sherminator505

"I'm not sure I really understand what the point of this thread is other than to rile us up!" But Ed, isn't that the point of MOST I/P threads?

I think that male role models are important because boys need to learn how men are supposed to act towards others, and it takes a man to show this example through everyday actions. Women can tell the boys about this stuff, but they really can't demonstrate it in their everyday actions. I don't mean to say that leadership in Scoutng should be exclusively male or anything like that. I do feel that a mix is appropriate, but situations where the leadership is exclusively or overwhelmingly female should be avoided if at all possible.

I don't have a particular problem with this scenario, so long as the young man isn't returning to the Troop where he started as a Scout. If that were the case, I could see problems looming with regard to parents seeing him as "one of the older boys" and not the SM. Even worse, some of the older boys might share that opinion. Now if this is a Troop that the young man is new to, and he has the time to devote to the job, then I say go for it! And train him now!

"As most of the knots relate to achievements as an adult and a leader, I would be against this type of knot. The square knots (actually adult leader recognition knots) were created to recognize adult contributions to scouting, and not relive past accomplishments as a youth. I do know scouting allows Eagle, AOL, and youth religious emblem knots, but I believe the focus should remain on adult service and accomplishments." Actually, Eagle Scout was one of the first six square knots introduced by the BSA in the 1940's, so knots for youth achievement were included in the mix from the very beginning.

"What about other offensive/illegal/questionable choices.. " Let's dissect that, shall we... offensive - What did Brigham Young say about this? "He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary." Never mind the fact that a Scout, whether gay or not, probably wouldn't set himself up to be your adversary. This is offensive to you because you let it be! illegal - Do you live in a jurisdiction where being gay is still illegal? By and large, any laws to that effect have pretty much disappeared. questionable - OK. This one is fair. Let us examine the reality that some religious denominations have been questioning and/or actually doing something about the exclusion of gays. So apparently, notions about religious attitudes about gays are questionable. So is your attempt to equate gays to gang members,etc., but I digress.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

The CO does have the right to exclude women from leadership roles in its Troop if it chooses. Granted, they are severely limiting themselves in both numbers of adults and their availability, quite possibly to their detriment, and they are practicing very poor public relations...

Remember when "brand image" was derived from the quality of our program? You know, back before the words "brand image" crept into the Scouting vocabulary in the first place?

I've never considered myself one of the "good old boys." I'm one of those journeyman-types that seem to get lost in the mix. I wear two knots - Eagle and STA. I usually don't wear the service star. It has a "20" on it. I was never awarded the Vigil Honor, either. Still Brotherhood after all these years. So what have I done with the time? I've grabbed two troops out of the pool by the collar. Only one still exists today, but I did manage to keep the other afloat long enough for two Eagles to finish before work obligations called me away. I also helped to train our District Chairman back when he was an ASM. Those are the biggies, but I'm sure there are countless little things that escape me just now... Sure, there are some Scouters who seem to get noticed. This doesn't bother me much, save for the attitude that it sometimes breeds. I am perfectly content to get in, get the job done, and leave the self-congratulations to others. I get my reward from seeing a job well done and seeing Scouting advance.

Is there anything about this thread that doesn't scream volumes about how we have completely lost track of the task at hand?!

"A Scout can't go camping without a tour permit and a driver (our District is not sure about Patrol Camping, admittedly). A Scout can't earn a merit badge without my permission (as SM) and a Counselor who responds to requests for meetings. A Scout can't advance without an SMC from me (or one of my ASMs so designated). A Scout can't advance without a BOR from the Comittee and the appropriate paperwork filed with the Council. A Scout can't advance without parental support. So I consider it a bit disingenuous to claim that the Trail to Eagle is 100% the domain of the Scout. A Scout can only go so far unless we (as Scouters) and parents (as a support structure) are providing the opportunity." All of this is true, but unless the Scout makes the conscious decision to go for it, it just won't happen. Now that doesn't mean that the parents have failed, or the leaders have failed, or that the Scout or Scouting failed. In fact, NOT MAKING EAGLE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FAILURE!!! Scouting does a number of great things. It teaches a boy to be motivated and self-reliant. It gets the boy to more carefully consider his role in his family, community, country, and God's green world. It teaches the boy that he really can cook, if he wants to. I have seen Scouting do great things in the complete absence of Eagle's wings. I have seen a scout who achieved the lofty rank of Second Class take his first aid training and mental awareness to save his father's life. I have seen a Scout who was by some standards a bit slow on the uptake achieve the rank of Star before he timed out go on to hold down a job. And I can only imagine how Scouting has helped the millions of other boys who didn't make Eagle. In the end, it isn't the rank that a Scout achieves, but the lessons that he learns.

