KublaiKen

I've noticed that all the Scouters with more knots than I have are braggarts and know-it-alls. The Scouters with fewer are greenhorns who can't really tell me much. The Scouters with the same number usually have the wrong ones or put them in a dumb order. Once I saw a guy with the exact same ones that I have and in the same order; I figured he probably just knows somebody at council.

The solution to what? Not getting an answer? Is the solution that being a member of the upper echelons is the only way to get the answer, or that those now holding these upper positions will never give the answer, so you need new people and are recruiting them? This issue came up last weekend when we were camping with a brand new Scout and his dad, and it was awkward telling him that tenting with his own son was a YP issue, especially given that less than a month ago when he was the AOL Den Leader it wasn't. Short of me taking on yet another volunteer role, this time in the Service Territory structure, is there a way for me to find out why this is a YP issue and not a program issue?

Got it. Although, to be clear, I didn't mean your specific scenario as much as a general idea that BSA created a certain rationale and expectation but now says it is inappropriate to mingle with another unit. I think of all the many, many reasons I keep National on my speed dial </sarcasm>, telling them that boy and girl Scouts are working together will be the last reason I tell on somebody.

Wasn't that one of the things BSA touted when they opened Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA to girls: that families now could have a shared activity instead of two or more? That only works if they are meeting/camping at the same place and at the same time, or you are still driving multiple places on multiple weekends, etc.

Sorry, I'm confused. I just meant that the program he proposed was the program as it existed when I was a Cub Scout during those years: no Lions, no Tigers, three years, AOL was extra.

Right. He said drop Lions and Tigers. I was a Wolf in 3rd grade, Bear in 4th, Webelos in 5th. AOL was above and beyond and earned while a Webelos.

This is the program I was in 1975-1978.

So would the territories replace regions/areas (realizing this is just a proposal)?

So you couldn't bring your son who is a Star Scout to a meeting of a girls' troop just starting out to teach knots to Scouts who have never tied one? That is absurd.

I read things like this and wonder what in the heck this SM is thinking. How convoluted is the thought process that decides helping at your own Troop's COH should count as community service hours? What next, cooking for your patrol? In fairness, I am sure people often wonder the same about me.

It is probably more accurate to say one doesn't know OF any Scouters who abused kids or OF any Scouts who were abused.

Barry, I don't think I have done any of those things to you, and if you feel I did then I apologize.

@qwazse, and see today's post above. Of note, I have not called anybody nor any organization sexist, nor used the term.

And I would agree with your self-assessment. My caution comes because in this very thread I was called a hypocrite for not trying to make GSUSA accept boys.

Be careful with that thinking: believing that one organization to which you belong should change its rules but then not arguing that another organization with which you have no agency should change its rules will get you labeled a hypocrite.

There is an inherent political component to any first when that group was excluded from the achievement by political means. In most cases, the differentiating factor that led to exclusion is race, sex, religion, etc. Jackie Robinson Barack Obama Thurgood Marshall John F. Kennedy Female Eagle Scouts We also celebrate significant firsts when those were not differentiating factors, like George Washington, or even when the means of exclusion were not political, like Neil Armstrong.

And I think the BSA'a approach has been a good one. I get it that not all (or any) may agree with me. I'm OK with that. As for the GSUSA, I passively support the organization and wish them well, but my active support (dollars and volunteer hours) is for the BSA, so that is where I'll target my opinions.

That your choice of terms when describing the well-earned recognition these incredible girls and young women are receiving is interesting.

Being recognized for an incredible accomplishment is not the same as bragging. Bragging Fanfare Grandstanding Your choice of terms when describing the well-earned recognition these incredible girls and young women are receiving is interesting.

Not at all, nor did I say that. That it isn't as publicly recognized or lauded is simply true. And none of this is about showing off to the GSUSA; it's in part (and in my view) a way to publicly demonstrate that the two organizations are not the same, and that these girls are members of Scouts BSA. There is nothing in my view of this that is sexist nor bragging; the BSA would be foolish to ignore this PR opportunity at almost every level, and those who oppose it are, in my view, hiding the sexist view that girls don't belong behind a "what about the boys" argument.

I respectfully disagree with this. 1. There has been plenty of fanfare about boys reaching Eagle in the past 110 years. That is what has made it one of the single-most recognizable and lauded youth accomplishments, and one that has carried into adulthood for 110 years. 2. Because girls have not had that opportunity for over a century, this occasion is historic, noteworthy, and therefore newsworthy. 3. A struggling organization like the BSA, both in finances and in public perception, would be somewhere between naive and negligent not to take advantage of this as a PR blast. 4. This is an excellent opportunity for an organization being sued by the Girl Scouts to amplify its message and delineate the proprietary nature of what girls in Scouts BSA means.

I thought they did a great job. Thanks for the heads up on the CBS interviews tonight.

I have not heard of that in the context of their there not being a previous relationship (e.g., first year Scouts calling AOLs from their previous Pack). But I don't see anything very weird about it, though I readily admit I could be viewing it differently or wrongly. Can you articulate your thoughts on why you feel that way? It might help me see what I'm missing. Thanks!

I deleted my drafted post. This one is better.