Rick_in_CA

And such a wonderful role model he is turning out to be.

This is true about the boy scouts too. We saw this during the discussion over the BSA membership policy when people would say things like "go start your own organization, this one's ours". I understand those people that choose not to participate in the inauguration, but I don't see anything wrong with a group of girl scouts marching in the parade if they wish. I hope they have a great time.

Great photos! Looks like a lot of fun! Thanks for sharing them.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that just because I don't "get something", doesn't mean there isn't something there "to get". But I agree with those posters that say an eight year old being considered transgendered is premature. I don't believe an eight year old understands themselves enough to make such a judgement. But, this is something "I don't get", so maybe I'm wrong.

I think the memorial is really ugly. I have no problem with neoclassical style, or the nudity. Nor is it that the adult figures are oversized. It's that the figures are badly realized and distorted. Enough to enter the uncanny valley. The result just looks wrong. I've seen plenty of neoclassical sculpture, and they don't usually appear distorted like this. These simply look badly done.

In the cub scout program we would get a lot of parents asking "can my daughter join too?". We did have a few parents not sign up their sons because they couldn't also signup their daughters. They were looking for a single activity that could include both. I don't have a similar experience at the boy scout level.

I'm curious where you got this data? Did someone do a survey?

I agree. Going coed will be a big change. One of the issues that will need to be addressed that you may not see in other countries is the "sexual predator" paranoia here in the US. Basically, every male is assumed to be a potential sexual predator by many. Especially a man without kids. Look at the resistance encountered by many men trying to help their daughter's GSUSA units. Or how many day care facilities effectively have a "no men allowed" policy. I have spoken to several male scouters that have said they won't be taking a coed unit out camping for fear of unfounded accusations - they will quit first. And I am not sure they are wrong to do so. In the abstract, I think the BSA should be fully coed. But we don't live in an abstract world. In the modern USA ("Eek! A male!"), I'm not sure how workable it would be. Though Venturing appears to make it work - maybe that means it will work OK with younger scouts?

I agree, I don't see him taking a side. I'm a liberal, but I agree that we need voters that are thoughtful and informed. I haven't missed a national election since I became old enough to vote. But I rarely fill in the entire ballot. If I don't feel I can make an informed decision on an issue or race, I leave that part blank.

You are correct that magazines are selling what they think people want, usually backed up by market research. However, it is a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Part of the reason that girls want stuff like this is because that is what they have been told by the market to want. If all they see are messages in the media that says "this is what girls care about" and "this is what it means to be a girl", then that is going to heavily influence what they think. Look at the color pink. It used to be considered a masculine color. What changed? Marketing in the 30s, 40s and 50s pushed pink as a girls color - and attitudes changed. By the 50s, the whole girls pink, boys blue thing had become established. It didn't happen overnight, and it wasn't done by any one person or magazine. Marketing has significant power to shape peoples attitudes. It's why billions of dollars are spent on marketing every year. Look at fashion, changes in fashion trends are largely driven top-down. The fashion "movers and shakers" decide what will be "in" and communicate that down too the consumers via fashion magazines and other media. And it works. Yes the public has input based on what they choose to buy, but they are limited in the choices by the fashion industry. And are heavily influenced by marketing. You are correct that marketing doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's based on current society attitudes and preferences. But it also seeks to shape those attitudes and preferences - and that is where marketers (and magazine editors) have to take some responsibility for what messages they choose to emphasize. This I don't understand. Why are you so hostile? Writing letters can make a difference. If enough pressure is put on magazines and retailers to make changes, they will. It has happened before. And the concerns are real. Look at colleges, while women now make up a larger percentage of the incoming class then ever before, the percentage of women entering STEM fields is falling. The rates of eating disorders in girls appears to be increasing. Young girls are increasingly being sexualized at a younger and younger age (try to get a Halloween costume for your daughter that isn't "sexy <insert noun here>"). Parts of our culture are increasingly sending the message that young women have no agency (all women are victims, all men perpetrators). As has been pointed out here many times, the GSUSA has largely abandoned it's outdoor focus for indoor activities. Yes, the reasons for these changes are complex, and changing society is never easy. But telling people to "stop complaining and suck it up" is not helpful.

