Girl Scouts Suing the Boy Scouts

[Eagledad]

18 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Emphasis added.  You seem to be saying there that the degree of image change is tied to the degree of program change, and you ask what the degree of program change will be in 15 years.  Advancement is, of course, integral to the program, and therefore to image.

Ah, so what you are saying is

56 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Look for tweaks to advancement requirements that increase the quantity and variety of outdoor adventure requirements.

Hmm, ok.

Ironically, scouters for the last 30 years, have been complaining that National has been taking too much adventure out of the program. You are saying National is now being forced to put adventure back in the program just to attract the girls. Interesting. Is this just hope, or do you know something we don't know?

Barry

[qwazse]

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

...

Qwazse has been clear that his daughter is very capable of earning the Eagle because she is a good outdoorsman, um woman. Is outdoorsmenship what the Eagle represents in our culture today. Qwazse has never mentioned his daughter wanting the Gold Award. Could three 15 mile hikes and one overnight backpacking trip becoming the high point of the Eagle?

I'm not sure what the Eagle represents to our culture today. It doesn't sound like leadership or character.  There is a member of this thread that has nothing kind to say about Eagles and makes a point that he will never not recruit one for unit leadership. I guess the image of the Eagle isn't at WWII Ranger standards anymore.

I've actually wondered if Daughter would have earned Eagle given the chance to do so. She never pursued any such awards. GS ended at brownies. And her and her friends didn't feel that medals were what they wanted out of venturing. She and the boys had very little patience for leadership classes. The thing she really wanted was to go to summer camp with us. Her senior project was a weekend class on outdoor preparedness for the GS in the area. I think if she were given a tan shirt, she would have maybe earned First Class, held a PoR because it suited the work that she saw needing to get done, hiked the snot out of the countryside, and aged out happy. (She'd be a lot better with knots as well.)

Her grandmother told me that this fall while helping get groceries, she stopped at a popcorn table, left a donation, and asked the boys about their ranks and the trips they were planning. Not sure where that puts her in the pantheon of scouting alumni, but it suits her.

As far as what Eagle Scout represents, I know a desert storm vet who remembered being impressed at the skills they had coming into boot camp. I think Eagles are still living up to their brand in that department.

[dkurtenbach]

18 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Ah, so what you are saying is ["Look for tweaks to advancement requirements that increase the quantity and variety of outdoor adventure requirements."]

Oh, I was saying a lot more than that.  😉

Anyway, 

18 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Ironically, scouters for the last 30 years, have been complaining that National has been taking too much adventure out of the program. You are saying National is now being forced to put adventure back in the program just to attract the girls. Interesting. Is this just hope, or do you know something we don't know?

Forced?  No.  Rather, what I said in the sentence before puts that last sentence about tweaks to advancement requirements in context:  "And finally, if BSA is smart in its marketing, it will seek to differentiate BSA even more from GSUSA, and the obvious vehicle for that is the appeal of outdoor adventure to girls."  In that post, an increased emphasis on the outdoor program was the fifth (by my count) reason for my conclusion that the admission of girls into the program is unlikely to adversely affect the image of Eagles.  That is because the participation of girls will improve the quality of the program that the image of Eagles is tied to.  Of course, that last one is conditioned on the optimistic but to date unproven notion that BSA will be smart in its marketing.  😌

[Setonfan]

Always curious when this topic comes up, how National is de-emphasizing adventure-  Maybe it's just me, but with all of the new programs at each of the High Adventure bases, councils doing everything from cave exploring to climbing, whitewater, mountain biking, not to mention pistols, ATV's PWC's, ziplines, etc.  What exactly has National taken out of the program?  Other than sending patrols of boys off on their own for camping (while there are those that say it destroyed the patrol method, frankly, my troop in the 70's didn't allow that, and I haven't found any of my peers who have said their troop or parents were Ok with it either). 

[dkurtenbach]

4 minutes ago, Setonfan said:

Always curious when this topic comes up, how National is de-emphasizing adventure-  Maybe it's just me, but with all of the new programs at each of the High Adventure bases, councils doing everything from cave exploring to climbing, whitewater, mountain biking, not to mention pistols, ATV's PWC's, ziplines, etc.  What exactly has National taken out of the program?  Other than sending patrols of boys off on their own for camping (while there are those that say it destroyed the patrol method, frankly, my troop in the 70's didn't allow that, and I haven't found any of my peers who have said their troop or parents were Ok with it either). 

