disease for a doctor or nurse during periodic outbreaks -- but the types of individuals who choose to work in these fields both have a high threshhold for risk acceptance. However, healthcare is somehow viewed as a low risk, nurturing profession mainly because many women pursue it. When people use those kinds of false perceptions to buttress claims that women prefer menu planning and eschew action and adventure, or when they claim that women are incapable of holding leadership positions because they exhibit more neuroticism than men as was recently, and unbelievably, posted as evidence by Inquisitive Scouter, I think they need to be called out on it loudly. If you find that incomprehensible, I can only say you're going to have an interesting ride going forward in scouting as the numbers of girls and women in it increase. 

You are mixing up statistical and non-statistical terminology.  In the context of a statistical study if something bad happens frequently then it's a "high risk".  But a negative occurrence being a "high risk" has nothing to do with the severity of the potential outcome.  Elementary Teachers, particularly in their first few years, are at "high risk" of contracting all manner of infections from snotty, unhygienic children. (then after a few years they are often relatively healthier, illness-wise, than the average adult)  But the likelihood of a serious outcome from all those illnesses is extremely low.

So yes, Health Care personnel do regularly run the "serious" risk of death associated with being around potentially life threatening contagions.  However at this point in time, the actual rate of risk of contracting one of those illnesses is typically very low given the level of precautions built into the health care system. 

And Health Care isn't viewed as nurturing and "low risk" because it has been predominately a female profession, it's viewed as nurturing both because that's typically a requirement of the job (since a nurturing atmosphere is linked to better outcomes) and because dealing with people who are sick and in pain and dying is emotionally draining and often just a shit job; and only people with a genuinely caring, compassionate and nurturing personality can do the job well.

And once again, NO ONE SAID GIRLS PREFER MENU PLANNING OR DON'T LIKE ADVENTURE.  That was your (incorrect) interpretation of what someone said.  This is what Eagledad said:

Quote

Boys aren’t intimidated by the girls natural instinct of management and details, they welcome it. But many adults confuse the boys stepping back as a result being intimidated. It is instead the logical action of giving space for letting the girls do what they do best, and the boys find boring. Boys by nature want action and adventure. That other stuff like meeting, planning, and planning menus is not in their wheelhouse. Taking the girls out of the equation forces the boys to step to the mundane responsibilities of getting to to the actions and adventure.

While I don't know that I'd go so far as to say girls have a "natural instinct for management and details", it's pretty well studied that girls are better than boys at the kind of self-regulation and discipline required for scholastic, planning and organizing tasks (without regard to whether or not they actually enjoy it)  This is proven out by the fact that girls out-perform boys (on average) across the board at every level of school.

As far as whether or not girls like adventure, well the only statement I've seen anyone make with regard to that was to say boys are more drawn to adventure than girls.  Which can certainly be true in some respects.  The impact of testosterone exposure in-utero and in the body has been studied with the following result:

Quote

One important biological difference between men and women involves the hormone testosterone. Higher levels of testosterone in males can result in gender differences in behavior and cognition through the organizational or the activational effects of this hormone. The former refers to permanent modification of brain structure and function during prenatal and early postnatal life due to exposure to testosterone, whereas the latter refers to the transient effects of circulating testosterone on the brain during postnatal life, and especially after puberty (2). In humans, testosterone has been shown to enhance the motivation for competition and dominance (3), reduce fear (4, 5), and alter the balance between sensitivity to punishment and reward (6). Testosterone has also been associated with extremely risky behavior such as gambling and alcohol use (79).  https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0907352106

Now consider the first definition of the word "Adventure":

Definition of adventure

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a : an undertaking usually involving danger and unknown risks a book recounting his many bold adventures
b : the encountering of risks the spirit of adventure
2 : an exciting or remarkable experience an adventure in exotic dining They were looking for adventure.
 
If you consider "Adventure" to be something risky and exciting then the more adventurous something is, the higher the level of risk you would expect it to entail.  So it would make complete sense that boys would be drawn to riskier adventures (on average) than girls.  However, I don't know that that distinction has much relevance when it comes to the relatively watered-down risks associated with anything the BSA permits Scouts to do.
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I was extremely dismayed to discover that BSA had created a DEI group, and have considered pulling my son out of Scouting because of it.  Especially when they started pushing the new Eagle-required me

There is no doubt that our history has led to where we all are today.  The past created our present.  So a lot of people today are behind the eight-ball from the outset.  It will take generations to r

I fully expected Scouting to go co-ed when they started having girl troops. On one hand, I believe that we are in an era of equality now and not only do girls deserve to have the same opportuniti

1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Nope, still here... no petard used or detonated.

I claim victory, and leave the field to you with your perfectly displayed trait of Neuroticism.

I think you should stop posting because if anyone from the mainstream world visits this forum and reads posts like yours claiming that neuroticism is why women aren't in leadership positions... that is very far outside the mainstream and is really terribly offensive. 

 

Again, where are our moderators? Are these fringe views acceptable and defensible? 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, yknot said:

I think you should stop posting because if anyone from the mainstream world visits this forum and reads posts like yours claiming that neuroticism is why women aren't in leadership positions... that is very far outside the mainstream and is really terribly offensive. 

 

Again, where are our moderators? Are these fringe views acceptable and defensible? 

This isn't a fringe view, you just aren't reading what he wrote in context.  He's not saying women are "Neurotic" he's talking about the "Big Five Dimensions of Personality".  Neuroticism is a trait, not a mental illness or criticism.  Another phrase for Neuroticism is "Emotional Stability".

But everyone should alsways keep in mind that not all the moderators read everything every day.  If anyone thinks a post is contrary to the forum rules, they should "Report" the post rather than assuming a moderator will be along soon and notice it.

Edited by elitts
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've hidden a few posts here because we were moving from arguing on issues to just arguing with each other.  Not all of the posts were un-scoutlike, but I also removed those that were responding directly to the offending posts.  Let's all just take a breath or two before continuing. 

If you disagree with the hiding of these posts, please message the moderators in general and if the collective disagrees with me, the posts can be un-hidden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, InquisitiveScouter said:

@yknot, in the upper right corner of any post you do not like, you can select the three dots and hit "Report"

This is correct.  Doing that allows you to provide an explaination or comment on the post.  You can even create your own reply and then report it with a comment to draw the Moderator's attention to an ongoing problem.  Alternately, you can click on a moderator's name and message them directly, though that doesn't go to everyone the way "Report" does.

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
×
×
  • Create New...