Jerry

Thankyou Bob White for demonstrating the awsome power of assumption. I did address Annalisa's question some time ago, but did so privately. Anyone who's followed other recent threads already knows my views on women in scouting and I didn't feel the need bore everyone by repeating myself.

Annalisa was first to go on the offensive? Please read her first post and tell me - what about it was even remotely confrontational? She had a question, and she provided us with basic background information so we could know the context of her question. Now look at Bobwhites initial response. He begins with the telling, with all due respect, a comment that invariably precedes criticism. He then questions the purpose of her thesis, how she intends to conduct her research, and even goes so far as to suggest that her work is inappropriate for a doctoral study. And for all the feathers he ruffled, his questioning did NOTHING to facilitate the discussion at hand: the pros and cons of women in scouting. If I came on this site and asked for a good place for my troop to camp, would you ask if Id had my permission slips filled out? If my membership was current? If Id taken Scoutmaster training and if I had enough gear for everyone? Thats essentially what Bobwhite did he used this womans question to pry into things that had no relevance to the discussion and were certainly none of his business, and in doing so he managed to distract this thread from the original question and thereby deprived Annalisa of a valuable resource. Nice job, Bob.

"Where did I lecture her? Did I not support her efforts in obtaining her PHD? Did I not offer my opinion at the outset that the BSA program did not treat women differently and that it was individuals who did but not because of the BSA?" Her question wasn't about whether or not the BSA treated women differently - it was about whether or not female participation was a good thing. But rather than offering any insight into this simple issue, you chose to bombard her with questions about her intentions. Yes, you supported her efforts to get a PhD. You ALSO suggested she "redirect her doctoral efforts." For a guy asking so many questions, you certainly seem to think you already have all the answers. Why on earth would you make such a suggestion based on such limited information? "My experience (and I shouldn't have to apologize for having experience) made me ask questions about her thesis. And why can't I ask her a question, she got to ask me one." Do you answer everyone's question with a question? She was looking for information - all you did was regurgitate the rule book and question her motives. So why'd you post at all? "And doesn't it strike you as curious that she should have determined the length of the thesis before she has completed the research or worked it to a completion." Sure, that's odd. Maybe she was approximating. Maybe she's a very precise person. Maybe it's not any of our business how long her thesis is (gee, how wide will her margins be? what font will she use...) If you have reasonable suspicion that she's a fraud looking to use our input against us in some vile scheme, then share with the group. Otherwise, curious remains simply that: curious (and still not worth worrying about.) "I don't think my questions were out of bounds oor difficult to answer." Nor were hers.

"What makes 20 pages such an attractive number?" Geez Bobwhite, nitpick much? The woman asked for some opinions - her reasons for the length of her thesis, what she hopes to accomplish, and her previous research really aren't any of your business. Maybe she has an alterior motive, maybe not. All we know is she came to this site for help and you opted to question her intentions, methods of research, and even lecture her on the purpose of a PhD thesis. Just because you know the system inside and out is no excuse for the level of rudeness you've demonstrated here. You may have been a college Dean, but unless you happen to be HER Dean, the specifics of her thesis are none of your concern.

"My experience with female bans has shown me three troops that pass a sexist message on to the boys. I have seen the results stick with them into young adulthood." I feel bad for those boys. But saying an all-male troop is by definition sexist is no different that saying that one with female leadership is full of pampered momma's boys - both statements are sometimes true, and both are often false. Others have stated far better than I could that male campouts aren't about chauvinism, just a desire to do guy things with guys. I can't imagine why this is so hard to understand.

"Fact: BSA allows female leaders. Fact: the CO can pick and choose the leaders of units they charter (with in BSA guidelines, i.e. age requirements, etc.). Fact: the boys can think or desire anything they want. Opinion (mine): The boys should have no say on who or who does not go on their camp outings. " The BSA does allow female leaders, I don't think anyone denies this. But it's also been established that a charter organization is well within BSA rules if it chooses to exclude female leaders. We can argue forever about whether a troop is better off with or without female leadership (and indeed, my answer would change depending on the needs of the specific troop,) but the fact remains - a troop with female leaders is within its rights, and a troop that excludes females IS ALSO within its rights. So from a rules&regs perspective, this argument seems over long ago - only nobody wants to admit it. From the other perspective, well, I don't see how anyone is going to convince anyone of anything.(This message has been edited by Jerry)

Sctmom asks "What about the boys who have no problem with mom along?" If a troop is going to adopt a policy only when EVERY BOY agrees... well, do I even need to finish that thought? The best we can do is determine what the majority wants (within reason - and many of us still feel that a male-only outing is within reason.) If you and your son don't care for a policy legitimately adopted by a troop, if you've voiced your opinion and the troop shows no desire to change, then yeah, LEAVE. Find a troop or organization more to your liking. They can go about their business and you can go about yours. Some people really need to stop forcing change on others to fit their own interests.

