Stosh

One notices 4-H more in the rural areas of the country, yet it is not uncommon to find a 4-H club in a city as large as 50,000+ It was started in the rural Midwest, might not be as prevalent in the urban settings of the coastal states. Still, they command a huge youth membership so it still remains popular.

One must get their facts straight here. Your comment that the BSA is the best might not hold water and of course one is entitled to their own subjective opinions. Let's back up and take a serious look. 4-H predates back to the late 1800's when talk about the need for youth development first began. By 1902 there were various "4-H Clubs" popping up around the country Today the membership in 4-H is almost 3 times that of the BSA. They were into STEM and a variety of different avenues long before BSA came along as a "Johnny-come-lately". "The organization has over 6.5 million members in the United States, from ages 5 to 21, in approximately 90,000 clubs. The goal of 4-H is to develop citizenship, leadership, responsibility and life skills of youth through experiential learning programs and a positive youth development approach." - Wikepedia It is also global in nature with 4-H extension in 50 countries. "The goal of 4-H is to develop citizenship, leadership, responsibility and life skills of youth through experimental learning programs and a positive youth development approach. Though typically thought of as an agriculturally focused organization as a result of its history, 4-H today focuses on citizenship, healthy living, science, engineering, and technology programs. The 4-H motto is "To make the best better", while its slogan is "Learn by doing" - Wikepedia They have always been co-ed. Maybe they have the key "To make the best better." These people figured it out, BSA hasn't One can start their research here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-H GS/USA has a tad under 2,000,000 members and BSA has a tad over.

I'm all in favor of a shako with gold braid and a 4" silver shield on it that says "I am an Eagle".

Boys are more apt to be sitting in the basement playing video games rather than going out for sports. It's an apples/oranges kinda thing. What's the ratio of male/female in the gaming world?

This may work up to a point. If the only show in town is a co-ed program and the family has a boy and girl and the girl joins. Little Tommy doewsn't want to be with his sister in the program but wants a boy-only pack. So the parents start another Pack. Now the family is going to two different program maybe on two different nights. How's that going to work with already over-extended families. Now this might be only one circumstance out of a thousand, but it only took one TG girl to throw a wrench in the discussion to begin with.

God isn't his name, it's a label identifying a supreme being of some sort. In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim world it all translates to simply "G/god" as a label. The God, Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah are merely various translations of the same label. When Moses asked "God" what his name was, he said "I am who I am" which pretty much means it's none of your business to know. If I am not mistaken, early biblical writings simply left a blank anytime they wished to reference "God".

It reminds me that in our society we are always referring to "the people". While that's a label, it is pretty useless in that there are no two of us alike. If I wish to make reference to a certain group within that larger population, there is no way one can do so without an identifying label. While what used to be a commonly defined "label" is no longer acceptable and that leaves the discussion as simply "those people." That in and of itself is rather condescending. Kinda makes one wonder how we are to address people today without a label. The people of the upper Midwest are common decent folk, as are the people of the Pacific Northwest and the New England states. And the Southern states have a vast majority of really nice people. So, then from my Midwestern perspective I might refer to the people from New York to another Midwestern colleague and they understand a different perspective than if I were talking to a person from New York. I cannot be held accountable for another person's understanding, nor can I be held accountable for them being upset with a term I use. The real problem lies in the fact that we cannot use terms people like because they are changing on an almost daily basis lately. Instead, I just take the term and assume no ill-intent until further context proves otherwise. I was talking to a man in South Carolina recently. I was an evacuation shelter manager during the recent hurricane Matthew disaster. He asked me point blank, "Why would an old, white man from the Midwest come all the way down here to help us out?" Okay, I can take that as an insult because I'm elderly, not old, his racist title "white" could have bothered me, and his gender reference was out of place. He was obviously pointing out the geographical differences as well. I hardly knew this fella (who incidentally was racially negroid) but I teased him back asking what he meant by "old, white man from the Midwest". He smiled and said, "Because if I called you a damnYankee, you might be upset." I keep in touch with him on Facebook and we still both chuckled at the conversation. Life is too short to always have to worry about always hurting someone's sensitivities. If we did, we wouldn't talk to anyone anymore. Unless it is obvious, I always try to assume the best in people, which isn't always the case anymore for others.

