How about those who prefer leaders keep their hands off the kids?

[Stosh]

like zero-tolerance policies that skirt around due process, justice/fairness and common sense?  Blind dictatorial policies have never turned out well and we in a free nation have a Constitution to protect us from such over-zealous tyranny.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Stosh

[MattR]

1 hour ago, perdidochas said:

Sad to say, it's because for whatever reason, scouters have a worse reputation in terms of molesters than do coaches.  

Unless you're an Olympic gymnastics coach, or college football coach, or a swimming coach.

[Stosh]

1 minute ago, MattR said:

Unless you're an Olympic gymnastics coach, or college football coach, or a swimming coach.

How come the forum doesn't have a pat on the butt emoji to pick from?

[Tampa Turtle]

YPT tip #4: Don't touch the scouts, even the sexy ones.

[NJCubScouter]

56 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Obviously you had a politically correct deprived childhood.  The rest of us had to endure the parental abuse of the notorious Bobcat Ceremony of Impending Death by Dropping.

I don't think the fact that I was not turned upside down in 1966 had anything to do with political correctness.  I just think this "tradition" never reached my area.  The pack leadership probably didn't even know about it.

Quote

And please explain the rationale behind the mother's pin being turned upside down.  More than anyone in the world mothers do more good turns daily than anyone could imagine.

I can't explain it.  It is a tradition that existed before I became involved with the troop.  Nobody has ever talked about it, the SM's have just done it at every non-Eagle COH.  It makes no sense to me, but then again holding a Cub Scout upside down makes no sense to me either.  But I don't worry about it (the pinning upside down) because it doesn't hurt anyone, unless you count the very occasional pinning mishap, or the awkwardness and embarrassment  of some Scouts in pinning something to their mother's upper-body clothing, especially if she is not wearing one of those ribbons they make for the mother's pins.

[David CO]

40 minutes ago, Stosh said:

like zero-tolerance policies that skirt around due process, justice/fairness and common sense?  Blind dictatorial policies have never turned out well and we in a free nation have a Constitution to protect us from such over-zealous tyranny.

Yes, that is exactly the sort of pushback I was talking about. Good example.

[WisconsinMomma]

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

I've worked with hundreds if not thousands of youth in co-ed program and never felt that the gals were "less" and yet I am firmly against destroying a boy's program just for PL inclusiveness issues.  I would feel the same way if I was a GS/USA leader.

You're not a chauvinist.   It's the comments along the lines of -- look at all the fat moms who can't go on hikes, and if a girl gets an Eagle, then the boys' Eagles are worthless,  and negative comments about divorced mothers that are signals of attitude problems.  People can be legitimately upset at national for changing the program without being sexist.  But there are many men who look down on women and girls overall and that's a problem.  They're going to have problems. 

[Eagledad]

3 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

You're not a chauvinist.   It's the comments along the lines of -- look at all the fat moms who can't go on hikes, and if a girl gets an Eagle, then the boys' Eagles are worthless,  and negative comments about divorced mothers that are signals of attitude problems.  People can be legitimately upset at national for changing the program without being sexist.  But there are many men who look down on women and girls overall and that's a problem.  They're going to have problems. 

This issue has been hashed out here long before you joined the forum. I think even the liberal members (and moderators) on this forum would agree the discussion has pretty much moved past sexist dialog. I believe rose colored glasses are the cause of the responses lately.

Barry

[Stosh]

47 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

You're not a chauvinist.   It's the comments along the lines of -- look at all the fat moms who can't go on hikes, and if a girl gets an Eagle, then the boys' Eagles are worthless,  and negative comments about divorced mothers that are signals of attitude problems.  People can be legitimately upset at national for changing the program without being sexist.  But there are many men who look down on women and girls overall and that's a problem.  They're going to have problems. 