My understanding is that when the UK boy scouts went coed the UK girl guides didn't see a drop in membership, and they are still going strong. I have no real idea how the program of the UK's girl guides compares to our GSUSA program, but I imagine it isn't drastically different. I would think we would see something similar here. The BSA going completely coed won't have a big effect on GSUSA numbers. Nor would it have a huge effect on the BSA numbers. I think the BSA would see a small bump in numbers (mostly at the cub scout level where the bump might be substantial), or a small drop if the transition is handled badly.

This is the problem I have with your argument style right here @@Eagledad. It's not that you disagree that the BSA should go fully coed, it's that you imply that anyone that is arguing in favor of a coed BSA "doesn't care about the boys" is representing "outside interests" and is willing to "sacrifice" the program. Basically you are questioning the morals of anyone that disagrees with you, questioning their commitment to scouting, and are implying that they are arguing in bad faith. I'm just not sure if it's intentional on your part. We should be able to discuss this issue without denigrating the opposition. Instead we should assume that we all love scouting, are people of good character and are just trying to make the BSA better. I don't believe that anyone here is part of some insidious plot to destroy the BSA in the name of some sort of political agenda. Disagreeing with me (or you) doesn't mean that someone isn't a "real scouter", no one here has a monopoly on the "one true way" of scouting. In the many years I have participated in this forum, I have had some strong disagreements with many posters. But I have never doubted that the people I have disagreed with were people of good character that loved scouting (with a few rare exceptions). Someone that I would love to sit around a campfire with while sharing a beverage and shooting the breeze. Someone I would be honored to call "Friend".

One thing to consider is: what is the Chaplin's Aid actually doing when he leads the group in prayer? What is his role? Is he just praying for himself, or is he offering a prayer for the whole group? The role of the Chaplin's Aid is to serve the group's spiritual needs, not just his own. Does that mean he can't lead the group in a prayer that includes the name Jesus? No. But it does mean that he has to be cognizant of the fact that he is not just acting for himself, and be aware that there might be people of different faith traditions than his own in his audience; and too address those differences with respect. I don't think anyone is arguing, nor is the BSA saying, that a scout can't "pray as he'd been instructed". But when you lead a group in prayer, you are in essence speaking for the group, and you have to be mindful of the diversity of the group. There are many ways to address a diverse group, the trick is to find what works for both the one leading the prayer, and the group he is speaking for or too.

Lots of good comments, just a few more too add: If he is going to offer an explicitly Christian prayer, he should communicate that up front (say something like: "if your faith allows, please join me in a Christian prayer, or if not, please feel free too silently say one more appropriate to your faith."). Adding "In Jesus name" or equivalent to the end of a otherwise generic prayer is a good way to make people feel "ambushed" and too generate bad feelings. Of course for some people, that is the point. As others have said, a lot depends on the nature of the audience. One thing to be aware of is that it's basically impossible to have a truly non-sectarian prayer. Nondenominational is not the same. What constitutes "prayer" can very a lot between faiths. For many faiths, all or most prayers come out of a book of prayers, the modern protestant free form prayer is alien to them. For some, what looks like prayer may not be. Do Buddhists pray? Depends on who you ask and how you define "prayer".

The problem is that they are suing to prevent something that is not going to happen. The law has been in place since 2007 and has not been used to force a church to do anything. Plus the law clearly exempts churches unless they are doing something not related to religion (such as acting as a poling place or running an outside business). But we can't let the facts get in the way of generating fear. This is not a campaign to protect churches, but a tactic to overturn LGBT protections all over the state (their argument is basically: "since it might be applied to a church, it shouldn't be applied anywhere").