There's a bit of truth in this highlighted comment. Since leaving the one Crew, I have tried 4 times to start another more general interest Crew. The last one was a large number of co-ed youth wanted to start an outdoorsy grouping. They were all from the same high school. After an interest/orientation meeting, I returned to find that no one showed up to register. It would seem that the group was formed as a club within the high school at no cost to the students to join. End of discussion.

I'm all in favor with that. Either have a FULL uniform and wear it correctly or go without completely. This general rule of half-way compliance is unacceptable.

Over the years I think they have. Whereas we see the current program focusing on a certain area, yet we see the flexibility between troops that allow for "other areas" of interest, thus the girl with the Gold Award doing a project requiring a chainsaw. There are Girl Scout troops that focus on the more feminine side of things, yet they allow room for more masculine activities involving outdoor style programming. I think they tend to be more adult oriented and the focus of the troop might be more swayed by the skill and interest of the adult leaders in the troop. By offering such diversity of activity, they seem to be avoiding much of what is plaguing the Boy Scouts. The girls always have the option of forming a small troop of like-minded gals and getting the right adult leadership in there to support them. I think they have more troops/girls than the mega goal of the Boy Scouts trying to answer the needs and wishes of a large variety of boys. A dozen gals wanting to camp 2 adult leaders and voila, we have a new Girl Scout "troop". A half dozen gals that want to canoe/kayak, one of the mom's likes doing that, a friend of hers goes along with it and we have again a new Girl Scout "troop". And yet if one were to allow such diversity in the Boy Scout program, some of these problems might go away. I was an advisor for a reenacting Venturing Crew and the very first thing the boys learned how to do was sew. It was important in that in order to have an authentic uniform historically, the soldier had to be able to make repairs to their uniforms, tents, and other equipment. We had boys that could sew on buttons, make rip repairs, sew grommets in tents, and one even got to the level where he would sew his own shirts. Then we progressed on to campfire cooking. No one slipped off to McDonalds or visited the sutler's area for meals, they all learned to cook. It was a very successful Crew and set the standard for even it's own CO in setting a good example in the field. Boys can be just as proficient as the gals when it comes to cooking and sewing, the more female traditional skills. It is interesting to note, however, that the focus groups of Boy Scouts (Venturing, Exploring, STEM, LFL) still do not garner the success of the Girl Scouts and even though I only suspect it, it might be because the Girls are all-female and Venturing, STEM, etc. are co-ed. For me the jury is still out on that one. It would be interesting to look into it.

If one were following the discussion between Cambridgeskip and myself, I did offer up one possible solution. I don't know if it will work or if it is any good, but it might be something that is worth kicking around a bit.

I still struggle with the notion that offering two options is not as good as offering only one. Dad's experience of all male Cubs/Boy Scouts was something he enjoyed when he was a lad was good, how can one make the jump to think that's what he wants for his daughter? Even if he did think so, his all male experience is not going to be the same for his son/daughter in a co-ed program. As always there are going to be those who don't care, and an alternative for his daughter in a co-ed program will be maybe what she wants for her son/daughter, but what about the parents who do want what they had, an all male program? That's been taken off the table and is no longer an option. So in fact their son will NOT get the same experience he had as a Scout. All I am advocating is if society has changed and moved on, offer up an alternative program that meets that need, otherwise, for those parents who want what they had in their youth, retain the original program simultaneously. I don't see why that would be so hard to accept. I do see where parents, i.e. dads, who had a great experience as a youth in Scouting would find it impossible for his son to have that as well. For me, if it were no longer available, I may not be inclined to put my son in a "different" program with different dynamics but retain the same name only. If that be the case it's going to take 20+ years for the youth of today to grow up and want the same co-ed experience for their children not knowing what any benefits an all male program might have offered. 20 years of waiting to see the results might not bode well for scouting. Those time lapses during membership decline I believe is what the UK and Canada experienced. One does not see that kind of membership sway in the WGAAAS program for all female programming.

They don't the uniform isn't even required, but try going to Jamboree without one then you'll hear about it.

My wife pays for everything on her card. It's a credit card that she gets sky miles for. I don't dare interfere with that process. She's down to Houston visiting grandchildren right now because of that. I can only imagine the divorce papers being served if I ever picked up the tab, or even got close to touching it.

