Callooh! Callay!1428010939

Where you find many scouters together, you may find a little scoutier-than-thou dynamic among them. Some stake out positions as more outdoorsman-like, more scoutcrafty, more boy-led, more patrol-methodical, or more seasoned than thou. Normally it's nothing offensive, harmful, or excessive. It's just a little one-upmanship and it's entertaining to watch sometimes. Of course there's always that one guy with never ending war stories and wisdom he has to share about everything and anything. Eyes roll every time he opens his pie-hole for the umpteenth time to tell his way (the best way) to do whatever is at hand. But he means well and we can appreciate the good will and energy he devotes to scouting. Posters in this forum stake out positions on various matters and occasionally denigrate other scouters, units, parents, and scouts because; they aren't scout-led enough, they aren't outdoorsman-like enough, have too much parent influence, not enough parent participation, or don't challenge boys to do exactly as the scouter has judged is best. The disagreements mostly stem from differing judgments about conflict between worthy goals. BSA policies leave some things up to scouter judgment as to how to balance the inherent tension between some of Scouting's goals. The most fundamental conflict of goals within Scouting is the conflict between its mission to promote high ideals, standards, and values embodied in the Oath and the Law and its goal to be a large organization with wide appeal. You can have standards and values, and you can have wide appeal. But you can't always have more of each. At some point, you've got the widest appeal you can have without changing your standards and values. Even then, changes in standards and values may widen the organization's appeal to one demographic but simultaneously decrease its appeal in another. The BSA's mission and vision statements are familiar (or available at http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/mission.aspx ) There is tension between the BSA's mission statement and its vision statement. The mission promotes the high ideals of the "Scout Oath and Law;" whereas the vision is to "prepare every eligible youth." It's unrealistic to think "every eligible youth" will be receptive to high ideals. But tension between aspirations and possibility can keep an organization vital and striving. Outdoor Purists may unhappily note that the BSA Mission Statement does not include the words "to train them in Scoutcraft" that appear in the BSA Federal Charter of 1916. The absence of these words likely reflects of how BSA has chosen to manage tension between conflicting goals. There is an earlier document from BSA's incorporation in 1910 that states (according to the sources I could readily find anyway) that the purpose of BSA is to "to teach patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred values." Maybe this earlier document also contains the same wording as the later 1916 Federal Charter. I don't know. And I don't worry about it. For now, it seems the Oath and the Law are where BSA draws the line of "if that's not your thing, then you're not one of us." Everything thing else is honest differences of opinion about how to balance the inherent tension between two good things: the formal structures of scouting programs and the judgment of leaders who must apply those structures in circumstances that demand some interpretation and judgment. Standards? Yes. Strict homogeneity? No thanks. Some Outdoor Purist's object vociferously: those other scouters and scouts aren't outdoorsman-like enough. They don't know about the 1916 Charter's emphasis on scoutcraft. They aren't scoutly enough because they often go to campgrounds in cars rather than hiking out and back, uphill both ways, in the snow. They often have running water (w/ restrooms and hot showers even) rather than having to collect and purify water that pools in bear tracks along the trail. Or they cook expedient and simple meals rather than Dutch oven extravaganzas, or some other way in which they aren't hardcore enough... they're lazy slacker Cupcake Scouts who skate through by just meeting the minimum requirements for the Outdoor Purist's favorite things, be they hiking, camping, outdoor cooking, what have you. But as it stands, the Oath and the Law are the center of scouting. Talk about outdoors, uniforms, patrol method, advancement, association w/ adults, service, and leadership all you like; goods things, all of them. But none rate mention in the BSA Mission Statement; the Oath and Law do. The other things are tools... the camping, hiking, scoutcraft and all those things we find in the handbook are structure, not purpose. Since that is the structure, scouters know and encourage outdoor activity, knowledge, and skills. Rank advancement for scouts requires these things. And troops should ensure their scouts meet the minimum standards of knowledge and experience in those areas commensurate with their rank. But let's not confuse means and ends. The guiding principles are the Oath and the Law. That is scouting according to BSA. That is the scouting that will make a positive impact in the world outside of scouting through the lives and actions of boys and men who seek to live the Oath and the Law... be they primarily car campers or backpackers, computer and robotics geeks or pioneering and climbing adventurers. The Oath and the Law are the centerpieces for a mainly standardized but significantly heterogeneous network of units where boys can associate with people who share those core values, and pursue personal growth in those values through activities that, beyond the basic minimum standards, may have very different foci. Some units are more high adventure and some just meet the standards for outdoor proficiency and may have other appropriate interests. If a boy wishes to earn scouting's highest rank, there is only a limited set of merit badges that he must earn and a limited set of other requirements. Within and beyond those requirements, there is a wide menu of options. The Outdoor Purist (and other types of purists) will, with good will and intent, argue that "minimum standard" is a low target, and that boys should strive for excellence. It's true. But it's also true that if a boy or unit meets standards, they meet standards. Maybe they exceed standards in other areas, maybe they don't. It's the Oath and the Law that make them fellow scouts and scouters, not whether or not they camp as much or as ruggedly as we prefer. As a parent I expect my sons to go beyond the minimum requirements for outdoor skills. But as a scouter, while I may encourage above and beyond experience and skill, it's not my place to question the status of scouts who have met the minimum requirements for an award, advancement, or recognition - even if they are consistently meeting only the bare minimum for everything they do.

