Where Do We Go From Here?

[eagle77]

 Like I said I'm still sitting on the fence with this issue, I think both sides have reasonable and valid points. I liked some of JoeBob's points too. Can we all agree though that even chopping some of the higher ups doesn't eliminate the fact that there still is a large amount of money that would be needed to sustain or keep a good part of the program still operating. Then look at how many members we will need and how much it would cost per member to do it. Do we just want to become some "rich kid" program? I guess it would be like saying how far are we willing to go with the lame horse before we finally shoot it and put it out of its misery?.

[Stosh]

Whereas my intent was not to blame anyone, but instead to point out the changing demographics of society.  The mountain man image of the outdoorsy male is pretty much gone and is instead replaced by the stereotypical slack-jawed redneck imbecile.  Is it any wonder scouts don't want to associate with that social image being promoted now.

 

The uber-intelligent computer geek/hacker/gamer is the other end of the spectrum of social outcasts.  These are the guys living in their parents basements with no hope of doing anything on a Friday or Saturday night other than LAN parties with other fellow geeks/hackers/gamers.

 

The Brainiacs of the STEM world might win a trophy at the Science Fair, but that's not the same thing as bringing home the hockey, football or baseball trophy at the end of the season.  Now those are the really cool guys.  They might have the same IQ as the stereotypical slack-jawed redneck imbecile, but they get college scholarships anyway.  That's cool, too.  

 

So who's left in society that we haven't talked about?  Scouts?  Yeah, right, they don't get much attention.  After all these are the dorks.

 

So now, BSA, who are you going to market to in the years ahead?

 

An all male brotherhood lead by female leaders?  Homosexuals?  Dorky Good Old Boys, STEM Braniacs? Rednecks?  I'm sure the vision is clear to the national BSA people to make the right choices.  

[Rick_in_CA]

I was never impressed with the Tailhook incident.

 

Frankly the women officer/"warriers"  her were completely unable to defend themselves from the attentions of their brother officer were an embarrassment ---to the women.

 

Now we have the equivalent being reported about on college campuses  --- women visiting fraternities alone,  getting drunk and being unable to defend their persons because they have engaged in several varieties of risky behavior.

You have got to be kidding me? So when women get sexually assaulted it's their fault for being there??? If women get overpowered it's their fault for not being strong enough??? The men are just being men??? Am I the only one that finds this attitude morally bankrupt? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you are saying here?

Edited June 1, 2015 by Rick_in_CA

[Stosh]

I'm not one that's gong to side with the good old boys when they abuse, slander and take advantage of women.  Obviously under those circumstances, the chivalry of manhood has pretty much disappeared.  Not completely, there are a few of us who take the less than friendly stares of women when you're polite to them.  But that's their problem, not mine.

 

On the other hand, I just don't think that leading a brotherhood of developing young men into manhood  may be a talent of many women.  

 

My mother taught me housekeeping, cooking, laundering, sewing, ironing, and a variety of different skills once reserved for the female gender.  I haven't used housekeeping since this morning, I cooked supper this evening and I have folded two loads of laundry and I have a load of laundry in the dryer as I type.  But that's not something that defines me as a man.  It's just a skill I bothered to learn.

 

I hunt, I fish, I camp, I canoe and kayak, I hike I bike and do outdoor stuff all day long now that I'm retired.  My daughter has already told me I'm to teach all her children the skills of the outdoors, whatever that means.

 

I guess she wants me to make sure that my granddaughters aren't taken advantage of by predatory males.  After all she wanted to know what model of Smith and Wesson I carried.  She said it looked about the right size needed to fit into her purse.  

 

Yes, roles are changing, blending, but there's still something special when the Mrs. gets all gussied up with a dress and does her hair up that makes the evening feel different than when she's wearing jeans, flannel shirt and hiking boots.  

 

So where's the image of BSA headed? 

[packsaddle]

Am I the only one that finds this attitude morally bankrupt?

Nope, I'm with you.

[eagle77]

 I read a few times just be sure I wasn't misunderstanding what kind of point he was making or trying to make. But that's just wrong.

[Rick_in_CA]

I'm not one that's gong to side with the good old boys when they abuse, slander and take advantage of women.  Obviously under those circumstances, the chivalry of manhood has pretty much disappeared.  Not completely, there are a few of us who take the less than friendly stares of women when you're polite to them.  But that's their problem, not mine.

