Scouts and Geeks and Nerds

[Mafaking]

Retracted(This message has been edited by Mafaking)

[desertrat77]

Beavah hit it on the head. The scouting program is cool. The non-outdoor uniforms and chunky adults make it tough to convince naysayers otherwise.

 

Uniform experiences from yesteryear: Cubs, early 70s...wore that blue uniform with pride everywhere. If authorized, I would have worn it every day.

 

Boy scouts, mid 70s to early 80s...four different troops, three locations (overseas, plus AZ and AK)...some ridicule but nothing serious. Even the super funky far-out red beret was tolerated for the most part. Compare to other clothing from the 70s, a red beret was actually kind of tame.

 

The nerd factor: my troops always seemed to include everyone under the sun: geeks, jocks, comedians, non stop talkers, introverts, eccentrics, you name it. Nerds were only a small part of the total troop population. And most of the time, we all got along fine.

 

Today's geek factor: seems there are more nerdy adult volunteers today than in the past, particularly at district level and higher. I don't recall adults back in the day chasing knots and recognition like I see now. The uniform police are much stronger now, and quicker to quote chapter/verse to correct trivia.

[AMulls]

I agree with what has been said by a few folks. I don't think it's the actual scouting that is seen as geeky/nerdy, but the uniforms.

 

I never wore my uniform to school (scout in the early to mid 90s) and would not have wanted to, simply to avoid the comments that it would have drawn.

 

I wasn't the most popular kid, but was up there with the "cool kids." I had friends in just about every circle. My high school was a pretty interesting place, though, since Drama was a huge thing there. The Drama teacher was also my swim coach and you could walk into any of the drama classes and see the whole spectrum of students- football/soccer/basketball players, skateboarders, intellectuals, artsy kids, etc. And everyone participated in the plays and musicals that we put on. I remember that one kid had to skip a soccer game (playoffs, no less) because we had a performance that night. Some of the folks were in scouts, and most knew I was, but it wasn't a big deal. Had I worn the uniform to school though, I would have been asking for ridicule.

 

Sure, I'd hear an occasional joke, but it wasn't a big deal. And during my senior year of high school, I was dating a cheerleader from a neighboring school who knew about my scout involvement. She even gave me a card when she heard I'd be gone one weekend holding my Vigil in which she called me the "Boy Scout King." Pretty entertaining.

 

So, I think that the activities and models of scouting aren't nerdy/geeky per se, but the uniform is. At least to an 11-14 year old scout.

[CalicoPenn]

AMulls makes a great point - it may be much more about the ages of the Scouts rather than Boy Scouts in general. That 11-14 age group is one of the most conscious about what other people think of them. There's also a greater need in this age group to be identified with the right cliques and not the wrong cliques. The Cub Scout ages really don't think about it, and at about 15, people start to not care as much anymore about being in the right clique and start thinking about people as individuals. When you learn that the guy you've been pigeonholing as a science geek is planning on going to medical school, and is applying to Harvard and Yale and has a better than even chance of getting in, while you're wondering if you'll even get accepted at a state college, can be a real equalizing moment. Watching a 16-year old chess nerd take on 10 opponents simultaneously, with his back turned to the boards, and winning all 10 matches is something that can really shake the confidence of even the Varsity Quarterback (I've seen it - we had one of those chess wunderkinds in high school - it's even more fun to watch the spectators faces when the realization hits them that this kid is visualizing 10 different 3-dimensional chessboards and is keeping track of the movements of 32 chess pieces per board with a nearly infinite number of possible moves, all in his head).

[GaHillBilly]

Again, thanks all. I'm finding this very helpful and instructive.

 

 

Beavah wrote:

"Da "brand identity" of Scouting is dorky and uncool. Ridiculous uniforms. Kowtowing to fat, foolish adults. Lots of lectures and rules. Boys aren't rejecting our values in the least - they would be Harry Potter or Eragon or da modern G.I. Joe in a heartbeat. They're still ready to fight for right and freedom, same as always."

 

That sums up the conclusion I'm reaching. And, it explains why I'll provide info on nearby troops home schoolers could enter, but focus on Lone Scouting.

 

I was amazed at how much more the young guys were 'ready to go' than the senior Scouts were. But, I think Scouting's often like many of the churches I've seen: it vaccinates you against the real thing!

 

What's surprised me even more have been the results of brief interactions with my wife's elementary school kids. Those cub-aged kids are info-sponges -- a few show-n-tells with live snakes and birds, and those kids were transformed into amateur naturalists. One year, they found, tracked, watched AND protected a resident blue-tailed skink for 6 weeks, and would warn off other kids who would arrow in for the stomp or snatch and grab. I've begun to suspect that the 'arts and crafts' thing that seems to be a big part of Cub Scouts is a seriously wrong direction.

 

 

 

Eagle92 wrote:

"You need to stress the MAYBE for the dads. I'm a TCDL, and I am surprised at the number that have never been camping before ever. Over 50%."

