Linked Troops - What are these?

[Eagle1993]

FAQ document indicates changes are coming for uniforms, Boy’s Life, OA, training (including Den Chief training) and various program materials.  They also indicated there will be changes with United Way... 

Speculation is now going on what BSA will call the Girls Boy Scout Troops.  Some are saying that both will simply be call Scout Troops.  So you would have Cub Scouts, Scouts And Venturing.  Who knows...

I think the separate Troops will keep SPLs to the same gender as the PLs and perhaps ease the transition.  

[Eagle94-A1]

I shared the links and documents with the troops core adults. They pointed that nothing in the information posted requires separate troops, except on paper. "Girls's troop" could have the same committee and SM (national states should not versus cannot refering to SMs), meet at the same location at the same time, do joint activities, etc. In essence National leaving a very wide loophole that COs and Units can use to essentially have coed troops with segrated patrols.

Which appears to be the plan with my troop if the CO agrees to it.

.

[Tampa Turtle]

9 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I shared the links and documents with the troops core adults. They pointed that nothing in the information posted requires separate troops, except on paper. "Girls's troop" could have the same committee and SM (national states should not versus cannot refering to SMs), meet at the same location at the same time, do joint activities, etc. In essence National leaving a very wide loophole that COs and Units can use to essentially have coed troops with segrated patrols.

Which appears to be the plan with my troop if the CO agrees to it.

.

Seems like such a STUPID solution that only exists to provide cover for Mr. Surbaugh after his previous statements about "no co-ed troops". Trying to have it both ways. I'd rather have intellectual consistency since we have to go out and explain this Potemkin Village to the parents.

Not that I have an opinion. 

I may just name this "Surbaugh's Skort Solution" as something that is a hacked hybrid that is neither co-ed or single sex. Really. Your not going to listen to us Scouters anyway so just make a freaking decision--he needs to stop thinking this is a new chapter in "Profiles in Courage".

[Thunderbird]

3 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

We just had a fourth grader who turned ten in early December, completed his Arrow of Light requirements, and crossed over with the rest of the AOL boys last month.

If the boy is in the 4th grade and just turned 10 in December, how did he meet the 6 month tenure requirement ("six months since completing the fourth grade or for at least six months since becoming 10 years old"?  He hasn't completed the 4th grade yet, so December + 6 months would be June.

[Jameson76]

29 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

Seems like such a STUPID solution that only exists to provide cover for Mr. Surbaugh after his previous statements about "no co-ed troops". Trying to have it both ways. I'd rather have intellectual consistency since we have to go out and explain this Potemkin Village to the parents.

Not that I have an opinion. 

I may just name this "Surbaugh's Skort Solution" as something that is a hacked hybrid that is neither co-ed or single sex. Really. Your not going to listen to us Scouters anyway so just make a freaking decision--he needs to stop thinking this is a new chapter in "Profiles in Courage".

We all knew it was going to be headed this way.  

The only brick left in the wall (and it is a very very short wall) is CO's can choose to not have a BS4G troop at their location...for now...until the next FAQ release...or they just feel like it...or there is threat of a suit...of the media sort of wants it

[Tampa Turtle]

15 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

If the boy is in the 4th grade and just turned 10 in December, how did he meet the 6 month tenure requirement ("six months since completing the fourth grade or for at least six months since becoming 10 years old"?  He hasn't completed the 4th grade yet, so December + 6 months would be June.

My word of advice for the family is to be careful of joining too early if they intend to go for Eagle someday. I have seen several scouts  who file their Eagle application with a date that was too early and it stops the whole train because that may be the one time it really gets checked. If they are 18 and running out of time it adds to the stress. Even unofficial early tag-alongs can get messed up if awards are recorded by volunteers before the official date.

[Tampa Turtle]

Just now, Jameson76 said:

We all knew it was going to be headed this way.  

The only brick left in the wall (and it is a very very short wall) is CO's can choose to not have a BS4G troop at their location...for now...until the next FAQ release...or they just feel like it...or there is threat of a suit...of the media sort of wants it

My wife says I keep sounding like Sally talking to the Carrie Fischer character in "When Harry Met Sally". She is having an affair with a married man who is never gonna leave his wife and despite all her friends saying he is never gonna leave she is still wondering "is he ever going to leave?". I must take this "Scout is Honest" to heart too much. Mrs Turtle told me this was exactly going to happen that we would be forced to go co-ed no matter what the locals thought and all the rest was placating and posturing because the official line just wouldn't work. She also predicted two stock market crashes that I told her "no the experts say...". I probably should listen to her more.

National is just mucking up the transition needlessly. I guess (to loop back to an earlier discussion) the only issue is if they are being duplicitous or incompetent. I'd lean toward 'sneaky' but then when I see the upcoming Summit bill I swing back to 'stupid'. (that said I have many planks in my eye as well).

BTW is it just me or is their a LOT more of a push for getting folks to Philmont this summer?

[Thunderbird]

4 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

My word of advice for the family is to be careful of joining too early if they intend to go for Eagle someday. I have seen several scouts  who file their Eagle application with a date that was too early and it stops the whole train because that may be the one time it really gets checked. If they are 18 and running out of time it adds to the stress. Even unofficial early tag-alongs can get messed up if awards are recorded by volunteers before the official date.

Good advice!

[Jameson76]

1 minute ago, Tampa Turtle said:

BTW is it just me or is their a LOT more of a push for getting folks to Philmont this summer?

Have you seen the amount of open treks listed?

