Eagledad

We had a similar situation with the schedule, only opposite. The scouts wanted to spend extra time at the fishing camp, but that would put us in our campsite late. So, they set the alarm at 4:00 in the morning to get us on the trail by 4:30 am to get to Fish camp by 7:00am. AND THEY DID IT. It wasn't easy getting up that early and we were even hiking in the dark for awhile, but we adults were impressed that they looked a head and made the plan. They actually did something similar for two other days. So, I didn't get much beauty sleep. Barry

You hit the nail on the head. The issue I have about this forum is that the discussion isn't sexist because in reality both youth genders learn more faster with role models of the same gender. But, members here have an agenda and that fact doesn't fit in their agenda. It's like the word racist, seems to be the go to defense these days when racism has nothing to do with the topic. It's just a word to shut down the other persons opinion. If each gender learns more from same gender leaders, then at the very least, we have to admit that we are willing to loose that advantage by mixing the adult genders, At least that is honest. Oh, I know we can go on all day speaking of the outstanding skills and role modeling examples of each gender in the scouting program, but, that wasn't my point. I'm very pragmatic and find emotionally driven discussions frustrating. I believe intelligent people should make intelligent choices based from facts. And then justify their decision with intelligent reasoning. If you value growth of your scouts is better with mixed genders than the advantages of single gender programs because mixed gender leadership give scouts a more rounded experience, I'm good with that. That is an intellectual choice and the reasoning admits sacrificing an advantage for another. But, if you believe all units should agree with you, then I would say that is an opinion biased on bias, not reason. If you really believe in the local option, you better be ready to support a unit you disagree with. I do agree that the GSUSA reason for not including boys or even men is not honest, what ever their reason. But, at least they are strait about it and I do respect that. Folks here on the BSA forum ignore the GSUSA all together as if the BSA is the evil sexist giant and the GSUSA doesn't exist. I think that hypocrisy is worse. Barry

So you think a discussion on the subject is sexist. You gotta love the irony that the subject would be discussed honestly on the GSUSA forum. Barry

The question is does one gender of youth instinctively learn better from the same gender role model. Some experts say yes and that is where many of those discussions came from. Is bringing that point into the discussion sexist? The reality is that quality of growth depending on the gender role model is secondary to an organization using both genders to influence growth. Barry

I look forward to you new thread. But, it wasn't about physical skills or different experience as you imply, it was about how the natural youth brain learns from what it observes. The discussion was more about quality of growth, not about levels of quality sexism. For a discussion to be productive, both sides have to be open minded, and in my opinion, this discussion has proven that not all participants are willing to be open minded. Barry

Yes, there has always been unexperienced dads joining the program, it just wasn't an issue until moms scouters increased the size of the resource pool. And, we predicted here on this forum that more unexperienced dads would join the program once their daughters were allowed. Which is ironic because the GSUSA has a reputation of not being welcoming to dads. It has also been discussed that with admittance of gays and girls, a lot of experienced scouters would leave the program, leading to a larger percentage of inexperienced parents in the program. One other interesting thing I've noticed with inexperienced dads joining the program is that on average, they have the same amount out doors experience as moms. Which on average is almost none. So, the hurdles are increasing in size all around. Barry

Even National stated they admitted girls to increase membership. Of course it looks good from a political position, but there wasn't the heat for change that is implied here. The tone here is that the BSA was the last bastion of barbarism for sexism, yet there is the GSUSA moseying along without even a whimper from folks here, or anywhere. That is real hypocrisy. Just trying to keep the facts strait. Barry

I think you are right except for the gender issue. There was never a public outcry for girls in Cubs and Troops and it has was left alone s a political activism for the reasons I stated earlier. It's still not an issue now for the GSUSA. Barry