Two common complaints are that "dancing and feathers" are: 1) hokey 2) disrespectful to Indian culture But if we take complaint 2 seriously and seek to mitigate it, we run into a more substantive problem: Pre-Columbian North American cultures are not worthy of our emulation. They're worthwhile subjects of study for historical perspective and for practical reasons of learning skills and crafts that can be useful in woodcraft, camping, or survival situations. But revering and emulating these cultures is taking that too far. These cultures enjoy an undeserved halo of wonderfulness in the popular imagination today more because of flaws in our own culture (noble savage fantasies, disatisfaction with modernity, Marxism, multiculturalism, epistemological subjectivism, ignorance, the usual suspects) than because of anything wonderful about these cultures. Unless you think Aztecs bloodying the steps of their temples with human sacrifice were just making worthy expressions of spirituality, then you already know that not all cultures are equally good or valuable. Not all examples of practices unworthy of emulation are as dramatic as human sacrifice, but that one well illustrates the point. Replace it with other kinds of ceremonies? How about straightforward formal but simple ceremonies without any hokum, mystic hocus pocus, or secret society-like flavor to them? How about cheerful service with no hullabaloo, no self-dramatization - just quiet dedication to doing good? An elaborate wedding doesn't make a successful marriage.

No. I just made that up. Get an answer more articulate than "good" ??? You'd need a team of seasoned folks working in shifts... eventually the sleep deprivation would work its magic and you'd get past "good" to something far more detailed like "oh, it was ok."

"Social Security is just an insurance program, eh?" Insurance program - yes, it does have some similarities to an insurance program. It also has similarities to a Ponzi Scheme. Also to an extortion racket. Which similarities seem most relevant likely depends on one's leanings toward individualism and collectivism.

"need to read up on that water-boarding trick" It's rumored that using that technique can elicit answers to the question "how was your day?" more detailed than the standard "good."

"need to read up on that water-boarding trick" It's rumored that using that technique can elicit answers to the question "how was your day?" slight more detailed than than "good."

Mile swim might be a reasonable requirement for Star rank, maybe Life. But I can see why boys wouldn't want to do it at camp. Four mandatory "training" sessions on four separate days prior to the swim? Camp has other opportunities that compete with it.

Yeehaa! "Leave No Trace" is emphasized in the Wilderness Survival MB? That can only mean one thing... the Wilderness Survival MB is now more like SERE. What else could explain an emphasis on "Leave No Trace" other than the addition of Evasion training and exercise? That's is one awesome camping trip - practicing land-nav, evading, finding water, sheltering themselves from the elements... surviving... all at the same time. Throw in some challenging weather and teams of professionals to try to find them while they're evading you've got yourself a fulfilling and educational experience. They should draw the line at the Resistance portion of the training though - not appropriate for Boy Scouts IMO. A father should teach his own sons the fundamentals of surviving captivity and resisting interrogation when he thinks they're ready. Fathers are supposed to have qualified on all that before they even get to attend the Father Q Course, right?