"A good DE will know who his customers are: the volunteers and the community, and they understand their job is a job of service, not dictating" Too bad you don't see that same attitude reflected more at higher levels of executiveness...

That's the neat thing about Eagle... most Scouts don't make it, but almost every Scout could. I've always been amused by the notion that some Scoutmasters use the number of Eagles they turn out as a measure of success.

I will write an e-mail, of course, but I'm sure this topic is probably under discussion someplace, if a decision hasn't been been made already. Just because we are not privy to the discussion (as we USUALLY aren't) doesn't mean it isn't happening.

"That would be nice "IF" we are given the green flag to do more personal tailored training to a specific units needs." The problem with this statement is National's tendancy to do exactly the opposite. The trend I've seen is toward more "generic" canned courses. The plus side to this is that you are more likely to get the numbers you need to get the course to happen. The downside is that you will provide much less position-specific information. There is a point when you become too broad and lose relevance. I'm not sure how close we are to that line with regard to our current training courses.

As an Eagle and a PE, I can see where you are coming from, Engineer61. But please, how did this situation develop? If the boy is not telling you about what is going on at school, how come? Why isn't the communication happening? Does your kid's middle school use journals? If so, do you check it? It seems that the Scout law holds in more aspects than you might realize. For example, a trustworthy Scout wouldn't withhold this kind of info from his Dad. A loyal Scout wouldn't leave his lab partner in the lurch, and so on. Use that. If the boy wishes to continue as a Scout, then it is reasonable to expect Scout-like behavior both in and out of Scouting. It seems that you need to work with this kid on multiple levels. It doesn't sound like he's gotten himself in that much trouble (yet). But by working with the kid, I mean use the teachable moment to let him know where he's headed if he doesn't watch his step. And that the behavior you've seen isn't very Scout-like. Finally, keep in mind that this is middle school. This is where he should be developing the good habits that will take him through high school and beyond. So work with the kid to develop the good habits. If the school doesn't use work journals, it might be a good idea to start your son on one anyway. But keep it in perspective. A learning experience is no reason to blow a gasket.

"Why would BSA change what they have been doing for 100 years? Why would the BSA lower its moral standards?" I'm not sure that a change in how the BSA does things equates to a lowering of moral standards. To cite a comparable change, for much of the LDS Church's history, blacks were not admitted as their dark skin was regarded as the mark of Cain. This has changed. Would you consider this to be a lowering of moral standards?

I will make my response to this as scoutlike and civil as humanly possible... THIS IS NOT SCOUTING!!!!! Please keep in mind that I have read the requirements for these awards on scouting.org. Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned. (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

""Your job is to support the unit's youth leaders in whatever it is they decide to do. " I must have missed that part of training. Can you point to literature which supports that?" Normally my grasp of English is much better than this, but I'm not sure what you're asking here...

I don't think the boys ever wore neckties (not counting bolos). Now Explorers wore neckties, and Air Scouts might have (although I have never seen depictions of this).

Great! Bigger neckers! Now if we could only get that 4th corner back...

I think that this policy was put into place to give cash-strapped councils guidance on doing what they have to do, properly.

Three pages of posts? About this? Hypersensitive much?

As for the service requirement, of course it does! As for counting previous work on ranks toward merit badge work, I would be a bit more hesitant. A Scout cannot work on a merit badge without the blue card from the Scoutmaster, and if this isn't in place, then it shouldn't count. That said, if the Scout has acquired the skill, it would be that much easier to complete the requirement once the Scout has begun work on the merit badge, yes?

I have never heard about this sort of thing happening before. A question - why did the director of field service decide to reject the list?

Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but from Ed's excerpt, it does not appear that this boy would qualify as a "Lone Cub."