There were several local COs around here that left because of the change, but we got several new ones to replace them (some that have been waiting in the wings for years until the ban was lifted - some of which had been COs pre-dale) so the total number of units is now about the same. But I'm not sure what the effect has been on the number of scouts. I know that it made recruiting and selling popcorn easier. Lots of schools that used to say no to recruiting flyers and such now are saying yes. Plus more businesses are open to allowing popcorn sales on their property. When the ban first got back into the news (when the BSA first floated the change), lots of parents in our cub pack (and scouters in my district based on discussions at round table ) were unaware of the ban (and many were bothered by it). Also a lot of COs and sponsors appeared to have been unaware of the ban. Several businesses dropped their sponsorship of the local council at that time saying they didn't know the BSA was discriminatory. The sad part is that now that the ban is over, many people and organizations don't know it yet. I hear from people at the council that they still run into the "we can't support you because of your anti-gay policies". I guess it took a boat load of news stories and publicity to establish the "BSA is anti-gay" reputation, and it's going to take an equal boat load of news stories and publicity to get rid of it. Only the membership policy is out of the news (as it should be), so it's going to take a while.

So very sorry to hear of your loss. I agree with @@Stosh, cancer is terrible.

While the UK DoE award requires the Adventurous Journey to be completed without adult supervision, the versions here in the USA are dumbed down so that adult supervision is required for the journey (unless the participants are over 18). Which largely defeats the purpose of course.

Glad it went well. From the photos it looks like some tired scouts!

I just saw this thread. Sounds like a great event. You just got my donation. Wish all your scouts good luck from the states!

The problem is that the age guidelines for tool use are basically absurd. You have to be 14 before using a little red wagon (4 wheel cart)? A 13 year old can't use an electric screwdriver or a paint roller with an extension? You have to be 16 before using a lawn mower (I was mowing the lawn when I was ten)? I would say ignore the absurd guidelines and use actual common sense. @@CalicoPenn has it right, it really depends on the scouts, parents and leaders. I've met 16 year-olds that shouldn't be allowed near a screwdriver (electric or otherwise), and once met an 11 year old that was routinely operating heavy farm machinery. So it all depends. Based on the BSA tool guidelines I'm surprised they don't have rule that says: "Allowed to chew their own food - Youth 10 years old and over." I'm sure that is just an over site that will be fixed in the next version of the GTSS. Along with the rule "must where appropriate protective gear, including helmet and knee protectors, when walking on unpaved surfaces".

I agree. Summer camp should be about fun, not school. But the parents don't agree. The worse comment I got from a scouter about summer camp was that their camp wasn't a merit badge mill, most scouts only earned six merit badges during the week. Six?! The idiot clearly didn't know what "merit badge mill" meant.

OMG! They are above chest height and not in safety gear! What were they thinking! And that pioneering tower is probably above 6 feet! Not to mention they are climbing on it! All against the GTSS!!!! Wait, what do you mean "adventure"? Sounds dangerous! Someone should file a lawsuit!

The thing to remember about Facebook, is that you are not their customer. The customers are the people they sell their data too. The data about their "members". That is why it's free. So Facebook has all the incentive in the world to maximize the data generated, which is in direct odds with the very idea of "privacy". Which is why they keep having problems with their privacy settings. Everything you do on Facebook is the "crop" that Facebook harvests. You are the product. Always remember that before you do anything on Facebook or any other social media (LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.). Almost nothing on the internet is actually free (there are a few donor funded services like Wikipedea, but they are the exceptions). If you are offered a free service, ask yourself "what are they getting out of it? How do they afford to offer this?" I find it amazing how few people understand this.

Interesting, from the Frontier Girls website: I'm with @@mashmaster here, sounds a lot like the AHG to me. One is "Biblically based", the other is "Christ centered". Both say they are open to any girl that can follow the oath/promise and creed. I don't see how you can be "Biblically based" yet be really open to all faiths and religions. When they say "all", are they really meaning "all flavors of Christian"? How does a Hindu girl fit into a Biblically based program? If I was a Muslim or Hindu I would be asking a lot of questions before allowing my daughter to join such a group. But after asking those questions, hopefully I would be pleasantly surprised. From a quick glance at their website, it's hard to tell what their "traditional values" are. They say they don't like the current GSUSA program, but don't say what about it bothers them. Is it the lack of outdoor focus or the fact they don't condemn gays? Maybe the answers are on their website, I didn't spend that much time going through it. The whole "we encourage interaction with other scouting organizations" bit sounds really interesting (especially the sharing of requirements part). Frontier Girls might turn out to be a good fit for cub packs that are looking for a way to get girls involved. Form a FG unit for the girls, and do joint activities (pack meetings, derbies, outings, etc.).