Cell phone at camp anecdote: We have severe lightning and a camp policy that, when the alarm sounds, all head for the nearest shelter and stay until the all clear. A thunderstorm came upon us shortly before dinner and lasted for hours. The nearest shelter to me was the chow hall when the alarm sounded. Some troops had scouts that also ended up stranded at the chow hall, uncertain of the disposition of their troops, and lacking communications because of limited cell phone reception in the area. I overheard and saw some scouts working a handy bit of resourcefulness. They shared tips on downloading a calling application for their phones from the wi-fi internet access at the chow hall (not sure how they got the password for that - I thought it was supposed to be for adults - but given the situation I thought what they were doing was perfectly appropriate). The app allowed them to contact other devices in the vicinity without the need of a cell tower. Soon they had a little network going and were able to gather info about their units from around the camp. Sure, it wasn't really necessary; the storm only lasted a few hours. But it was a good little exercise, and they were obviously quite pleased with themselves for working it out. The skills and principles behind what they did could be helpful in a longer term contingency. Regarding the linked article: "When children come to camp they and you (parents) are making a leap of faith, transferring their primary care from you as their parents to us and their counselors..." "As children learn to trust other caring adults, they grow and learn, little by little, to solve some of their own challenges. We believe this emerging independence is one of the greatest benefits of camp." There are contradictions here. "Transferring primary care "to us and their counselors" doesn't sound like independence; it sounds like dependence on someone else. And this howler... "trusting other caring adults" and ones they have probably never met before at that, is supposed to help them learn "to solve some of their own challenges?" No, a person solving his own challenges is very careful about how much faith he puts in people he has just met. He learns to solve his own challenges by trusting himself and by being circumspect in whose judgment he trusts other than his own. Isolate people from their regular circle of interaction, subject them to stress and fatigue, and then demand control who they can communicate with... what does this sound like? "Sending a cellphone to camp is like saying to your child that you as the parent haven't truly come to peace with the notion of them being in our care." Yes. It could be that the parents have not "truly come to peace with the notion." And helicopter camp staff don't like that. They want to be trusted completely and they want complete control over the environment. Perhaps this is the real meat of this psychologist's objections and the objections of helicopter camp staff. "The cellphone umbilical cord is just one way parents unintentionally undermine the development of resilience in their children," Ditter wrote. "Camp offers a tremendous opportunity for children to practice coping skills they will need for what is sure to be a challenging future." See there... it's "just one way" they are undermining their childrens' development. Apparently this Ditter person can list a whole litany of other ways in which foolish parents are harming their childrens' development. But where's the evidence? It's "expert" opinion no doubt, backed by fascinating anecdotes I'm sure. "...undermine the developing resilience of their children..." oh the humanity! Those poor delicate little flowers will never blossom now... not the way they could have... had not their ignorant and thoughtless parents undermined their developing resilience. We want kids to ant kids to be able to handle their own affairs? How about trusting them to handle the ability to communicate with their parents? If they are on cell phones: during your classes or meetings... unacceptable - forbid it, and make the rings silent. at meals or social gatherings... rude - discourage it. any other time: none of your business... let it go helicopter camp staffer, you can't be the constant custodian of every aspect of the development of these delicate little flowers who've been entrusted to your care. And maybe they're not as delicate as you imagine. In fact, maybe they are so incredibly tough that they can withstand the corrosive effects that talking to their parents might have on their poor delicate developing resilience and independence. (This message has been edited by callooh! callay!)

BadenP: "To those of you scout leaders who don't seem to mind or care about the direction scouting is currently heading... ... I respectively [sic] suggest you volunteer your time elsewhere" Understood: Scouting is headed in a direction. You don't like it. You want those who feel less strongly about it than you to go volunteer elsewhere. BSA policies leave some things up to Scouter judgment as to how to balance the inherent tension between some of Scouting's goals. You want Scouters who don't judge as you do to go away. The BSA's mission and vision statements are likely familiar to you (or available at http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/mission.aspx ). There is tension between the two statements. The mission promotes the high ideals of the "Scout Oath and Law;" whereas the vision is to "prepare every eligible youth." It's unrealistic to think "every eligible youth" will be receptive to high ideals. But tension between aspirations and possibility can keep an organization vital and striving. The most fundamental conflict of goals within Scouting is the conflict between its mission to promote high ideals, standards, and values embodied in the Oath and the Law and its goal to be a large organization with wide appeal. You can have standards and values, and you can have wide appeal, and you can have both simultaneously. But you can't always have more of each. At some point, you've got the widest appeal you can have without changing your standards and values. Even then, changes in standards and values may widen the organization's appeal to one demographic but decrease its appeal to another.