Redfeather, maybe the fact that your observations and experiences differ from my own underscores the logic of allowing a troop to decide it's own policies. If your scouts choose to have women on campouts, who am I to tell them they're wrong? On the other hand, if a troop want's a "male-only" campout, and if they have the necessary male leadership to do so, then that also is their choice.

"The scouts do not see the undercurrents that have been stated here and won't unless we, as adults, show them." Sorry Red Feather, but I have to disagree. As a former scout, and as stated by other former scouts on this very thread, many scouts DO see these undercurrents, and DO prefer a male-only outing.

"Air mattress who gives a rats butt! If you are worrying about matching sleeping bags (probably bought them on sale and got a good deal, but whatever you do, do not look for the positive) and air mattress you probably do not get the program either. " Dan, you really need to keep threads separated - I do quite enough to get myself into trouble without people taking my posts out of context, thankyou. My matching camp gear comment was under an entirely different thread, and was merely a personal opinion that it's a little creepy when a family shows up looking like the bobsey-quadriplets. It was not a criticism of the parents, the scouts, nor their understanding of the program. Regarding air matresses (I believe I specified motorized air matresses,) yes, I feel that a parent who brings too many luxeries on a campout not only doesn't understand the joys of camping, but makes it difficult for leaders to encourage boys to partake in a genuine, outdoors-roughing-it experience.

I've seen this one at a few outings: The entire family comes along (Mom, Dad, Scout, and younger sibling.) They all have matching sleeping bags, matching airmattresses (complete with battery operated air pump,)matching ponchos, and matching reclining camp chairs. Now, with the exception of the motorized mattresses (which set a bad tone when trying introduce scouts to the joys of "roughing it",) there's nothing wrong with their choice of equipment. But the whole matching thing - does it strike anyone else as just a little, well, creepy?

ASM1: your concern that I might be afraid of being "shown up" by the females could't be more off the mark. We had one godmother accompany our troop once, and she kept up the with the menfolk admirably - running through the brambles on compass courses, trying (successfully, I might add) to start a fire without matches, and sleeping in the dirt. Alas, she was only visiting for the one campout. If more of our moms were like her, maybe I wouldn't be such an advocate for the male-exclusive campout. Instead, we have moms with motorized air matresses, moms that are afraid of squirrels, and even a mom who wanted some of the boys to fan her on a hot day. While this last example is particularly innappropriate, they all serve to illustrate the amazingly un-guylike atmosphere moms bring to a campout. Heck, event those that try to stay out of the way still manage to act like, get this, MOMS!

Bravo Youngblood for stating a truth that is so often dodged in the name of political correctness. Why is it such a terrible thing to have quality time exclusively amongst males? It's not that we want to talk about things that women shouldn't hear or do things women shouldn't see, it's just that hanging out and "being guys" is tainted when moms are around. I'm sure a group of girlscouts would feel the same way about dads tagging along on their own camping trips.

Make a fuss!!! Our troop has 3 Life Scouts about to become Eagle. They've all been allowed to slide since day one, and they expect to slide through Eagle. They meet the bare minimum requirements on paper, but none of the adults (save their parents) feel any one of them has actually earned Eagle. Problem is, it's too late. One of the parents is willing to sue if necessary (he's done it before,) and the others would fight as well. Had this bad precident been nipped in the bud when they were tenderfoots, maybe we could have prevented this bad situation from occuring. Alas, few of us were involved with this troop back then, so we've inherited the lax standards of those who came before us. Deal with it now before you have an 11 year old demanding an Eagle Board of Review.

Ozemu said, "Me thinks that adults are almost irrelevant to prevention and completey irrelevant to first aid if they don't have the training." I'd say you're half-right. From what I've seen, an adult who's there to "be the adult," and who has no training or understanding of scouting is actually WORSE than no adult at all. Reason is, they assume that since they're the adult, they know better. I've seen adults break up the patrol method when it was properly working, I've seen them teach unsafe toten'chip methods, and I can only imagine the damage that could be done by a panicky parent with no first aid knowledge. I know that lots of troops have a shortage of adult leaders, but I can't help but cringe when we invite a parent with no scouting or outdoors skills out into the field and establish them as an instant authority figure.