I agree. Where the understanding gets muddy is who applied the pressure. The claim and assumption in this discussion is that the pressure came from families, but that is not the case. If one looks at membership trends, the slopes don't show membership changing as events drove the BSA. It is true that a lot of business drew back their support in the late 90s, but that was politically driven, not public. Activist were busy pushing (threating in some cases) companies to remove their support to the BSA, mainly over the gay issues. I remember a lot of folks felt Levi Co withdraw was indicative of the public support, but a report came out and showed that Levi's Co was a leader in gay activism. What folks didn't understand is that while loosing those sponsors did hurt the BSA some, the main funding came from alumni support. That is why no more was heard from National for another 10 years. I once talked to a professional in Campfire Kids organization and he said all scouting organizations envied the alumni support of the BSA. Just look at the Philmont to understand how the passion of scouting drove alumni support. But, as you pointed out, the external pressure from activism eventually took it tole and National started making noise of change. THAT is were National started loosing the alumni support 10 to 15 years ago, and that is were they started feeling the pressure between the activist and their mainline funding. Events occurred very quickly at that time with the gay membership changes and who knows when the bottom dropped out. National probably saw the writing on the walls with the abuse law suit and loosing a 3rd of the membership with the Mormons, the future must have looked bleak. One last note of record, it was the homosexual activism that drove the change. There was never pressure to add girls to the program. Let's not reinvent history. And there is a simple reason why female activists never pushed or threatened the BSA. Can anyone guess? I will give you a hint; GSUSA. The women's equality activist entered into the Girls Scouts program back in the 70s. Their plan was not equality of boys and girls. If you remember back then, Women's movement was about women. That is why even today nobody is touching any female organization for combining the boys and girls. Campfire Kids made the change in the 80's as a strategic move to increase membership. They started recruiting boys in 1st grade, which is year before the BSA recruited cubs. That is why the Tiger program was created. The pressure that both Campfire Girls at the time and the BSA felt today is funding. As a result of loss of support from the alumni, the BSA made the bold move to grab a share of the GS's membership. And the GSUSA is not letting it happen without a fight. But, there is still no push for the GS program to accept boys. And there won't be. Of course there is more a head. I was told by a gay activist leader in 1992 that the enemy of culture is religion because morality is the constraint for social freedom. He said that any and all organizations that are based on moral principles will feel the pressure to change their moral principles. And look where we are at. The BSA will give way to god as well. And once that foundation falls, living the oath and law will basically mean do what feels good at the time. The suggestion in this discussion is that if the BSA relaxes on it's basic founding principles, it will appeal to more of the public. It did work for the Canadian scouts and I think the reason is the forces that pushed the Canadian Scouts to change came from activist, not the public. I think the same is happening with the BSA. The public in general supports the BSA program as they know it. The recent changes and future changes are from activism, and, well, the law suit. But, it's probably just as well, the culture will not allow a principled youth program program. Barry

Will you believe it? I give the results of our research of why families drop out and it’s disregarded. Folks here seem to only accept what fits their agenda. In fact, I would be surprised if today’s research didn’t support our data 25 years ago because program hasn’t really changed. We didn’t have a theory when we did research. We had a problem but didn’t know why. Research took us to the problem. Once we saw the problem (like why first year scouts have the highest dropout rate), we could track it to when National started recording membership numbers. Barry

We kept hundreds of scouts in the program with that Non-data.LOL That’s just a theory, you don’t even claim Data to support the theory. I happen to know a few young dads who were in scouts not considering it for their kids because it doesn’t look like the program of their youth just 20 years ago. I don’t know if that is any kind of trend, but it has to be considered. Barry

I think not. I did all the heavy lifting of acquiring data until about 12 years ago and used our research results to fix programs. We didn’t have a grudge we were trying to support, we were just trying to make the program better. It’s your theory, go find your support. There is plenty of National data if you are so inclined. I don’t think you can tho, your theory that girls and gays are the reason membership declined over the years is pretty out there. I interviewed and exit interviewed a lot of parents and scouts and compared that data with other people across the country. Gays, god and girls never came up. Maybe because families that would be so offended to quit would never join in the first place. We had several atheist parents in our units and several gay families in the district who joined and seem to enjoy the program. trust me that a lot folks are also watching resent membership data very close after gays were admitted. Like you, folks want to prove their personal theories. But since the Mormons pulled out following the membership change, trends are a mess and convoluted. Now add girls. Well Good luck. The trends we researched are still valid, but they are internal program issues. Stuff that doesn’t interest you. Barry

