Qualities of an Eagle

[qwazse]

5 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

It appears that one of the posts about criteria for choosing women who are rich and good cooks and seeing a woman working in a field and saying "that'll do" have been removed.  I don't see those posts on this thread anymore, but they were here, and that's what prompted my replies.

 I see the same posts from yesterday a page or two back. But you misquote me quoting my father-in-law. Neither he nor I would ever reference her as a "that."

18 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

Firstly, I fail to see what the cultures in India and other middle eastern nations have to do with criteria for choosing a spouse in America, unless perhaps the region in which you reside has a significant number of immigrants from such areas. ...

Reading this as I drink milk just bought from the corner store where the owner was listening to her morning meditation in Hindi. So, yeah ...

[WisconsinMomma]

Sorry about the misquote, I tried to find the original but was struggling.  I don't think it's bad to seek out a hardworking spouse, but I think it's wrong to assume that the woman will be the cook, or that one spouse should pull more of the weight so the other can go play in the woods.  There is a ton of sexism out there and it is something we need to be careful to avoid as Scouters. 

I also think it's wrong to push our ideologies on Scouts.  The Scout Oath and Law are the most important lessons.  Live those, associate with people with similar values and that's not a bad way to live your life. 

If you fail to see how mistreatment of women in other countries is a more barbaric example of some of the viewpoints of some old fashioned men in the US, well, then you're missing the connection. There are different flavors and presentations of sexism.  Are we going to pretend there is no verbal abuse and domestic violence towards women the US?  There is a lot of it. There is also a lot of child abuse in the US. Some of the attitudes about what women are responsible for and should be doing play into that violence. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by WisconsinMomma

[Treflienne]

On 10/16/2018 at 11:55 AM, qwazse said:

I do share these criteria to scouts of both sexes tongue-in-cheek, but also to help them think about core values.

Are they outdated and sexist? What, pray tell, should be a post-modern nomad's criteria for mate selection? Beauty? Personality? Desire? Wits?

Beauty vanishes, personalities change, desire waxes and wanes, wits dull, but  ...

• If your spouse leans into the plow and secures wealth for your family and the poor in your community, you may hike and camp more and work double shifts less.
• If your spouse puts out a good meal, you may be presumed fed ... and freer to welcome the stranger to your table.

So, yes, I am having a little fun, but provoking thought at the same time.

The problems of English not disinguishing between you-singular and you-plural.   Do you read this as "if you (a hard worker) choose a spouse who is also a hard worker (and not just pretty/handsome) then you two together may camp more and work double-shifts less?   Or do you read this as "you will be able to goof off while your wife works"?

The problems of internet comumication where we cannot see our listeners' mis-understanding in their eyes,  and correct it before it really takes root.

On 10/17/2018 at 9:10 AM, WisconsinMomma said:

This sounds a little bit like how wives are chosen and treated in the backwoods of less developed countries -- a woman is chosen as a worker and treated like a slave

Maybe I've been paying too much attention to what Quazse has been saying about girl venturers (it is generally complimentary) and the positives for girls in Scouts BSA,  so I did not read this into his words.      And has he himself indicated (see next quote) that was not what he was advocating.

But I do agree that poor treatment of women in certain eras and certain locations has been a problem.

21 hours ago, qwazse said:

Oh, the presumption that my quips are only delivered to boys ...

My working assumption is that a youth will go "all-in" for their spouse. The question then boils down to what kind of person he/she should go "all-in" for? My answer is not pat. It's provoking.

 

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

@qwazseQuips don’t all translate to Internet forums well. 

So,   if we adults are having occasional difficulties with understanding each other within the limits of the Internet,   what about kids these days?

I find it disturbing that many elementary schoolers in my area have, for the last few years, had their own smart-phones (sometimes as hand-me-downs from parents).   What were their parents thinking?  Kids that age are not yet mature enough not to blurt out comments without thinking.   At least in person they can see if they are offending their friends, and clarify or appologize right away.   But on electronic media foolish impulsive remarks,  or even simply less-than-100% crystal clear remarks,  can linger long and can provoke negative overreactions on the parts of others.

[packsaddle]

WisconsinMomma, I'm just trying to be helpful here but the post by quazse is still there, I think, on Wednesday at 11:34 am (at least according to the time stamp on my computer). Here it is: 

"Speaking of "less developed countries" my father-in-law first noticed my mother-in-law while they were tending crops in the hinterlands of western PA. He saw her work-ethic and thought, "She'll do."

Demean the "help-mate" criteria all you want, but to this day, I am reaping the benefits of that union."

When I read this the first time I realized that it could be taken a number of different ways and at least one of those would not be good....as you have noted. Please remember, that was his grandfather and not him. The 'benefit' he mentioned was likely being brought into this world. As he indicated, these forums are not always successful at conveying intent or tone and can easily go 'south', even when it was not intended.  

 

[qwazse]

6 hours ago, packsaddle said:

...  Please remember, that was his grandfather and not him. The 'benefit' he mentioned was likely being brought into this world. As he indicated, these forums are not always successful at conveying intent or tone and can easily go 'south', even when it was not intended.  

Read again. I  quoted my father-in-law -- not granddad. Therefore it was referring to how I wound up with the best mother-in-law a guy could ask for. Although I'm sure Mrs. Q gets the "brought int this world" benefit!

