And yet more changes - even Pedro is not spared

[walk in the woods]

50 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

That is fine with me, but if they do that, they should TELL us they are letting us sort it out troop by troop.  As opposed to having rules that they don't intend to enforce.  Actually, they are already doing part of it.  It is clear that a CO that does "not want boys and girls to mix at all" does not have to take a charter for a girl's troop at all, so there will be no girls.  If it is an area where everybody thinks girls should not in Scouts BSA, then there probably will not be any other organization that wants to be CO of a girls troop, either - and for the same reason, there may be little to no demand for one.

Where the BSA is NOT being clear (as far as I know) is the degree of "closeness" (or joint activities) between the two units that is expected and/or permitted.  That is what we need to know.  If we are supposed to figure it out for ourselves, I want to see a memo or something from National that says "figure it out for yourselves."  I think most people want to follow the rules, but we need to know what the rules are.

There's a fair amount of that discussion in https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Scouts-BSA-FAQ-050218-2.pdf.  

[NJCubScouter]

2 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

There's a fair amount of that discussion in https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Scouts-BSA-FAQ-050218-2.pdf.  

Thank you.  I don't know whether I had seen that.  It doesn't fill me with great confidence that although the program will be "Scouts BSA," they couldn't even get through the introduction before calling it "Scout BSA," without an s.   

[walk in the woods]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

I hear you - but it strikes me that the BSA needs to focus on defining program mechanics.  Advancement, how patrols work, how to organize a camping trip, what you do on a camping trip, etc...  The program is the same for a boy troop, girl troop, linked troop, co-ed troop, whatever.  

I look at the program and wonder if we haven't been defined out of business....

http://troopleader.org/

https://www.scouting.org/resources/

http://bsatap.org/

http://www.programresources.org/

https://www.scouting.org/programs/boy-scouts/planning/

Not to mention the G2SS, The Guide to Advancement, Shooting Sports Manual, Aquatics Manual, Paddle Sports Manual, hours of online training for every position, IOLS, etc.  So I'm curious what a focus on defining program would look like for you.

[ParkMan]

Perhaps we have

Every so often some of the troop leaders will get into a discussion such as "we need to figure out how a planning meeting should be run."  I'll smile, say "already done", and point to one of those.

Maybe instead writing "define", I need to write "train on".

[walk in the woods]

28 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Perhaps we have

Every so often some of the troop leaders will get into a discussion such as "we need to figure out how a planning meeting should be run."  I'll smile, say "already done", and point to one of those.

Maybe instead writing "define", I need to write "train on".

Thanks, that makes more sense to me.  Or perhaps the BSA needs to "simplify, simplify."

[Eagle94-A1]

Challenge is that people complain about training being to long as it is. Yet compard to previous trainings, it's a cakewalk. Then you got those who think they know it all.

[ParkMan]

56 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Thanks, that makes more sense to me.  Or perhaps the BSA needs to "simplify, simplify."

I'd agree with that too. Look at how much time we all spend here discussing the nuances of boy led.  For such a simple concept, it sure takes lots of analysis.  Given the amount we talk about it, I guess about 1 troop in 10 acutally gets it right.

 

40 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Challenge is that people complain about training being to long as it is. Yet compard to previous trainings, it's a cakewalk. Then you got those who think they know it all.

Agreed as well!  Yet, it feels to me like the single biggest challenge to Scouting today is crappy troop programs.  They're too smart to need training, but yet cannot get a decent program together.  How many Scouts quit because of boring program?

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, NJCubScouter said:

Thank you.  I don't know whether I had seen that.  It doesn't fill me with great confidence that although the program will be "Scouts BSA," they couldn't even get through the introduction before calling it "Scout BSA," without an s.   

You'd think that for such an important document, 6 people must have reviewed it too.  

[Eagle94-A1]

6 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Yet, it feels to me like the single biggest challenge to Scouting today is crappy troop programs.  They're too smart to need training, but yet cannot get a decent program together.  How many Scouts quit because of boring program?

Tell me about it. My troop is stuck in a rut. There is a way to fix it, but being boy led takes too long, and is time consuming. "Don't need PLC meetings." "SM tells SPL what he wants done and SPL tells the troop what to do."

 

It is far easier and faster to be adult led, and have a mediocre, repetitive program, than let the Scouts run with it.

[ParkMan]

4 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Tell me about it. My troop is stuck in a rut. There is a way to fix it, but being boy led takes too long, and is time consuming. "Don't need PLC meetings." "SM tells SPL what he wants done and SPL tells the troop what to do."

 

It is far easier and faster to be adult led, and have a mediocre, repetitive program, than let the Scouts run with it.

Reminds me of my of my sad moments as a Scouter.

Had a bunch of Webelos visiting the troop one night.  While the scouts were off doing something, the parents were talking with the SPL.  One of them asked the SPL what his job was.  He thought for a moment and responded - "to do whatever the Scoutmaster tells me to do."

[NJCubScouter]

3 hours ago, ParkMan said:

You'd think that for such an important document, 6 people must have reviewed it too.  

I agree. I generally don’t point out typos on the Internet (unless they are really funny) but this not a forum message, email or text.  It is a real document.  Not to mention, if you’re going to change the name of something, it looks especially bad to get the new name wrong on the first day.