You would like to see the data of no data that supports your theory of BSA membership declining because of no girls! Barry

Trends and program reviews. Easy to monitor. And, it makes sense. There are several scouting programs for girls. What do you have that suggest an overwhelming demand. Barry

No contradiction, there has never been any indication that not admitting girls caused membership losses. National admitted they started taking girls to stop the bleeding after the Mormons left the BSA. Barry

Why is taking freedom of speech the go-to weapon for those who can’t sway their ideals on those with experience and knowledge. Barry

Better? Who is “us”? Several posters lately have been going out of their way to, well to impose an alternate reality. Why? There are mature adults here who only want to develop a program where their youth actually grow from their experience. The scouters come here Looking for tidbits of information to help them get closer to their efforts by asking real questions hoping for sensible solutions. The “us” are noise that pushes those real scouters away, thus keeping them from doing the best they can with the resources within their reach. Is wanting to be a resource for those asking for help prideful? Barry

I worked with concerning and skeptical parents for years. You have no integrity because you condemn the organization without intellectual reason. Parents want some kind of intellectual reasoning So they can trust you with their kids out in the wilderness for a weekend. You are close-minded and resort to flinging emotional spit-wad insinuations. It’s not the same. Experience trumps anger. Parents see it in an instant. Barry

There is no data for this assumption. First of all, there is ZERO data to even suggest that the girls membership policy had any more negative influence on membership than the GSUSA boys membership policy had a negative effect on their membership. Even National admits they only changed the membership policy to increase numbers (money). BSA beacame a target, but no data even suggests homosexuality was a cause for a decrease in membership. Infact, if you look at the numbers, the membership decline didn’t change through or after the Dale period. Membership did declined, but you’ll have to find the real causes. There is no data to support your assumption. But I know and data supports me. I’ve posted that data many times. Has nothing to do with the changing culture. Barry

Well, as usual, another condescending generalization. The steep slope you struggle to climb here is that your among experienced scouters, so you are lacking leverage. I’m trying to help you, but you aren’t listening. Many believe scouting made a difference in their lives. What is the part of the program that made a difference and why do you think it’s irrelevant today? You don’t have that experience, so you have no integrity even attempting to address the question. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you have to humble yourself to their knowledge. Barry

Again, since you lack a BSA scouting experience and haven’t shown any intellectual understanding of the program, your post can’t be taken seriously. Integrity. The buggy whip worked for 110 years, why not 111? Barry

Disagreeing with what? Your only only disagreeing argument is that a 110 year old program doesn’t fit in today’s culture. You are offended by post that you take out of context and you pretend your experience is equivalently to everyone on the list. You don’t give details, just generalizations. Your generalizations come off as personal, not structural to any weakness. You don’t have a youth scouting experience and pass it off as irrelevant, which is condescending to those who believe the BSA made a difference in the lives. if you truly want to have have a discussion, ask a question. I don’t think your bias will allow the humble approach. Barry

There is no integrity in this statement because you haven’t shown any evidence of understanding how the scouting program develops growth. Barry

😀 Exactly what is it that should die? At it’s best, scouting builds maturity by learning from bad decisions. My wife and were asked by our kids school to listen to a Nationally known child psychologist they sponsored Talk about techniques for encouraging kids to grow and mature in society. The theme of his talk is “The more mistakes your kids make as while they are young, the fewer mistakes they will make as adults.” That is the foundation of scouting. I mean no disrespect, I’m sure your smart and talented in many things. But I’m wondering if we are being played by continually showing respect to posters who obviously don’t have a clue of a subject they pretend to be experts. I find the shallow bias tone toward experienced scouters and their knowledge condescending and disrespectful. Barry

I think my up and coming iceberg is bigger than yours. Mine is based on facts seeing it through the eyeglass. Yours, up this point, appears to be based bias. Barry