But Pack's misread shows that blaming the writer for folks who read facts not in evidence is a little silly. It's fine to have a little back and forth to hone in on what's being said, and if what I've said is patently unconscionable, I'm more than happy to change my approach to youth's issues. But, that means the cause had better be against the construct itself and not a straw-man. Proclaiming "it might sound like ... <insert PC concern here>" doesn't carry the weight that "this definitely implies ..." does.

Just like the soon-to-be-father Eagle candidate. By most of our books, we could dock him for fornication. Some of us might also fault the abandonment of universal precautions. But, using that to speak to his entire character is setting up a another straw-man. And, how you weigh it against all the other scout's traits (including how he is going about responding to this situation) might very well depend on where you live. I will take this moment to point out; however, that the real answer probably involves "Time will tell." If the Eagle rank weren't merely a youth award, you could tell the scout, "We need a year to see if you will handle this situation responsibly and with true scout spirit." Being able to do that might help develop a desirable character.

[packsaddle]

6 hours ago, qwazse said:

Read again. I  quoted my father-in-law -- not granddad. Therefore it was referring to how I wound up with the best mother-in-law a guy could ask for. Although I'm sure Mrs. Q gets the "brought int this world" benefit!

Oops, sorry for that misread. No excuse. I also ended up with great MiL AND FiL as well - but  from a different decision-making process. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by packsaddle
changed wording

[Mom2a]

We have a scout in our troop who is about to turn 18.   He made some poor choices regarding recreational drugs when he was younger.  He has gotten himself back on track for completing high school and his future.   He won’t make Eagle due to his detour.  He is, however, the best “older scout” because he is honest about his mistakes with our younger scouts.  He is able to tell them don’t do what I did and I think they actually listen because he isn’t a parent.  He is brave and honest when he talks with them. 

There would be be a huge difference we’re this scout bragging about his detour.  There would be a huge difference for me if a scout with a pregnant girlfriend wasn’t taking responsibility for his choices. 

[FireStone]

On 10/18/2018 at 11:44 AM, Eagledad said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm looking at this in the big picture (Nationally). Family Scouting is not only rapidly accelerating the decline of Patrol Method, it will be the dagger of it's finality.

Family Scouting just came up as a real thing in the BSA lexicon within the last year. How could it already be a factor in the Patrol Method? We've been seeing difficulties with maintaining the Patrol Method for years, decades even. And Family Scouting is hardly a factor in most Troops yet, at least as far as I can see around my area. Not a lot of siblings and moms going on any camping trips yet.

Just seems like the timeline doesn't fit for blaming Family Scouting on any of the BSA's problems these days.

[RememberSchiff]

Family Scouting started as Family Camping and that has been around here for some time. Family Camping  was a holdover from Cub Scouts or a way to fit scouting and family  in what  vacation time was available or maybe the troop was just an adult-run outing club.

So on a "family campout", the PL tells scout to do one thing, parents another.  Patrol activity is this, family activity is that.... Family trumps patrol/troop.

If our troop outing is opened to families,  both my son and I withdraw. and we are crystal about the reason.

My $0.02

Edited October 22, 2018 by RememberSchiff

[numbersnerd]

It appears to me that some people go looking for insults where there are none. Ugh.

[Sentinel947]

19 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Family Scouting started as Family Camping and that has been around here for some time. Family Camping  was a holdover from Cub Scouts or a way to fit scouting and family  in what  vacation time was available or maybe the troop was just an adult-run outing club.

So on a "family campout", the PL tells scout to do one thing, parents another.  Patrol activity is this, family activity is that.... Family trumps patrol/troop.

If our troop outing is opened to families,  both my son and I withdraw. and we are crystal about the reason.

My $0.02

My troop typically does one outing in August that is open to families. Any more than that is my breaking point. I'm not in this to chaperone family camping trips, nor would I be necessary. 

[Double Eagle]

Ok, having read the entire posts on this, and as an Eagle since 1981 I have  a couple of cents to add.  Back in my youth chasing Eagle, there was green BSA uniforms, sex, drugs, and rock and roll.  Heck, I was cub while Vietnam was still a war and we played war with cap guns.  I was probably exposed to too many things that could have turned me off the path, but I just used the experiences to successfully travel to Philmont a couple of times and the Natl Jamboree too.  Back then, we weren't afraid to wear the uniform or neckerchief as you may get stomped by that Boy Scout.  Sometimes we had to be BRAVE to get in the face of someone as we defended scouts.  No angel here, and Eagles aren't always nice to critters of the wild.  The talons (scout skills) and beak (scout spirit) should not be considered a weakness.     

Back to the original question about qualities of an Eagle.  A lot has been said about pregnancy and even EBOR.  Seems there are lot of angels out there that never did anything wrong.  I'm not saying a pregnancy is wrong as it is a normal bodily function that is done as a couple.  I wonder how the "angels" of this thread would throw stones had an abortion been made or made public.  Doesn't scouting work on preparing youth for adulthood as productive citizens?  Maybe we should be thankful for diversity of our youth and troops as this pregnancy question may be a taboo issue in some scout family households. 

At the front of each scouting handbook it talks about abuse, a more harmful thing than a natural act between consenting people.  They should not be considered in the same discussion.  How about we embrace these youth, show how we support everyone, and not condemn them.  I know of scouters that have committed crimes and violate traffic laws several times a day, but they still sit on boards and preach to youth. 

How about one quality of a Eagle is being well rounded and not sheltered from exposure to what life may deal them.  The more exposure to real problems, the better they will be to deal with them as they arise.