Armymutt

I think it should be up to the unit. All Scouting is local. Forcing coed situations on children who are not ready for such a thing can drive them out of the program. Let boys be boy and girls be girls. They already have to change their behavior at school to avoid some social faux pas that will follow them for years. Scouting should be an escape from that society, not an extension of it. Of course, with the increase of classroom requirements, maybe Scouting is destined to simply be school part 2.

Yes, and they are all electives. There is no requirement to do it, unlike the previous version of the Bear rank.

I've been digging in even further and the changes make little sense, at least at the Bear level. One can complete Cub Scouts without ever touching a knife. However, one must figure out a way to raise a flag on a flag pole. Seems to me that it's far easier and simpler to pick up a knife at Walmart than it is to purchase and install a flag pole. Now I have to run around and beg some organization to let me use their flag pole or figure out something else. For me, the simplest solution will be to last some sticks together, but most parents don't have the pioneering knowledge to do that.

I could have sworn I heard of a video or transcript of Green Bar Bill saying the Scout Law with further details for each point. I'm coming up short on Google. I've seen some explanation pages, but I thought there was one he did. Any help?

Excluding registered Scouts from events bigger than the unit level because they aren't like you?

The emphasis on camping and Arrowmen being "campers" has been curtailed. What's funny is that our council has been asking for units to submit ideas on where to go camping. Like we don't have an organization that used to have that as a mission.

I have the 1992 OA Handbook and a modern one with no date. In 1992, the Purpose of the Order was "To recognize those campers - Scouts and Scouters - who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives and by such recognition cause other campers to conduct themselves in such manner as to warrant recognition. To develop and maintain camping traditions and spirit. To promote Scout camping, which reaches its greatest effectiveness as a part of the unit's camping program... To crystallize the Scout habit of helpfulness into a life purpose of leadership in cheerful service to others." Today: "Recognize those who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives and by such recognition cause others to conduct themselves in such manner as to warrant recognition. Promote camping, responsible outdoor adventure, and environmental stewardship as essential components of every Scout's experience, in the unit, year-round, and in summer camp. Develop leaders with the willingness, character, spirit, and ability to advance the activities of their units, our Brotherhood, Scouting, and ultimately our nation. Crystallize the Scout habit of helpfulness into a life purpose of leadership in cheerful service to others." Seems like camping has been severely downgraded in importance and focus for the Order. I've yet to learn how decreasing the number of camping nights by 20% makes one a better candidate for the Order.

We've been told for many years that diversity is out strength. Now we have various groups wanting to have their own exclusive events and we are told that "Affinity outings strengthen Scouts and Scouters ties to Scouting. They bring us together, they don't divide." by our Council President. So which is it? The Boy Scouts was, arguably, an affinity group. I'm all for groups hosting Scouting events, but I believe that we are strengthened when all Scouts are invited to participate. Otherwise, where is the learning? If you're not inviting all Scouts, exactly how are these events bringing us together?

Iteration is the number of events occurring of the same type. Normally one reviews what happens and make changes for the next event with an eye toward improving. I think you are creating a strawman. The event doesn't address any of the concerns you bring up. Frankly, it create more friction by identifying girls as special members rather than equal members. If this was something like the Catholic Camporee in that it is hosted by the Catholic Committee on Scouting and the Knights of Columbus are cooking a dinner and a breakfast for the participants, but it is open to all Scouts, then I would have no issue. If the girl troops want to host a camporee for all the Scouts in the council and staff the stations, cool, but I'm 90% sure that is not what is happening here.

This is at least the third or fourth iteration. There are boy troops younger than this and there are no special camporees being offered for them. We're trying to stand up troops in areas devoid of scouting with leaders who have no scouting experience. There are no special camporees for them. There are ample opportunities for training available for both youth and adults. I don't know of too many girl troops that don't have a boy troop in the same CO. I do know of boy troops that have a Tenderfoot for an SPL. Those kids are pretty much left to fend for themselves in a program that was designed to help them escape the poverty of the cities. If anyone needs special events, it's those kids, not the girl troops who can simply walk across the hall and ask an older Scout in a boy troop.

How do you figure that only aiming to increasing female membership is acceptable? I also don't see any mention of this as a recruiting event. It's a camporee. Those are for active Scouts, not the general public. Is demographic-based Scouting events where we really want to go? That seems to fly in the face of universal brotherhood and becomes an "othering" type of program.

I'm curious how this inclusiveness jives with the annual girl only camporee. Doesn't sound inclusive to me. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=844830384336661&set=a.554791236673912

Took a glance at SB tonight. One of the requirements for the Bear Bobcat adventure is "Learn about the denner position and responsibilities." That will be interesting with 2 kids. I also noticed that the youth protection part that used to be just part of the rank requirements is now one of the required adventures. Bears no longer have to learn about knife safety or how to tie knots. The only outdoor activity required is a 1-mile hike. There is no requirement to observe nature during this hike. You could probably do it on a track. Oh, and there's exciting stuff like reviewing your medical record and "Learn about the mission of any non-profit. Find out how they fund their activities and how volunteers are used to help." That just screams 3rd grader fun. No more outings, no need to interact with the community. Everything could be done in a classroom in 8 weeks. This is definitely going to bring in hordes of kids.

Did the addition of girls actually improve numbers? The chart doesn't indicate that. The various changes (and I wouldn't call BLM support and the LDS departure an "outside change") haven't brought in the numbers that we were told they would. The numbers in the Boy Scout program didn't change all that much from 1979 to 2019. Even with COVID, if the changes were to have had the desired effect, I would expect the bars for Boy Scouts to have remained the same, not 75% of the previous numbers. COVID has been over for more than a year and the numbers have dropped even more. Tells me that inclusivity isn't the problem.

Random thought this morning, what happens when people realize that Tenderfoot is a derogatory name for a beginner and people get upset at being called a "Second Class Scout"? Is that suddenly where BSA/SA will put its foot down? Seems kind of arbitrary. If you can change the name of the organization, why can't you change the names of the ranks? On top of that, why have ranks? The rest of WOSM doesn't have ranks, except for the top one in each program. How inclusive is it to say you can't be a certain rank if you haven't spent this certain length of time as the previous rank?