 

Hadn't thought about it quite that way. I'd focused on the lack of skills the Scout leaders had. But, Scout leaders come from dads, mostly. And those figures are probably right, now that I think about it.

 

It's sort of slap-your-forehead obvious: if you don't give the Dad's a place to learn the skills first, a lot of them will bail, rather than be 'dork Dad' in front of their sons. Obvious as all get out, but something I'd completely overlooked.

 

That's a really, really important point for me to keep in mind with what I'm 'fixin' to do. A lot of Dad's would like to be more involved with their boys . . . or at least they feel guilty about NOT being involved. But, Scouting may scare the crap out of them, because they know they don't have the skills. If I don't give them a way to get the skills, I'll fail, and end up camping with my son, several boys, and a gaggle of moms. (Nothing wrong with moms, but home school boys are generally not lacking in contact time with their moms.)

 

 

I'm going to have to ponder this. Very, very timely info, tho.

 

 

GaHillBilly

[Lisabob]

OK I gotta tell you all this one.

 

According to my son, scouting has a reputation for being for geeks and nerds for almost exactly the reasons that Beavah posted a day or two ago. It is the adults, not the boys, not (most of) the activities, that can be problematic. They lecture too much, go on and on about silly rules, can't always facilitate the actual adventure the boys want, and just generally don't see things through boys' eyes.

 

So last week the boys had a Christmas party. Mr. SPL had opted not to actually plan anything to do at this party because "it is a party - we don't need no stinkin' plan." Well ok. I'm just the driver. So upon arriving, he discovered that the SM had come with back up plans for just such an occasion. Also, the party was the same night as the school concert (they meet in the school cafeteria, highly visible location). The SM's back-up included a game that required the boys to smear their faces with vasoline and stick cotton balls to themselves to create a "Santa beard." In full view of several hundred of their middle school friends and families.

 

So in the car on the ride home, mom asks SPL son: How'd the party go?

 

SPL (mortified): OMG, no wonder people think scouts are gay and nerdy. How could the SM have not seen the way that a bunch of teenagers would interpret a huddle of boys with slimy, sticky faces full of white goo!!!

 

mom: Huh, sounds pretty bad

 

SPL (embarrassed): Yeah, and in front of everyone, too! I had to apologize to the younger guys, especially. Their classmates were all there for the concert! And so were all their older sisters!

 

SPL (mumbling): Guess I shoulda had a plan....

 

----silence while mom here tried not to bust a gut laughing ----

 

REally though, he had a point. No wonder outsiders think scouting is for the nerdy among us, when adults impose some of the things that they do, on the boys.

 

 

 

[Eagle92]

Lisa

Actually sounded as if the SPL had a plan, and it was to have fun and socialize. Too bad SM spoiled it. An idea to pass along to the SPL for next year would be GUITAR HERO, OA chapter did iot at the party last week and EVERYONE had a blast with it (except the MBC and scout who were finishing up a MB, they only got the munchies).

 

GHB,

An idea I've seen work is to invite the parents to do one of the outdoor leader trainings: BALOO, OWL, or IOLS. I'd recommend IOLS for all levels as it provides the basic T-2-1 skills that is useful to all levels and is alot more hands on. But from my expereince BALOO is good intro as well (haven't taken OWL yet). When I did BALOO last year, the pack I would eventually join had leaders and parents in attendance.

 

On related tangent, Y'all heard about the revision to Outdoor training headed our way? I was told that national will be combining BALOO, OWL, and IOLS into a 1 weekend training that covers all the basics.

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, we have identified the root issue, Chunky adults who want to reminesce about their experiences in Scouting much as Golden Domers reminesce about their Old Glory days and want them back.

 

So. now, what is the plan? If all the chunky, rules spouting, uniform policing nit-wits said in a collective voice, hey that Scouter Forum bunch is right, we are the road blocks to BSA success, we are out of here, what would happen?

 

Given that doesnt happen, how do such people get replaced or have their eyes opened?

[GaHillBilly]

OGE, you're asking the age-old question: "Have things gotten bad enough, so that it would be worth it do something drastic?"

 

I think the answer would be yes, from the boys' view, But I'm afraid it would be "No!" from the Scouter's point of view.

 

Scouting seems to have confused "management", which is done from behind, with "leadership", which is done from the front. The District can be 'managed', the Council can be 'managed', even BSA National can be 'managed'. But, boys who are Scouts need to be led.

 

And, the *real* issue is functional skill, not excess fat. Most fat guys simply cannot lead from the front, because they lack both the skills and the stamina. But, some can, and they'd do fine -- though they'd do better if they were thinner! Still, the issue is functional skill and stamina, not fat per se.

 

There are at least three critical areas required for a leader:

1. You must have the skills that allow you to be in front.

2. You must have the stamina and/or discipline to stay in the front.

3. And, you must have the personality that allows you to lead and others follow.

 

None of these can be acquired in a weekend, whether it's OLS or a combined course. And, they certainly can't be acquired when the trainers don't have the skills themselves!