Yet, if one were to look beyond the political myopism of the situation one would see the real problems.  Sure heavy-set women can't backpack well and so can't heavy-set men.  I haven't place a high premium on Eagle for many years regardless of who "earns" them.  Divorced mothers are looking for good role models for their boys and helicopter mom's are only interested in getting their sons to win the bling.  And yes, there are other, more important factors, than these to be upset about other than sexism.  Yes, ingrained social norms have been around since day one and other societies are worse than the next one.  And yes, there are going to be problems.  But the problems I see have nothing to do with sexism.  Having worked with co-ed groups, I see the world far differently and I have experienced DIFFERENT problems than what BSA is working on at the moment.  They are seeing the tip of the iceberg and are desperately trying to avoid a Titanic moment.  Well it's too late to avoid the problems because the ship's already floundering.   So now the focus is in how to save as many as possible.

As just one small example of what I mean.  Last Sunday at the scout meeting I was teaching the boys lashings.  One of the parents asked if a younger female sibling could sit in for the evening.  I said sure.  What I feared happened.  She was 9 years old and interested in scouting.  She sat quietly in the back and said nothing while the boys were being boys.  I explained the lashing and then the boys were to work at doing it.  I had enough equipment and invited the girl to participate.  Well, the only one that was paying attention was the girl.  It didn't take but a few minutes and she was teaching the boys who hadn't paid attention.  This is great for a co-ed group, but a disaster for an all-male activity.  I was unable to attend summer camp this past summer and at the last minute a second ASM stepped in to take my place.  At the last minute she had to bring along her grandaughter and the camp allowed it.  The #1 complaint from the boys was she "took over".  The maturity level of girls at this age has been proven over and over in multiple studies that they are at least 2 years more mature than boys of the same age.  This will in fact provide the total disappearance of Boy Scouts as we know it.  I have know this for years and it's not that I'm against co-ed scouting, I'm against the last vestige of a program designed to help young men to adulthood without the unfair advantage in maturity girls hold over boys.  I strongly suspect that once that advantage is mitigated in adulthood many of the resentments of younger years may be a cause of many of our sexist social concerns.  I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but after 45+ years of watching kids develop, it remains a strong suspicion for me.

Will gals earn the rank of Eagle legitimately?  Sure, but then listen to the older generations cast aspersions on it, especially those who never were able to earn it themselves.  This is unfortunate, but it's going to happen, it is already happening.  The reason I downplay the glorious achievement of Eagle is not because it some sort of competition one wins, but it is supposed to be something nice to hang on the wall along with one's high school diploma, and other achievements one has marked in life.  It's not the Holy Grail of scouting.

Boys that have come through my program and Eagled for some reason have always referred to me as Mr. Stosh.  Even if they turn 18 and are now in their 30's still call me Mr. Stosh.  I even have told them they can call me now that we are peers by my first name.  Inevitably they always say,  "No can do, you will always be Mr. Stosh to me."  Now, if that were able to be put on a certificate, I would hang that one on my wall.

All in all, the sad part of it all is the end of Scouting as I have lived it for my entire life.  The next generation will not feel that way, but then again, I'm not going to be around to worry about it either.

[Col. Flagg]

2 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

You're not a chauvinist.   It's the comments along the lines of -- look at all the fat moms who can't go on hikes, and if a girl gets an Eagle, then the boys' Eagles are worthless,  and negative comments about divorced mothers that are signals of attitude problems.  People can be legitimately upset at national for changing the program without being sexist.  But there are many men who look down on women and girls overall and that's a problem.  They're going to have problems. 

Sexism of ANY kind is an issue. Many men here experienced this firsthand trying to volunteer as leaders in GSUSA, only to be treated as if we were convicted pedophiles because of our sex. We've also seen our fellow males treating female leaders as second class leaders and stepping in to call the men out on their actions, so no need to pontificate here.

I disagree though about the "He-man Woman Haters" (that's for you @Stosh and @TAHAWK) being the ones who will have problems in this new coed environment. Those guys are entrenched in BSA and won't budge. The know so much and are usually the heavy lifters that if you got rid of them your district or council would grind to a halt.