Having thought about this over the years, and having noticed what you have noticed, I think what happened is that BSA began watering down outdoor-related advancement requirements, particularly in the Tenderfoot through First Class ranks (maybe to encourage more rapid advancement to First Class), began moving away from high-impact camping practices (lots of fun, little thought required) to environmentally friendly practices (more thinking and planning necessary), and began adding safety-related restrictions in the Guide to Safe Scouting.  Together, these shifts created the impression that BSA was taking outdoor fun out of the program.  But I think what was really happening was that BSA was and continues to be encouraging outdoor adventure as much as ever, and providing great venues for it, but offering fewer incentives to Scouts to participate in outdoor adventure (fewer outdoor-related advancement requirements, less pyromaniac and tree-chopping fun) and more dis-incentives to leaders to participate in outdoor adventure (G2SS removing some activities, more training and certifications and approvals and experience and fitness required).  

[Eagle94-A1]

53 minutes ago, Setonfan said:

What exactly has National taken out of the program?  

Pioneering projects over 6 feet in height off the top of my head. Also the ability of troops to use 18-20 year olds towards 2 deep leadership requirements. I remember being the acting SM at 19 and 20 because I was the only adult there the entire week as the two 21+ year olds had to split a week anmd no other adults were available.

[Oldscout448]

1 hour ago, Setonfan said:

Always curious when this topic comes up, how National is de-emphasizing adventure-  Maybe it's just me, but with all of the new programs at each of the High Adventure bases, councils doing everything from cave exploring to climbing, whitewater, mountain biking, not to mention pistols, ATV's PWC's, ziplines, etc.  What exactly has National taken out of the program?  Other than sending patrols of boys off on their own for camping (while there are those that say it destroyed the patrol method, frankly, my troop in the 70's didn't allow that, and I haven't found any of my peers who have said their troop or parents were Ok with it either). 

I may no have been common, but we did it when I was a scout, 69 thru '77

[cocomax]

I know girls in Girl Scout troops that would love to go camping and hiking, but can not because their leaders do not "do camping" and do not want to hike. . .

So I signed up as the Outdoors person with our local GSUSA troop and took the Outdoor training class only to be told afterward by the troop leader that "men are not welcome" on Girl Scout trips. . .

So I go out and find an old Girl Scout that hikes, in fact she did a 180 mile hike this last summer and she would love to take the girls camping or hiking. . .  that was a no go, the troop leaders did not like her and all Girl Scout Trips must include their leader, who does not camp or hike, she would not allow a group of registered GSUSA members take the girls anywhere without her..

So the troop for the last year mostly made drawings, colored with crayons, sang girrrrl empowerment songs, and sold cookies.

So. . .  I am waiting to see what happens when the BSA for girl troops start up. . . 

Will it be great with Outdoorsy women taking the role of scout master for these girls. . . 

or will the BSA for Girls suffer the same fate as GSUSA with leaders that will not camp or hike and then just fall back to the class room style advancement centered program that many troops cling to because check lists are the easy way to run things.

The weak spot will be the adult leaders of the girls and finding the right women that can do that job, it will be a hard job, a drama minefield. 

I don't know which way it will (mostly) go.  

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by cocomax

[TAHAWK]

On 11/15/2018 at 1:56 PM, fred johnson said:

The issue is less about the trademark and more about marketing to both genders.  

Trademark law aims to protect "customers" from being misled as to whom they are "doing business" with.

BSA used "Scouts" for boys and girls youth programs since 1969, with co-ed Exploring ("Explorer Scouts").

If that was an infringement, GSA had to promptly act to enforce their claimed rights.  But it didn't for almost fifty years.

GSA should lose, big time.

Anti trust law aims to foster competition on the theory that competition benefits consumers.

[TAHAWK]

Can you even imagine "adventure" other than in a revenue-generating  context?   How about adventure in the natural social group - the patrol?

In real Scouting, a Scout was to spend "his" time primarily in a patrol context.  "Boy Scouting" is patrol scouting.This still pops up in BSA literature here and there.  There is no "troop method," but it's hard to tell that since the 1970's when the BSA model Troop Meeting Plan" came out, allocating five minutes to the patrol - to be used in business , for Bill's sake - and the balance  to a group that is supposed to exist  solely for the administrative convenience of the patrols that make up a troop.  You have to be old now to have had much chance to experience "Scouting."  BSA dumped it overboard generations ago - with the last coherent formal training on what it meant in 1972.

And now the inhabitants of the odious Safety Bubble want two - TWO - registered Scouters "supervising" even patrol meetings - should they occur.

Let's try something "new"  Let's try Scouting.  It worked well, but is so secondary now to BSA's primary goal - raising money for payroll - that what is left has little attraction to the vast majority of kids.  Whereas, nationally,  2/3 of all boys were registered at some time with a BSA units, we are under 5% in NE Ohio.  