E-92: Palmico Seabase looks AWSOME! But it does offer at least one MB (Small Boat Sailing) and it's located with Camp Boddie which has plenty of MBs in its summer camp program. To quote the PSB website: "These programs operate on the same schedule as a traditional summer camp, with check in beginning on Sunday and the week concluding on Saturday morning. This allows units to travel together to one convienant [sic] location for their summer adventuree. Younger Scouts can participate in merit badge programs at Camp Boddie while older Scouts can go outside the box and into the water at the Pamlico Sea Base." That sounds about right.... organized learning early on for scouts at Camp Boddie to pursue specific goals, complete with "Trail to Eagle" classes that offer all three Citizenships, Communications, and E-Prep. And then, down the road a year or two, after puberty has muscled them up a bit so they can better take on High Adventure activities, and they've knocked out a bunch of MBs in their "Eagle Mills," they can do the way cool PSB programs with nary a care for what gegaws these experiences will entitle them to sew on their uniforms. Very nice.(This message has been edited by callooh! callay!)

Yea, you think these kids have it tough... Try being a leader's son in a boy led troop!

Many options here: http://www.riteintherain.com/Categories.aspx?Category=fbc3c15c-9c09-47cd-8175-79b14c0740d9

Regarding the Acco40 post above at Posted: Saturday, 7/30/2011: 10:43:47 PM: Amen. That would be something!

Fascinating... contrast these two statements: "Not on my watch! Last thing I'd want at a PLC is any unnecessary adults." with the two that immediately follow them: "The PLC belongs to the youth leaders. It is in my eyes a time for them to do their thing and nothing else." Apparently the PLC belongs to them as long as they do what "I'd want" on "my watch."

Sanctimonious moral exhibitionism over good deeds cheapens them; as does reviling those who don't do likewise.

Those who insist on hewing to the facts of the OP as in a court case, please hold your cries of "I object, Your Honor... that's not what the OP said!"... and ignore this post starting..... here. We'll follow the protocol jtswestark invoked in an earlier post and use the OP as a prompt for discussion of related matters general. The question in Beavah's post "If yeh home school with a cooperative, other parents are under no obligation to share their kids backgrounds with yeh. Why would you expect scouting to be any different?" The question takes us back to the pointy point of E61's earlier post. If you're at the point that post describes, in which an offense is serious enough that you're thinking "the issue is full disclosure" and the situation has you concerned about state laws that require you to report "if you are aware of any person who you may suspect may endanger the health or safety of a child." If you're at that point, then maybe it's not so much disclosure that's the issue as it is a "to-the-door-and-down-the-street-to-rehab kinda thing." As SP notes - deal promptly. Where to draw the line.... Contrite one time shoplifter? - He can live it down. Maybe we can help. Juvenile sex offender who's done time for battery and buggery? Not so much. Between those two extreme examples there's a wide spectrum of seriousness, danger, and recidivism rates for offenses. Judgment will draw the line somewhere. Moral exhibitionism over where our individual judgment draws that line may be entertaining but it ought not set policy. Scouters may still be morally straight and doing good even if they don't live on the high moral plains where absolutely no boy is beyond their help. Regarding disclosure, If a troop is of qwazse's "we take bad kids" variety, folks may not be entitled to know... but it seems helpful, courteous, kind, and brave of the troop to want to revise their sign and tell folks up front... "we take bad kids." They can do that without slanderous rumor mongering.