I haven't had a women give me a dirty look or say anything to me about holding a door for them since college, but I did have a few bark at me then. But that brings back a memory. Back in college I remember seeing a young women criticize a young man for holding a door for her. And I remembered that I had held the door for her the previous day without incident. So I asked her why she criticized him and not me. The answer was interesting, she said (or words to this effect): "Because I could tell you were holding the door because you were being polite. He was holding the door because he thought I was hot." The young man was a classmate of mine, so I watched him. And she was right, he only held the door for hot young women. I've been raised to hold the door for whoever is behind me, man or women. So maybe there is more too some of the criticism than is obvious? Or maybe not.

 

On the other hand, I just don't think that leading a brotherhood of developing young men into manhood  may be a talent of many women.

You might be right about that, but there are some women that can do the job, and there are clearly some men that can't. 

 

My mother taught me housekeeping, cooking, laundering, sewing, ironing, and a variety of different skills once reserved for the female gender.  I haven't used housekeeping since this morning, I cooked supper this evening and I have folded two loads of laundry and I have a load of laundry in the dryer as I type.  But that's not something that defines me as a man.  It's just a skill I bothered to learn.

My parents also taught me those skills. But I don't think there are many women anymore that want those skills to define them as women either.

 

Yes, roles are changing, blending, but there's still something special when the Mrs. gets all gussied up with a dress and does her hair up that makes the evening feel different than when she's wearing jeans, flannel shirt and hiking boots.

I know what you mean. I used too do a lot of vintage dancing and seeing the ladies all dressed up in their gowns and the men in their tuxes definitely added a lot to the evening. So are dresses inherently repressive to women? I don't think so. Now women's shoes on the other hand...

 

As roles change and "blend", it can be hard sometimes to find one's way. Where once we had clear gender rules, now things are a bit more confused. The "rules" are still in flux, and we don't have an agreed set of new rules.

 

For example, I had a girlfriend once that was rather confused about this. When we would go out and I would pick her up, I would compliment her on how she looked (for several reasons: one she looked great, two she had clearly put some effort into getting dressed and made up, and three I was being polite). The first time I complimented her she complained that I was focusing on her looks. So the next time I didn't say anything and she complained that I hadn't said anything (like I said - confused). It was only later that I figured out what the real problem was. She liked it when I complemented her looks (and did the other traditional things), but the fact that she liked it bothered her. It didn't fit what she thought a modern, independent female was supposed to be like. She couldn't even agree with herself what the "rules" were supposed to be.

 

Another friend is a female engineer, and quite a few years ago was sent to Japan on business with a team of other engineers. After the day's meeting and such were over, her Japanese hosts turned to her and asked her with full seriousness "Are you a female or an engineer tonight"? They were asking her because the social rules that applied to visiting engineers and those that applied to women were incompatible. She had to pick a role, she could not be both (a choice that none of her male colleagues had to make of course). So she said "engineer" and was treated to a night of strip clubs, alcohol and karaoke (and the following night she was able to say "female" and avoid the hangover without offending her hosts - something many of her male colleagues envied her for). Japanese society had not yet adapted to the idea that women could be engineers, there were no "rules" to fit the situation. The result was confusion.

 

As time goes on, new rules are forming. It's just that the rules were never as hard and fast as many would believe, and they probably won't be in the future either.

[MattR]

Stosh has an interesting way of bringing up an interesting subject. JoeBob just wants to shoot them, whoever they is

 

I agree the BSA is struggling and while some of this might be society I'd say National is doing a great job of shooting itself. 80% of adults think "scouting is good for young people" (whatever they think scouting is). This came from a Rasmussen poll a year ago. So, there's nothing wrong with the outdoors. What is wrong is BSA seems to be confused about what scouting is. The first thing read on the BSA website is the aims of scouting:

The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness.

If I were a parent that didn't know much about scouts I'd puke reading that. Besides being unappealing, it doesn't mention the outdoors or adventure.

 

If National wants membership maybe it should pander to the parents that want scouting. Make adventure and the outdoors the primary goal. Make problem solving and responsibility second. Make service third. Make Eagle last. Repeat this like a mantra at National. Everything else will take care of itself.