The real losers in this will be the girls. Why? Because the whole program for girls is being thrown together by a group of know-nothings. If units are "separate but equal" (meaning: boys in one troop, girls in another) you will need to replicate the entire boy-led, patrol method troop structure TWICE. That means TWICE the leaders or TWICE the work for the same leaders. Either way you have a big problem. Most current leaders are well beyond being tapped out and over-extended. I will be most of us here wear or wore about 5-10 different hats, be they at the unit, district or council level. I'd wager my 2018 pay checks that less than 5% will sign up for that extra, girls-only work. That means you have FIND and TRAIN a whole bunch of new leaders to run those all-girl units. If you've ever tried to recruit Cub or Boy Scout adult leaders you know exactly how hard that will be.

I think the exacerbation you hear is from the collective (and considerable) experience in this forum knowing that BSA usually missed the mark BIG TIME when major change is involved. We are gearing up for that giant dung ball that will start rolling down hill in 2018...knowing it will land on our door step.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[Tampa Turtle]

I am REALLY outraged that while adding girls to my Troop will be an increase of genders by 100%, the 2018-2019 contract for ASM's only has a 50% pay bump.

[Col. Flagg]

9 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I am REALLY outraged that while adding girls to my Troop will be an increase of genders by 100%, the 2018-2019 contract for ASM's only has a 50% pay bump.

I got a $75,000 one year contract with a $50,000 bonus per unit I act as unit lead for. That's $175,000/year plus benefits. Not bad in the end.

[Tampa Turtle]

Actually Flagg has another point (I am tiring of agreeing with him). The adult leadership in our Troop is doing so many things now that just the proposal of doing anything much extra or different elicited responses of 'I'm not doing anything different', 'I'm not doing any special training', 'If it takes anymore leaders someone else can do it', and 'One more thing I am out of here'. Some may just go into scouting semi-retirement, ya know showing up for the occasional meeting, maybe showing some lashes, but not really helping guide the youth who lead it.

We still have a mess at our CO a Methodist Church. It is not on our Pastor's radar, he will likely let the unit do whatever it wants. But the most pushback we got was from the ladies of the United Methodist Women (who include more than a couple former Girl Scout leaders), the UMW were always big supporters of our Scouts, they would kick in regular $500 and $1500 gifts to the Troop just because they felt we were setting such a good example.(oddly, enough the Methodist Men always disliked us, complained about something we did after every meeting--there was no placating them. They dwindled to nothing and oddly enough when the folded the church gave us the $500 left in their bank account) Now the UMW is questioning why the church will be hosting a co-ed unit if it could now be supported in a public school. It is just a headache!

[Tampa Turtle]

5 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

I got a $75,000 one year contract with a $50,000 bonus per unit I act as unit lead for. That's $175,000/year plus benefits. Not bad in the end.

I never saw the OA Brotherhood stipend promised me either. 

Actually the Senate Appropriations Committee (Mrs Turtle) told me that if I cut back as leader I could easily save about $500 a year which might be better put toward the occasional date night.

[Col. Flagg]

21 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

Now the UMW is questioning why the church will be hosting a co-ed unit if it could now be supported in a public school. It is just a headache!

I was wondering when this old chestnut would come back. And ironically we just received today the response from our superintendent about the whole Scouts-in-Schools issue. Guess what? In his estimation the BSA and our school district's missions are "not 100% compatible"...whatever that means. Also, "...allowing Boy Scouts to charter with, and use ABC Schools, without having to pay for their use would put the district at a further financial disadvantage." He went on to say, "While the district supports Scouting, we cannot act as sponsors or hold the charter of any non-district organizations. All third party organizations are welcome to use available school resources according to availability and fee-for-use."

So where I live the local district has essentially said "No Thanks" to Scout units unless we want to pay to use their facilities. So much for BSA making all these changes with the hopes that schools would open their doors again. Oh, and a local pack that *is* recruiting girls was kicked off of school grounds for doing so, even though they had district permission. What fun!!