[blw2]

On 5/27/2018 at 12:17 AM, The Latin Scot said:

I think it would be far more instructive if there were three parts to the requirement.

a. Explain the role and importance of the Father in the family.

b. Explain the role and importance of the Mother in the family.

c.Explain how they are different, and how both together contribute to building stronger family ties.

Whether the Scout is a boy or a girl, from a healthy family or a broken home, these questions are important, and will help develop stronger families in the future as the Scouts learn to understand the vital nature of each parental role in their families, whether present or future.

 

23 hours ago, Pale Horse said:

Sorry, I have to disagree.  Regardless of anyone's feelings either way on the issue, by their very nature and setup, the 3 above requirements infer all-too-bluntly, that single parent or non-traditional families are inferior to those with both a mother and father.   For many (most?) families the role of Mother and Father are interchangeable. We won't even begin down the path of families with 2 mothers or fathers.

Well aren't they inferior?

No of course there are exceptions.... a family with an abusive father is better off without that father

but generally speaking single parent families are a real shame.  Nothing wrong or shameful about them...hey, it happens.... and it is awesome that one parent goes that extra mile to raise the kids....but they are a sad situation and should not be looked at as a good goal to shoot for....IMHO.

I guess I feel the same about "non traditional families".  Sure some work well perhaps, and a kid raised in one of those is much better off than they would be in a abusive or otherwise broken "traditional" family....but again IMHO it's not the goal to strive for.  And besides....you might even argue that in many cases Latin Scott's "rules" still apply in at least some cases, probably most as far as I know, that of the non-traditional parent takes on the father role and one the mother role, regardless of gender. 

...and no, in a healthy family the roles are most definitely not interchangeable.  I don't mean that in the ways that there are women's jobs and men's jobs.....  I do the dishes most of the time in my family which is a traditionally "women's job" & I'm a dad.  No, men and women are inherently different and both of those very different roles are healthy for kids...IMO

[ParkMan]

7 minutes ago, blw2 said:

 

Well aren't they inferior?

No of course there are exceptions.... a family with an abusive father is better off without that father

but generally speaking single parent families are a real shame.  Nothing wrong or shameful about them...hey, it happens.... and it is awesome that one parent goes that extra mile to raise the kids....but they are a sad situation and should not be looked at as a good goal to shoot for....IMHO.

I guess I feel the same about "non traditional families".  Sure some work well perhaps, and a kid raised in one of those is much better off than they would be in a abusive or otherwise broken "traditional" family....but again IMHO it's not the goal to strive for.  And besides....you might even argue that in many cases Latin Scott's "rules" still apply in at least some cases, probably most as far as I know, that of the non-traditional parent takes on the father role and one the mother role, regardless of gender. 

...and no, in a healthy family the roles are most definitely not interchangeable.  I don't mean that in the ways that there are women's jobs and men's jobs.....  I do the dishes most of the time in my family which is a traditionally "women's job" & I'm a dad.  No, men and women are inherently different and both of those very different roles are healthy for kids...IMO

Not going to get into the debate on that here.  But, it does raise a question I hit on earlier.

It's clear that as a country - this is an unsettled question.  There are those that feel they are, those that feel they are not.

It strikes me that it doesn't help the BSA or the Scouts to take a position on it.  Of course those that agree will be glad the BSA is teaching that through the advancement process.  Feels like the best role for the BSA is to stick to developing youth in non-controversial areas. 

If the BSA absolutely needs to wade into a sensitive area like this, then perhaps they ought to be up front about it, ask the scouts to understand both sides of the topic, and then articulate their own beliefs on the topic.

[Eagledad]

8 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Not going to get into the debate on that here.  But, it does raise a question I hit on earlier.

It's clear that as a country - this is an unsettled question.  There are those that feel they are, those that feel they are not.

It strikes me that it doesn't help the BSA or the Scouts to take a position on it.  Of course those that agree will be glad the BSA is teaching that through the advancement process.  Feels like the best role for the BSA is to stick to developing youth in non-controversial areas. 

If the BSA absolutely needs to wade into a sensitive area like this, then perhaps they ought to be up front about it, ask the scouts to understand both sides of the topic, and then articulate their own beliefs on the topic.

Seems like a reasonable, intellectual, and pragmatic approach to THIS topic. However, not only have I not seen your reasonable approach attempted during the gay and transgender topics, they were basically ignored by both National and frowned against by many members of this forum. So, I don't expect much cooperation on family dynamics by National. I don't hold much hope for the forum.

Barry

[ParkMan]

10 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Seems like a reasonable, intellectual, and pragmatic approach to THIS topic. However, not only have I not seen your reasonable approach attempted during the gay and transgender topics, they were basically ignored by both National and frowned against by many members of this forum. So, I don't expect much cooperation on family dynamics by National. I don't hold much hope for the forum.

Barry

This forum has helped me to understand just how varied a country we have.  I've been debating some decisions here that I did not expect to.  It helped me to understand the challenge faced by the BSA. 

I'm not sure who of us on the forum has the ability to plant the idea at National.  I'm still waiting for my National Committee invite.  

It would be interesting to explore how the BSA could have approached the gay and transgender membership decisions in a way that would have kept us above the political hot potato it became.