Fascinating discussion here: Seattle Pioneer and Jtswestark Westarks points make sense and are what first came to my mind: one bad kid can cause a lot of trouble, and if hes especially bad, he can be dangerous, even lethal. Not everyone is prepared to handle such kids and not everyone who is prepared wants to. As far as I know, BSA does not expect that because we signed up we signed up for that. Folks who want to take on that role (ref qwazse & BadenP posts) are doing a great service and we can all wish them success without feeling as if were shirking by not doing the same. No call for any moral exhibitionism either way. Beavah hit the nail on the head, and would have driven in all the way if hed been holding the hammer so as to let the weight of the head do the work rather than trying to muscle it in. Different troops have different capacity for different things and What's important is just bein' honest with yourself about your own ability and da capacity of your unit. Amen Brothah. And its not just capacity that matters, there are different preferences and choices as well. One troop may rehabilitate rough kids, another may toughen up soft ones; one may lean more toward rugged high adventure outdoorsman-ship; another more toward basic outdoor competency and heavy computer and robotics geekdom (and still another may be hard over in both directions); one may strive ever more toward the ever elusive Helicopter Scouter ideal; and another may veer more toward an adult led Cupcake Catastrophe. But E-61s point is pointy. If your troop is a haven for wayward boys, former meth dealers, violent offenders, kids that dont lift the toilet seat, that sort of thing and along comes a new recruit, one Poindexter Fauntleroy Helicopterson, scion of the well-bred Helicopterson family, (thats the Boston Helicoptersons, not those plebian Helicoptersons over in Scranton). Young Poindexter shows up to join the troop and you can tell by the cut of his jib that maybe this aint his crowd. Do you mention to him or his parents that if he joins up, hell find that his troop mates dont have quite the same background as his mates on the fencing team or the guys he races with in the Yacht Clubs Junior Division? And then let them make an informed decision? Or do you withhold information that a reasonable person might expect to be something folks would want to know about the situation they are joining? Lets assume here there are ways of communicating this without revealing legally sealed details. Some states publish statistics on juvenile offender recidivism rates some of this sort of info is available online.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Attacking a forum member? I presented ideas. Forum member disagreed and countered with other ideas. I readdressed with other ideas and examples from posts on the forum. And oddly enough, we don't disagree about the value of some views expressed in Beavah posts. You don't like satire? sarcasm? hyperbole? Make this the last Callooh! Callay! post you'll read. Or savor these posts while they last -as you note, it takes time to compose these and soon a schedule lull will be over and I'll be otherwise occupied. Maybe you're serious about taking all this personally... I attacked ideas, not persons. Other than some erroneous conflation of the abstract and the personal, the only direct personal attacks have been from you directed my way - those cute comments about a sense of superiority, chip on shoulder, and having issues. BTW - for the research - piece of cake and it doesn't take as long as you estimated - go the search page - and narrow your search by user name and search terms - select the terms right and you'll quickly generate a list of all posts that user has made that fit your search term parameters.