[Stosh]

I haven't had a women give me a dirty look or say anything to me about holding a door for them since college, but I did have a few bark at me then. But that brings back a memory. Back in college I remember seeing a young women criticize a young man for holding a door for her. And I remembered that I had held the door for her the previous day without incident. So I asked her why she criticized him and not me. The answer was interesting, she said (or words to this effect): "Because I could tell you were holding the door because you were being polite. He was holding the door because he thought I was hot." The young man was a classmate of mine, so I watched him. And she was right, he only held the door for hot young women. I've been raised to hold the door for whoever is behind me, man or women. So maybe there is more too some of the criticism than is obvious? Or maybe not.

 

Being polite isn't a gender issue..... I have had women hold the door for me and really appreciated it.  It's a nice gesture and something that needs to be promoted more.

 

You might be right about that, but there are some women that can do the job, and there are clearly some men that can't. 

 

Sometimes it's more than just a job.  I know a lot of women who make excellent woods"men", my Mrs. included.  Yet having raised 3 daughters and one son (which she is constantly asking me questions about how to raise a boy) she might not make a good SM\.  

 

My parents also taught me those skills. But I don't think there are many women anymore that want those skills to define them as women either.

 

However, however, however, if women know you have these skills, you get "noticed" rather quickly.  

 

I know what you mean. I used too do a lot of vintage dancing and seeing the ladies all dressed up in their gowns and the men in their tuxes definitely added a lot to the evening. So are dresses inherently repressive to women? I don't think so. Now women's shoes on the other hand...

 

A lot of times what one is wearing changes the way a person feels and acts.  This dynamic plays an important part in the BSA uniform discussion.  Adults and boys act differently when they are or aren't wearing the uniform.  Take drinking alcohol at a BSA district dinner for example.  It does make a difference.

 

As roles change and "blend", it can be hard sometimes to find one's way. Where once we had clear gender rules, now things are a bit more confused. The "rules" are still in flux, and we don't have an agreed set of new rules.

 

However, the rules define the game and scouting is no different than anything else.  If BSA doesn't know it's rules very well, it's going to have a tough time playing the game, which never ends well in the end.

For example, I had a girlfriend once that was rather confused about this. When we would go out and I would pick her up, I would compliment her on how she looked (for several reasons: one she looked great, two she had clearly put some effort into getting dressed and made up, and three I was being polite). The first time I complimented her she complained that I was focusing on her looks. So the next time I didn't say anything and she complained that I hadn't said anything (like I said - confused). It was only later that I figured out what the real problem was. She liked it when I complemented her looks (and did the other traditional things), but the fact that she liked it bothered her. It didn't fit what she thought a modern, independent female was supposed to be like. She couldn't even agree with herself what the "rules" were supposed to be.

 

REALLY BAD EXAMPLE, when it comes to women, you're never gonna figure out the rules.  You're a guy, get over it.

 

Another friend is a female engineer, and quite a few years ago was sent to Japan on business with a team of other engineers. After the day's meeting and such were over, her Japanese hosts turned to her and asked her with full seriousness "Are you a female or an engineer tonight"? They were asking her because the social rules that applied to visiting engineers and those that applied to women were incompatible. She had to pick a role, she could not be both (a choice that none of her male colleagues had to make of course). So she said "engineer" and was treated to a night of strip clubs, alcohol and karaoke (and the following night she was able to say "female" and avoid the hangover without offending her hosts - something many of her male colleagues envied her for). Japanese society had not yet adapted to the idea that women could be engineers, there were no "rules" to fit the situation. The result was confusion.

 

As time goes on, new rules are forming. It's just that the rules were never as hard and fast as many would believe, and they probably won't be in the future either.

 

BSA needs to define itself and then live with it.  If every day one wakes up (which has been the case for the past 50 years for me) and finds the rules have changed, how then does one play the game?

[Hedgehog]

Whereas my intent was not to blame anyone, but instead to point out the changing demographics of society.  The mountain man image of the outdoorsy male is pretty much gone and is instead replaced by the stereotypical slack-jawed redneck imbecile.  Is it any wonder scouts don't want to associate with that social image being promoted now.

 

The uber-intelligent computer geek/hacker/gamer is the other end of the spectrum of social outcasts.  These are the guys living in their parents basements with no hope of doing anything on a Friday or Saturday night other than LAN parties with other fellow geeks/hackers/gamers.