@[member="Cambridgeskip"} would you agree that taking away from the boys is as fair as adding a co-ed contingent to the program? We are all gaga over new programs over here, why not add a co-ed part to the program. They added Venturing, they added Learning for Life, they added STEM, all co-ed and no one was upset because it was adding to the options of the youth. So we add a co-ed program for kindergarteners though grade school for outdoor co-ed members. Maybe not have the same awards, but awards more appropriate for guys and gals. Do you seriously thing people will complain as much adding to the program as taking it away? So, mom and dad show up at recruitment night with Johnny and Sally. They get to see everything there is on the table. "We have over here the Cub program for all boys and over here we have the "Tribe" program for both boys and girls. Which application form do you wish for your your children?" "What's the difference?" they ask. "Well if you wish to have your son in a program directed specifically for young boys, there's the Cub program. All the leaders are male role-models. Otherwise the Tribe program has activities designed for both girls and boys in mind. The adults are both male and female." The LGBT or whatever child can join the co-ed program, no problem. It is then up to the parents to decide what's best for their children. No one is going to get turned away and everyone gets to make the choice they wish for their children. Run that process for 2-3 years and one will be able to tell statistically which program is going to be preferred. If everyone picks the co-ed group, well then maybe the Cub program passes into history. Or maybe the boys go with the Cub program and the girls go with the co-ed program, that ratio will also let the BSA know how people feel about it, too. 10 years down the road it should be clear what the viability of the programs will be. They may balance each other out and BSA gets to sell more books and uniforms and everyone walks away with a win. The only group that's going to be upset are when the co-ed group doesn't have enough boys and they force everyone into the co-ed program against their wishes and takes the Cub option off the table. If they didn't want a co-ed program will they join it anyway or will they find a different program to enroll their kids? It's a slow process, but by taking it one step at a time and evaluating it, one might be able to bring about some changes that benefit everyone in the long run.

I don't think Eagledad is saying all male is right and co-ed is wrong. All I see him advocating is leave the all male option on the table. I have never seen him post anywhere that co-ed is wrong in that he has never spoken out against Venturing, Sea Scouts, STEM or LFL as being wrong in their membership makeup. What I do see him advocating is that GS/USA offers girls the option for an all female option that people today are trying hard to take from the boys. There's no fairness in that approach and the prejudice against the boys (at least in my opinion) is what is wrong.

Large troops of 5 patrols all going in different direction would need only 1 SM and 4 ASM's. they can be accompanied by other registered leaders with YPT and no SM/ASM training. They will know how the program works and why coffee is important. Drivers, on the other hand, do not need to be registered, but we have them all take YPT for their own protection.

This is an important point. If one has the problem with one troop being inundated, can one imagine if the one troop had to take on all the boys? It is better to preserve the multiple troops in town rather than take them all in and find out that one has to break it apart later. Starting a new troop is difficult at best. Instead work with the other troops to show them what you are doing to improve their troops to be more competitive with you. It also offers less burden on everyone if they can share the BSA program with all the boys equally. You will find that competition is not a healthy situation. Imagine the day where a young cross over has to decide between 5 different troops of equal programming. Their decision will depend more on where their friends are going and not have to worry about getting a quality program. Everyone wins!

We have often been faced with patrols wanting different camps. We have worked around this by relying on the patrol method. If the young boys want one camp, the leaders focus on supporting the First Year Camper program and for the older boys, that is off the table and the focus is on what the camp has to offer for off-site high adventure. The blessing in that is the different skills of the adults come into play, the boys get what they want and the adults don't have to split into tow different directions to try and help out everyone at the same time. Combined camp needs 4 adults two to stay with the First Year Campers and the other two to go with the HA groups off-site. With a limited number of available adults this could be a problem.

They may be staying away because of the bad press. The local option might be right up their alley, but with all the talk at the national level it means the local units pick up guilt by association and thus parents don't even bother to check it out.

Our troop YPT's all our parents so they can drive. They do not need to be involved in the program of the boys, but the boys do! When we need more people on-site for an activity, it just means getting a bigger pot for coffee.

Good catch on my typo. Need to better proof read in this crowd!

AS far as the other troops are concerned, maybe a mini-RoundTable of SM's would go along way to help the others with their program and recruitment.