And keeping the thread on topic.... I agree with Tampa Turtle, no parent new to scouting should be offended by the idea they have things to learn. On the contrary, they should assume they have things to learn, and they should take action to remedy their ignorance. Scouting.org is easy to find. And they'll probably be taking their son to the scout store... while he's buying the Boy Scout Handbook they may notice the SM Handbook nearby - why not pick that up too and read both? Both are written in an accessible and simple style. Of course, some parents don't get any further than scouting.org, others no further than the BS handbook, and it's probably a minority that read the SM Handbook. People are busy and many are unaccustomed to absorbing new information that isn't presented as entertainment. I also agree with Tampa Turtle, that a busy parent might find the SM' comment snarky. And I agree with the logical segue that suggested a discussion of Helicopter Scouter tendencies that might lead a scouter to make such comments. And I agree with the posts that further explored some of the tensions that can feed Helicopter Scouterism. In Beavah's post there appears to be a reference to someone having been called a "monomaniacal extremist." For clarification, no one was personally being called a monomaniacal extremist; that title was referring to the ideal Helicopter Scouter, an abstract construct. The only personal references I can recall making in this forum so far, are referring to Beavah to the effect that to judge by his posts, he is "an asset to his community" and addressing Afscouter directly in another thread to tell him that from his posts I get the impression he is a "good man and a great father." Other than those two, the only personal characterizations I've been party to are the characterizations that regular posters here have made concerning my personal characteristics... they have lauded me as a troll and praised my "better than thou attitude," the chip on my shoulder, and my "posts which are short on substance on long on attitude." - although I guess technically that last one isn't referring to me personally but rather to these posts. Beavah's post is right on topic in reiterating the assertion that A first-year parent really is as clueless about boy scouting as a first year scout, eh? It still seems like a condescending statement to me (even if it were always true - you can be right and still be condescending - just look at my previous posts in this thread) but maybe I've got different parents in mind than does Beavah in that statement. I'll admit that I have met parents that will probably always be clueless about many things. But they are not my yardstick. Beavah tells us We teach preparedness and teamwork, not self-reliance. An experienced and deservedly respected (to judge by the forum archives anyway) has opined to the contrary. One Beavah has observed that "Self-reliance of the sort that scoutin' tries to teach tends to be an afterthought. I'm sure self-reliance isn't only brought up when it comes to educating parents like those that post notes seem to be more involved in negative ways, and have more of their egos invested in vicariously livin' their sons' lives. Might be partly because parents in our demographic are havin' fewer kids these days, so they have more time and energy to pour into each one. Self-reliance of the sort that scoutin' tries to teach tends to be an afterthought to some folks. Beavah also tells us we teach citizenship in the BSA, not independence Maybe I'm confused because in my political philosophy, citizenship includes important areas of independence. But the statement is also puzzling because some reasonable and well intentioned scouters have consistently advocated teaching independence as an important part of scouting. Beavah among them... with comments like these from previous posts: The goal is to turn over camp tasks and hikes to the kids first. Let 'em be successful and grow in their independence. Do a strong job of teachin' planning and independence running simple, small projects and outings at age 13, so they can handle a smaller Eagle project as a 14-year-old. Yes, of course you should not sign off. Because yeh want the lad to actually learn and be independent, able to be a full member of a patrol that can operate without you being around. So if the lad hasn't achieved that yet, yeh have to keep helping him and encouragin' him until he does. Kudu's young friend Marijus was willin' to push him, and pull his fellow scouts to develop independence in climbing skills, eh? I think that's what all lads really crave. Not climbing amusement rides or tourist whitewater raft trips. Really becoming accomplished at those things. I wonder if such independence shouldn't be our goal in all of scoutin'. Might be worth it for some troops to give it a whirl, anyway. That's why in my experience da real youth led troops have higher expectations for proficiency. Yeh need it for da youth to be independent. The leap between pack and troop is a big one and some boys aren't really ready for the independence, the responsibility One is that lots of times packs/dens aren't that great about teachin' skills/independence. I've occasionally done things like, after approving a boy, mentioned offhandedly that "gee, we usually see a bit more hours/youth independence in service projects from other troops. Are you folks happy with the level of expectation you've set? If we don't give 'em chances to solo and develop a sense of independence, confidence, and judgment in relatively safe places like the woods, they are gonna be sheep to the slaughter in the dangerous places like schools, towns I think da most common place T-2-1 fails to prepare lads for independence is in NSP/First Class Emphasis programs. I am trying to improve decision making and responsibility, independence and skills and one way is through meals. Anyway... the discussion of axes of tension around which Helicopter Scouterist dissatisfactions revolve has apparently not been interesting to many. Sorry. I thought it was relevant to the topic but it appears to have only elicited counter-observations of the mundane, complaints (perhaps justified) of being off topic, and unintended conflation of the abstract with the personal. If I post again in an existing thread I'll try to put more consideration into topical relevance. Back to the OP - the SM comment to parent were naughty and suggest some Helicopter Scouterist tendencies.