 

The Brainiacs of the STEM world might win a trophy at the Science Fair, but that's not the same thing as bringing home the hockey, football or baseball trophy at the end of the season.  Now those are the really cool guys.  They might have the same IQ as the stereotypical slack-jawed redneck imbecile, but they get college scholarships anyway.  That's cool, too.  

 

So who's left in society that we haven't talked about?  Scouts?  Yeah, right, they don't get much attention.  After all these are the dorks.

 

So now, BSA, who are you going to market to in the years ahead?

 

Stosh:

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive categories.  The scouts in our troop do sports, science competitions, play video games, play musical instuments, sing in choir and like to think they are Bear Grylis on weekends.  I just look at the ASMs in our troop - computer programmers, engineeers, scientists, lawyers, architects who ski, ride bikes, hike, kayak, backpack with their kids outside scouts.  

 

I suspect that everyone here feels the same way about their troop.  So where is the problem?  It is in our perception of what everyone else is doing or what national is doing.  

 

My sense on this topic is that all politics is local.  If you are upset about national, take a hike... and take a group of boy scouts with you.  If you think that the program doesn't emphasize outdoors, talk to your boys and kick up your program a notch.  Every boy has a sense of adventure -- its our role as leaders to encourage them to find it.

[Stosh]

Stosh:

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive categories.  The scouts in our troop do sports, science competitions, play video games, play musical instuments, sing in choir and like to think they are Bear Grylis on weekends.  I just look at the ASMs in our troop - computer programmers, engineeers, scientists, lawyers, architects who ski, ride bikes, hike, kayak, backpack with their kids outside scouts.  

 

I suspect that everyone here feels the same way about their troop.  So where is the problem?  It is in our perception of what everyone else is doing or what national is doing.  

 

My sense on this topic is that all politics is local.  If you are upset about national, take a hike... and take a group of boy scouts with you.  If you think that the program doesn't emphasize outdoors, talk to your boys and kick up your program a notch.  Every boy has a sense of adventure -- its our role as leaders to encourage them to find it.

 

Yes, @@Hedgehog that's the point.  Perspective.  You see Scouting in a microcosm reality which is as it is for your area or maybe even a wide area of the nation.  But that's not how others in that same reason see it.  

 

My categories are pretty much a caricature stereotype of groups which by in large were used in a general generic manner.  In no way was it reflective of any one person.  It is derived mostly from the many campfire chats I have had with the boys in my area.  They do however seem to have a flavor which seems to be kinda evident in other places as well.

 

But when you are in the program and can see the program for what it is, this is but one way the world looks at Scouting.  All the prospective youth out there and their parents may or may not (mostly may not) see scouting the same way.  I really don't see many fully uniformed scouts helping old ladies across the street anymore.  Heck, I don't see many fully uniformed scouts... period.

 

So with those changes going on, what are others out there supposed to think?  What's the image of scouting today and what's it going to be tomorrow?  Are we going to be dorky forever?  and why weren't we dorky 50 years ago? 

[JasonG172]

Stosh, I have said this once before but I will say it again if I drank beer I would share one with you sir.  This whole write up should be plastered through the halls of National! 

[perdidochas]

Stosh:

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive categories.  The scouts in our troop do sports, science competitions, play video games, play musical instuments, sing in choir and like to think they are Bear Grylis on weekends.  I just look at the ASMs in our troop - computer programmers, engineeers, scientists, lawyers, architects who ski, ride bikes, hike, kayak, backpack with their kids outside scouts.  

 

I suspect that everyone here feels the same way about their troop.  So where is the problem?  It is in our perception of what everyone else is doing or what national is doing.  

 

My sense on this topic is that all politics is local.  If you are upset about national, take a hike... and take a group of boy scouts with you.  If you think that the program doesn't emphasize outdoors, talk to your boys and kick up your program a notch.  Every boy has a sense of adventure -- its our role as leaders to encourage them to find it.

 

I basically agree.  The actions we can take are local.  In my troop, I did think that we didn't emphasize the outdoors enough.  I got together with like-minded leaders, and we stepped it up a notch.  We almost doubled the size of the troop as part of that--and interestingly, our number of crossovers per year has been fairly low. We attract a few older scouts from less active troops, and we have managed to keep attrition down.  We've always been a heavy camping troop (pretty much 11 campouts a year). How we'ved changed it is variety, and more adventurous activities--we used to talk about backpacking, now we do it; we have gone caving; we have snorkeled with the manatees, etc.