Gwaihir

I think two of the largest areas I don't want BSA to tread down here, are two of the things you'd welcome. Another poster talked of ditching uniforms except in certain situations, which I am vehemently against and the degradation of the patrol method is another I do not want to see at all. I am in favor of charter orgs and of reverence and faith being a key part of scouting. I don't want to see full co-ed for the "scouting bsa" and "Cub scout" programs (which, yes, I know is not the current state of affairs)

"the lore is part of the integral the way water..." I think I have mild dyslexia... what the heck kind of a sentence is that!

I would have preferred Boy Scouts redouble their efforts to figure out why 90% of American boys arent joining Boy Scouts, and de-regulated a bit and gone back to more rough and tumble adventure, stay all boy since this has a lot of benefits in teaching boys. It also provides choice to families that want all-boy environments. I was more in favor of starting up a girls parallel org to the Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, Girl Trackers, whatever, and dedicated commitment and resources to seeing it be a success. I think words, names and traditions matter at a basic human level. In it's current form as pitched by National, with a dedication to single-gender learning, I will support the program because girls should have opportunities to learn the skills provided in Boy Scouts, just not at the detriment of boys. If we go down a path of co-ed troops, co-ed patrols, uniformless units, etc... I'll cash my chips out. Skorts was a good idea, girls like them. I know my daughter does, she loves hers. Was a cub scout, boy scout, eagle scout, assistant scoutmaster, brotherhood member of the oa, den leader, cubmaster, etc.

Take care TT, and hopefully see you on the trail.

but respect you a great deal.

Back on topic: back on topic, NJC, I can see that argument. I'd argue that after this long, the lore is part of the integral the way water is part of the mortar that is poured to make a foundation. Yes, what's important is brotherhood, and service, but without the lore, you're talking about 4H, or some other group. Why not just drop the OA entirely and do something else. I'd argue that the trappings are an integral and "foundational" part.

The point remains, when a bunch of kids spray water guns at each other, they all laugh and have a great time. kidding around is at the very heart of water gun fights... but Bryan (as the mouth piece of the BSA, I don't know where his heart is on the matter) tut tuts about how that's not "kind" and is very "unscoutlike"

NJC was being a lawyer, and his point stands. "BSA" means "Boy Scouts of America", which is the corporation, and under than corporation Venturing, Explorers, Sea Scouts and the ridiculous Learning for Life programs all exist and are co-ed. You were referring to "Boy Scouts" the program, which the CSE has stated wouldn't be co-ed.

I'm on board with this approach

Because that's not the scouting I grew up with, it's not the scouting I believe in. It's nothing against you, if it works for you, that's great. It's not what I signed up for.

because I'm critical of the idea that parents are homogeneous and that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. Parent in and of itself is not trash, that's fairly obvious. Again, I'm critical of an idea. Not of people.

I agree with you that it shouldn't even be a merit badge, but single parent family is irrelevant. I stand by my point, change the words to be "find out what it means to be an effective father from a loved one such as your father, uncle, grandfather, etc if you're a boy and what it means to be an effective mother from a loved one such as your mother, aunt, grandmother, etc if you're a girl" The point of the requirement is to teach the boy how to grow up to be a good father and to teach the girl how to grow up to be a good mother. And unless you were saying the requirement was unkind words, I would argue a Scout is to be kind to people, not to ideas. Ideas can be horrible, and should be chastised openly and publicly bravely. I think changing the requirement to "parent" is a bad idea.

It's not "outrage", outrage is reserved for Hamas terrorists killing Jews. This is anger, but not because of a name change. CSE Michael Saurbaugh repeatedly stated the BSA respects and believes in the differences between boys and girls and will stand by the benefits of single-gender to reach those unique differences... and then purposefully and with intent they do the exact opposite. It's called lying, and what amazes me most is how easily some so willing accept the lying as something that's a-ok. I often wonder what other points of the Scout law are so nonchalantly disregarded in some of the units around the country because "trustworthy" is not even on the radar any longer.

If BSA becomes the same as Scouting in the UK, I'm out. That's my breaking point.

If that's the destination we're headed to, then I will leave. I want nothing to do with UK scouting.

I'm very curious if the change will be "what it means to be an effective father if you're a boy and what it means to be an effective mother if you're a girl" or if they just say "parent". Which would be trash.

There should have been two magazines. All of this program change is in the name of growth. Grow then. Make a new magazine, have some cross-over content, and then have some content specific to girls and boys wants. Feature male heroes in Boys' Life and female heroes and role models in Life for Girls. Changing everything to neutral is lazy circling of the wagons.

not being a parent, imo, is a HUGE negative against him when it's an organization dedicated to youth that's trying specifically trying to roll out "family scouting". You cannot even begin to relate to the family unit if you don't have one of your own. It's just one more ding against him coupled with a bevy of decisions he's been at the helm of... and honestly even with all that, it's the lying more than anything else that's at the heart of the problem!

Agreed.

the media, our councils? I know I'm dropping the Boys' Life subscription for my son. I'm sure Bryan Wendell was all in favor of this name change.

Voice the displeasure. We have to be vocal about these changes. If Scouting could revert some of it's changes in the 70s, it can do so now.

I laugh every time I hear the "thousands" line being thrown around. 2,000 whole girls joined! whoa! Wait.. how many girls are in America? millions? oh... shh, don't say that part.

No one disagrees with that. But there is a difference between children, adolescences and adults. The proof is in the pudding, boys are being forgotten, left behind, called toxic, they're failing out of school, they're not bothering with college, they're using drugs at a higher rate, they're shooting schools at a higher rate, they're killing themselves at a much higher rate and at a much younger age. As we've done all this transitioning to gender neutrality, the statistics on failing boys has climbed ever higher. Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but there are is an abundance of evidence that this is a large part of the problem. Your kids might be good leaders, but their kids aren't going to be good leaders, they're going to be lucky to just survive. This is something we need to address as a society... our boys' lives literally depend on it.

They have to change the program so that they'll love the program. It reminds me of we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.

I still think it matters today. I'm speaking of 10-15 years down the road. Since inception, it's 2%, but the number annually is up to 6% and climbing. The "since inception" number will stay low for a very long time since that's how percentages work, but the annual numbers are relevant to the living, and when Eagle scout is the chief marketing tool, you'll see that number continue to climb and the requirements to earn it diminish. I want to be proven wrong and in 15 years, I'll return here and see if I am.