The E-92 Question: Where I'm coming from? I'm not. What's posted in this thread are ideas and/or response to ideas. They come from having read comments in this forum denigrating parents, condescending to parents, discouraging parental participation, assuming parental MBCs are unqualified cheats, saying that parents are stunting childrens' growth etc. Please don't let your kindness, courtesy, and helpfulness make you feel obliged to respond to me personally rather than to the ideas posted. Feel free to be thrifty with your energy, wasting none on me personally, as you address matters at hand (or not, as the spirit moves you). Maybe the personal concern about me stems from the phenomenon of new posters coming to this forum with personal quandaries or difficulties that they sometimes approach obliquely. They seek validation, commiseration, or exegesis of guidelines and rules they lack the gumption to look up and judge for themselves. To better help them, one wishes to understand "where they're coming from." If this is the reason for requesting a thumbnail resume, rest easy. I'm too proud and vain to make such an approach even if I did have such a quandary. I'm not seeking advice on some problem I have with BSA or our unit. Our unit is not perfect, far from it. But we're improving it and boys are learning and happy. I'm happy with the SM and COR. All indications are that they are also happy with me. If the concern about "where I'm coming from" is that I haven't had enough experience with Helicopter Parents to comment on the topic... well my experience as a scouter is short and may always be so since I don't foresee continuing after my own are grown. That could change, but odds are that I'll be just as selfish then as I am now. So far, half the parents have made a positive impression on me. The parents who did not were not of the Helicopter bent, quite the opposite. In dealing with them, I frequently remind myself that misfortunes, mistakes, and sins weigh some folks down more than others, and that not all people are equally capable. Life is tough; and tougher if you're stupid... oops... that sounds like a comment denigrating parents... don't it? Ok, throw down the ad-hominem. "Hypocrite!" But my hypocrisy doesn't invalidate my point. What was my point anyway? How did we get off topic and start talking about me? We don't know me, and most of us are probably glad of it. My experience may be short, but it's much enhanced by that sense of superiority that Basementdweller was keen enough to spot and kind enough to point out (I wasn't fishing for compliments, but thanks). I also like to flatter myself with the notion that even in fields to which I am a relative neophyte, I soon enough learn to discern between the 20 year veteran with 20 years of experience and the 20 year veteran with one year that he has experienced 20 times. But that's just what you'd expect from a (here I'll quote, paraphrase, and compile all the accolades I've already collected since my first post) "troll who makes vague admonishments, hit and run posts, can't be bothered to take the time to learn what it's all about, has a chip on his shoulder, a sense of superiority, makes assertions based on zero facts... and (I know jwestark did not direct this one specifically at my posts but I like this one...) who needs to pull up his big kid boots." As to Beavah's overall excellence. I don't dispute it. If the Beavah behind the posts is anything like the Beavah in the posts, it's certain that he's an asset to his community. My point about the quoted remarks stands; they are condescending. Regarding the issues you raise about conforming to a troop: "it's like anything in life you conform or go your separate way." I reckon you'd agree that you have overstated this. You don't just conform or go your separate way with regard to "anything in life." With many things, you buck conformity and follow your compass; and you don't go your separate way, you lead those who will follow and/or follow those who lead in the right direction. But as you say, with a troop or a sports program or the like, you do go your separate way, naturally. Fighting city hall can be reasonable; it's your city too. Fighting a troop's leadership? That'd be muleheaded. Unless you and yours are an active part of the CO, it's not your troop. There's another one down the street, and another, and a process for starting one if there isn't. But we're off on tangents here - the topic is, um.... what was the topic agian? Helicopter Scouters? No, maybe... oh yea... the plethora of scouter remarks denigrating and condescending to parents. That was the thing. Anyway, I'll go see if I can get me a pair of them "big kid boots" that jtswestark mentioned. Hopefully they make wide. Man, I don't relish breaking in new boots. They got em at WalMart? So once we're wearing these big kid boots, discussions of Helicopter Scouterism are beneath our big kid dignity, right? How about Helicopter Parenting? Or maybe the Outdoor Purists vs. Just-The-Values-Thanks Scouting skirmish that flares up here every now and then. That topic has been beat seven ways from Sunday in these parts but remains fascinating (... well, ok, interesting at least).

Afscout, Taking off my clown hat for a moment... Best wishes brother. As I'm sure you know, you'll soon enough be enjoying the satisfaction of having picked yourself up, dusted yourself off and gotten back into the saddle. Reading your posts, I get the impression of a good man and a great father. If anyone's done you wrong - your best revenge is to live well.