 

I can see a path to real solutions locally and on a small scale. But, I can't even imagine a path to real solutions nationally.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BrentAllen]

Two issues:

 

1. I don't think the term is "geeky or nerdy" - the derogatory term for Scouts is, from the 50's - "square" - or more modern, "goody two-shoes." If we are to deliver on the mission statement, we will never distance ourselves from those slang terms, and I have to ask, why should we want to? We are worried about the local hoodlums calling us goody two-shoes? If you have a problem with the mission statement - run, do not walk, out the door!

 

2. I guess our Troop is different in that we don't have any old, fat guys as leaders. We do have more than our fair share of Eagle and Life Scouts as Scouters. Of the 9 Scouters who are either SM, ASM or CC/CM, 3 are Eagles and 2 are Life. We all love outdoor adventure. We believe in challenging to boys to step outside their comfort zone in order to gain confidence and maturity. When we talked to the boys about going to NT as a group of 13 year-olds, on a 10-day trip, a couple of them had reservations. Once there, and out on the water, those two wanted to carry the canoes on the longest or toughest portages. They wanted to challenge themselves (and earn some braggin' rights, as well).

 

This has been alluded to, but if the boys are planning the activities, I have a hard time understanding how they can complain about them. If the activities are boring, aren't challenging enough, etc., who do they have to blame?

 

mmhardy, I got to laugh - expecting Scouts to be present is geeky? I've seen some pretty creative excuses for poor attendance, but that one takes the cake! But hey, whatever works for you. In that vein, I guess Varsity sports and band are the super geeks, since 100% absolute attendance is required.

[Eagle92]

GHB,

Hey now, don't knock the OFGs (Old Fat Guys) My SM was an OFG who could walk anyone, and I mean ANYONE, into the ground. The guy was short and stocky, but ran for fun. I forgot how many times he went to Philmont (before H/w guidleines if memory serves), and loved it whent he troop did hikes or backpacking. LOL

 

In referecne to IOLS, I agree with you that IOLS doesn't make one an expert overnite. BUT hopefully it should give one a familiarity that they are comfortable with going in the outdoors. So that may help in getting the parents comfortable in camping.

 

In the troops I've been with, the expereinced youth are usually the ones teaching the camping skills to the new guys. Only in cases where a troop is starting from scratch that I've seen adults teach basic skills.

 

 

[GaHillBilly]

Hey, Eagle92.

 

I think if you're reread my post, I wasn't knocking OFGs; I was knocking OFGs without skills!

 

But BSA National has just decided to use "fat" as a surrogate measure for unskilled and unfit. Obesity is a serious problem all on its own for many, including myself! But, it's not the core problem with Scouters, even if it's a contributing issue.

 

If BSA National really wanted to do something, they could return Wood Badge to its roots as a SKILLS development training program.

 

But, that's not going to happen.

 

There is far too much inertia in the form of legacy Scouters from the skill-less 70's and 80's who'd have to give up all their frou-frou colored knots and and their large rodent awards, and actually learn how to start a fire or use an axe or explore an area BETWEEN the trails!

 

To be completely fair, in the past year, I've talked to a couple of Scouts from the 30's and 40's . . . and Scouting was apparently NEVER all it was 'cracked up to be'. Still, in those days a fair percentage of Scouters would have had significant skills just from growing up in rural areas.

 

I'm beginning to think that the troops people like to talk about have often had at their core an SM with real skills, a personal love of adventure, a genuine concern for boys, and natural leadership ability AND the time to apply all those to Scouting. That has probably always been an unlikely combination.

 

GaHillBilly

[Oak Tree]

Maybe National should come out with an active-wear shirt that's a lot less "dorky" and we can reserve the Class A uniform for courts of honor and other public events. Which maybe is what's happening anyway.

 

On the behavior of adults, that's a tough thing to change by just decreeing something. It seems like what we're really asking for here is for the adults to treat the kids age-appropriately. What national change could you make that would stop adults from creating a game involving Vaseline and cotton balls? Some of that gets very much to the way the whole entire program is set up. It varies so much from unit to unit.

[desertrat77]

It didn't get this way overnight...it won't get fixed overnight.

 

National must set the tone. The obesity "shot across the bow" is a step in the right direction.

 

We should recruit the type of leaders that GaHillBilly so eloquently described: "...real skills, a personal love of adventure, a genuine concern for boys, and natural leadership ability AND the time to apply all those to Scouting."

 

Here's the rub: those folks are out there...but it's the issue of the "old tribe" of leaders being resistant to new folks, and the new folks taking a measure of the old tribe and saying "Heck, I like scouting but not enough to put up with this OR do I really want to be associated with this type of fellow volunteer?"

 

District and council have to seek those outsiders as well. Tough to do, because many old timers may not be of the adventure mold, but they've paid their dues, so to speak....

 

It's worth the effort, though, to seek that diverse group of potential leaders.