[HashTagScouts]

3 hours ago, Setonfan said:

Always curious when this topic comes up, how National is de-emphasizing adventure-  Maybe it's just me, but with all of the new programs at each of the High Adventure bases, councils doing everything from cave exploring to climbing, whitewater, mountain biking, not to mention pistols, ATV's PWC's, ziplines, etc.  What exactly has National taken out of the program?  Other than sending patrols of boys off on their own for camping (while there are those that say it destroyed the patrol method, frankly, my troop in the 70's didn't allow that, and I haven't found any of my peers who have said their troop or parents were Ok with it either). 

 

3 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

Having thought about this over the years, and having noticed what you have noticed, I think what happened is that BSA began watering down outdoor-related advancement requirements, particularly in the Tenderfoot through First Class ranks (maybe to encourage more rapid advancement to First Class), began moving away from high-impact camping practices (lots of fun, little thought required) to environmentally friendly practices (more thinking and planning necessary), and began adding safety-related restrictions in the Guide to Safe Scouting.  Together, these shifts created the impression that BSA was taking outdoor fun out of the program.  But I think what was really happening was that BSA was and continues to be encouraging outdoor adventure as much as ever, and providing great venues for it, but offering fewer incentives to Scouts to participate in outdoor adventure (fewer outdoor-related advancement requirements, less pyromaniac and tree-chopping fun) and more dis-incentives to leaders to participate in outdoor adventure (G2SS removing some activities, more training and certifications and approvals and experience and fitness required).  

The lack of actual requirement for anything related to outdoors beyond First Class as well.  Youth of today are growing up in such a different environment, on many levels, and the numbers who are into outdoor activities like hiking, camping, biking, even fishing are smaller in many parts of the US.  Speaking here in MA, the Boy Scout membership numbers are so horribly decreased even in the last 15 years, that council mergers were a necessity to decrease expenses.  And we are not done, there will be even more consolidation to come.  The safety bubble has also contributed  to a lack of actual integrity to programs.  I have posted on the forums a bit about this- my son changed troops because the program he was in was not at all focused on anything "high adventure" related.  Even small things, like the 5 mile hike requirement for Tenderfoot was ignored- "oh, the kids did 3 miles, that is close enough".  My son became an Eagle, and he did absolutely none of the Camping MB requirement #9 activities in that troop- he did the needed requirements tagging along with his Scouting friends and their units.  That's really not something that made him proud, and even less so considering that he saw like 10 other kids become Eagle in his time there that also had never done any of those activities.  That troop is not at all alone, I could say that about 1 out of 4 troops I encounter in this area are on the same path.  The leaders will say "kids in my troop aren't into doing those things", and really, that is perfectly fine.  But, then why are you ignoring they aren't doing them and signing off on rank advancement and MBs? 

I am absolutely certain that there are still many, many folks out there delivering Scouting as it was intended- even in the GSUSA.  But I absolutely fear the things that we discuss here about the GSUSA are already infecting a great deal of our own membership.  And the biggest challenge for the BSA is how do we stop it? 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by HashTagScouts

[desertrat77]

More reliance on stoves, fewer campfires for warmth, cooking and fellowship...less backpacking and more troop trailers full of heavy gear...patrols all cooking near a single dining fly, under the direct supervision of the SM...troops camping elbow to elbow...less axemanship (directly related to fewer campfires)...camping at council properties or public areas with established latrine facilities...camp outs designed as entertainment/carnival style events, orchestrated by adults, instead of scout-planned/executed traditional activities such as hiking, fishing, pioneering projects, etc.

These shifts are subtle, but they point to "less adventure."

[qwazse]

2 hours ago, cocomax said:

... I am waiting to see what happens when the BSA for girl troops start up. . . 

Will it be great with Outdoorsy women taking the role of scout master for these girls. . . 

Any troop will become great with a man OR woman with utmost integrity -- and a willingness to enjoy the outdoors -- to take on the role of SM for these girls, and one other woman to support him/her in a direct contact role. If this transition happened in the 70s, we might have gotten by without that depth, the lawyers would still have had at it.

@desertrat77, Latrine? The shovel in my pack has been used by venturers of both sexes.

[desertrat77]

Post script, forgot one of the most important shifts:

More campsites festooned by a dozen hissing propane lanterns...the sounds of nature and starlight shut out....

[desertrat77]

Just now, qwazse said:

 

@desertrat77, Latrine? The shovel in my pack has been used by venturers of both sexes.

Excellent news, Qwazse!   In my neck of the prairie, many units plus district/council are bent on holding events as close to man-made plumbing as possible.