Some Scouters make disdainful and condescending remarks about parents. Not supportive enough? They're "Drop-off" parents. Very supportive, interested, and involved in what their sons do? They're "Helicopter" parents. Scouters couch many complaints about parents as defense of the Patrol Method. Patrol Method is great, but monomaniacal adherence to just about anything can be detrimental to other values. And an insecure or dictatorial SM can use Patrol Method as disingenuous rationale for shutting out all that doesn't conform to his judgment or submit to his control. Real monomaniacal extremists are rare, but people have tendencies. The extreme lampoon of the Helicopter Scouter insists that the only "real" scouting is the pure scouting or yore, back when scouts were scouts and they only saw their mommies and daddies during their 30 days annual home leave from their normal schedule of learning teamwork and leadership out in the woods with peers who are all boys, all close to them in age... which we know is the only natural and effective environment in which to learn because that's what the Spartans or the Cherokees, or somebody did - and that's how we do it in the real world. At the other extreme are the Namby Pamby Scouters. These people want to "modernize" scouting as a therapeutic program more relevant to the vital mission of building junior's self esteem... mommy will sign off junior's rank requirements and get his Eagle all squared away for him vie e-mail to the SM without discomfiting junior by interrupting the regime of video games and cupcakes that soothes his tantrums. Namby Pambists are derisive toward the Helicopter Scouter phobia about what Namby Pambism will do to scouting. But all Namby Pambists should recognize that even Scouters with pronounced Helicopter Scouter tendencies do valuable service to their communities. And for some scouts and their families, Helicopter Scouters' troops may be just right. There are plenty of families happy to go far in making the kinds of compromises that Beavah advised earlier in this thread when he admonished thusly: "Yep, it's your responsibility to raise your family, eh? But if yeh want anyone else to help with that, whether it's da school teacher or coach or SM, then yeh have to conform your family behaviors and expectations to what they're offering, not vice versa. Yeh accept the stuff that doesn't work for yeh as part of the cost for the other benefits yeh receive." Plenty of families do conform readily. But some families are less inclined to "conform family behaviors," especially value driven ones, in order to receive "benefits." Among the values that make them this way are self reliance, independence, and a confidence in their own judgment that makes them resistant to peer pressure. And plenty put their money where their values are; they homeschool, and they cooperate with families in their churches and communities to help each other. They value the upbringing and education they think is appropriate for their children more than they do the "benefit" of having the government provide it for free if they'll just conform to expectations that go against their beliefs and values. Some scouters may demand conformity in their troops in areas in which such families do not wish to conform. These scouters may say "if they're so self-reliant and confident in their judgment and values, their family doesn't need our troop anyway." If they have their CO's support on that position, they are within their rights and can be comfortable with their decision. But that'd be interesting... a distaste for families that confidently act on their values of independence, and self reliance... the very values that some Scouters consider themselves so uniquely qualified to teach, that they can, without a trace of irony, condescend to make statements like: "It's especially helpful to have an old parent or two get up and talk about how awkward they felt when the SM told them to have their son do it, or call his PL or whatever, but how surprised and proud they were when their son did do it, and how much it meant to his growth and self confidence. Parents need a bit of a fellow-parent-non-scouter support group to help with da transition." or: "Every SM should be conscious of da fact that new parents are like first-year boys, eh? They don't know anything yet." Sure, there are parents who fit that description; they don't know because they don't read, or they don't care enough to judge, or lack confidence in their own judgment. They are accustomed and acquiescent to having someone else interpret things for them. Having troops available for these parents' sons is a good thing. And if those troops don't want weird close knit families that do things and go places together (or, if we prefer more derogatory euphemisms we can call them people who refuse to "cut-the-apron strings" or Helicopter Parents)... if some troops don't want those sort of people, that's OK, and even better when they say so up front. If the SM or other scouters think parents will bring them more trouble than good... well, they should feel perfectly comfortable excluding them (and their sons) from their program. There are other troops, there are other boys. BSA policies leave room for judgment. But we should be comfortable with a little lampoonery of Helicopter Scouterism to balance the disdainful and condescending blanket remarks about parents (helicopter or otherwise) that we can also find in the neighborhood.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Meaning missed in the response to the "Perfect SM:" Nothing in the imperfect parent's "unhinged parental rant" is intended to convey that he believes the Patrol Method is "trying to isolate Scouts... impose SM's judgement etc." The point is that he wonders if the "Perfect SM" tends toward such an interpretation. In the hypothetical dialogue, he'd just gotten curt commands from the SM that telegraphed a presumption that either the son lacks independence and self reliance or the parent is remiss in their duty to push that (or both). Maybe there's a reason the parent is handling the uniform and patches for the son. Maybe the son has responsibilities and independent activities the SM doesn't know about. It's a good idea for the scout to research patch placement and sew the patches himself and it's a good idea for the SM to suggest it to the parent. Patrol Method is good; monomania, less so.

Don't bother. The successful middle aged man you describe will have long since lived down any regrets over this. He'd find your concern puzzling, maybe patronizing. Sure, he'd thank you and accept it gracefully. But he'd wonder... "Why are they doing this? What's the big deal?" He knows what he did, and what the experience did for him. He doesn't need the T-Shirt... not at 40-something, with plenty of other shirts in his closet. Even if he did care about it, back in his 20's, he might have reasonably expected having earned Eagle to earn him some credibility and confidence. But in his 40's, if he's an accomplished or impressive man, he's going to have bigger things going for him than Eagle. And if he's not, Eagle won't help. If it's for the scouts, as a motivational example, maybe he'd get better results following FScouter's recent advice in this forum to "go take some boys camping."