• 62 crew openings in June
• 93 crew openings in July
• 145 crew openings in August

 

[qwazse]

29 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

... Speculation is now going on what BSA will call the Girls Boy Scout Troops.  Some are saying that both will simply be call Scout Troops.  So you would have Cub Scouts, Scouts And Venturing.  Who knows...

Really? Speculation is just now going on? I don't speculate. It doesn't matter what size font they print FAMILY SCOUTING on the flyer. I choose the most sensible name and stick with it.

So it's BSA4G until someone proves otherwise.

If they were "Scout Troops", then why does my CO need two of them? The only reason would be because there's two programs. The existing one for boys and a new program for girls who want to do the the things boy scouts do.

My crew never needed two advisors. Why? Because it was one program. Our pack never needed two cubmasters for the same reason.

By pitching it as the separate program that it is, we share an honest vision of what I think most scouters are willing to provide. No double-speak.

[Tampa Turtle]

2 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Have you seen the amount of open treks listed?

• 62 crew openings in June
• 93 crew openings in July
• 145 crew openings in August

 

I assume this Wold Jambo affect? 

[Eagle1993]

8 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Really? Speculation is just now going on? I don't speculate. It doesn't matter what size font they print FAMILY SCOUTING on the flyer. I choose the most sensible name and stick with it.

So it's BSA4G until someone proves otherwise.

If they were "Scout Troops", then why does my CO need two of them? The only reason would be because there's two programs. The existing one for boys and a new program for girls who want to do the the things boy scouts do.

My crew never needed two advisors. Why? Because it was one program. Our pack never needed two cubmasters for the same reason.

By pitching it as the separate program that it is, we share an honest vision of what I think most scouters are willing to provide. No double-speak.

Speculation within the source community where this data was presented.  I agree speculation has been going on here for much longer.

What is the girl bear den called?  “Bear Den” .  

What is the girl Cub Scout Pack called? “Cub Scout Pack”

The point is that both girl and Boy Scout Troops could simply be called “Scout Troops” going forward as their programs are identical. 

The only reason I mentioned this was the source.  But I agree it is still speculation, BSA4G is fine with me.

 

[Treflienne]

2 hours ago, blw2 said:

but I don't really get the girl troop and boy troop thing.  To me it might seem better to have male patrols and female patrols...maybe.

but realistically and logistically genderless is where it 'wants'  it needs to go....

Because 11-14 girls and 11-14 boys naturally separate and don't want anything to do with each other.

Even at church we have coed elementary school stuff,  coed high school stuff, and separate boys and girls groups for the 6th-8th grades.  

Also, in a coed environment tasks can easily divide along gender roles, depriving the kids of a chance to learn valuable skills more commonly associated with the other gender.

The linked-troop option seems very nice in reducing the overhead involved in getting a new troop off the ground, and in providing institutional know-how.  But I can see families of girls (like mine) as well as families of boys wanting to keeping kids' experience single-sex.

[Tampa Turtle]

19 minutes ago, Treflienne said:

Because 11-14 girls and 11-14 boys naturally separate and don't want anything to do with each other.

Even at church we have coed elementary school stuff,  coed high school stuff, and separate boys and girls groups for the 6th-8th grades.  

Also, in a coed environment tasks can easily divide along gender roles, depriving the kids of a chance to learn valuable skills more commonly associated with the other gender.

The linked-troop option seems very nice in reducing the overhead involved in getting a new troop off the ground, and in providing institutional know-how.  But I can see families of girls (like mine) as well as families of boys wanting to keeping kids' experience single-sex.

My observation as well. They are like separate solar systems that orbit around some mysterious mid-point. Occasionally a member from one gender may shoot across in an eccentric orbit for a short visit but then go back. Even in High School band (which is 14-17) where sections are coed there is significant 'clumping' of males and females. However there are coed friendships (duh, of course), as well as attempts at flirting.

[qwazse]

33 minutes ago, Treflienne said:

Because 11-14 girls and 11-14 boys naturally separate and don't want anything to do with each other.

Even at church we have coed elementary school stuff,  coed high school stuff, and separate boys and girls groups for the 6th-8th grades.  

Also, in a coed environment tasks can easily divide along gender roles, depriving the kids of a chance to learn valuable skills more commonly associated with the other gender.

The linked-troop option seems very nice in reducing the overhead involved in getting a new troop off the ground, and in providing institutional know-how.  But I can see families of girls (like mine) as well as families of boys wanting to keeping kids' experience single-sex.

If your assertion is true, and labor-differentiation by sex is an inevitable consequence of adolescence, then why does National see the need to legislate it? They could simply say, "Troops may now welcome girls, if they do, we recommend segregated patrols that ensure each scout gets a fair distribution of chores."

(FWIW, in my patrol growing up there were some boys who we would never have cook for us -- if we could help it.)

Moreover, I don't see how "linked-troops" avoids this. PLs in the traditional troop may like their boys' cooking. PLs of BSA4G just can't stand what their girls pull out of the pot. The one troop declares their patrols as cookers, the other troop offers their patrols to fetch wood and water. Everyone's happy. Thus that linked troop will have effectively differentiated chores by sex.

What I found in scouts who group up co-ed in other countries was that they were especially adept at dividing up chores. Boys were as good at cooking as girls. So, they must have taken turns at some point.

As far as I can tell, the only reason National is doing this is because they believe this is the only way they can make it palatable to reactionary leaders leaders while giving the revolutionary leaders a place at the table. Or, this is the best way for them to monitor program growth in hopes of pitching it to COs  looking for the next big thing.

Edited March 7, 2018 by qwazse