Woodbadge for Me

[Eagledad]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

OK I think I get what you are saying. You are talking about some of the research that shows that boys learn better from male teachers?  As a parent of two boys I would agree there is something to that. However, there is also research showing that women are far less likely to abuse children and abuse has a tremendously negative effect on ability to learn in both genders. There is also the teacher gene at play. Some people are inherently good at teaching and managing children. Others, despite whatever degrees or training they have, are not. There are also teachers, male or female, who seem to be better at teaching either boys or girls and it doesn't track at all by gender. And I use teacher loosely here -- I mean anyone who takes on the responsibility to interact with children in an extramural role.  I think these kinds of studies are worth noting and keeping under the belt, but I think we have to be careful of lasering in too tightly on one consideration because producing decent young human beings is tremendously complex and what works or doesn't work is multifactorial. 

So you think a discussion on the subject is sexist.

You gotta love the irony that the subject would be discussed honestly on the GSUSA forum.

Barry

[David CO]

35 minutes ago, yknot said:

That's only true in about 40% of the cases 

I think that statistic only refers to sexual abuse by an older child.  I don't think it includes same age sexual assaults.

[yknot]

 

3 hours ago, elitts said:

W

I can't figure out how to repost the comments within your quote, so sorry if these responses aren't directly linked to what you said: 

Girls -- 

I agree that the girl exclusion wouldn't have become such an issue if the ban on gay scouts and scouters hadn't preceded it. However, it did add tinder to the perception that scouting was exclusionary. We also have to remember that the girl issue became much more volatile when it was linked to a couple recent high profile transgender scout cases because of course those scouts were biological girls. That created a devastating connection in the public mind between scouting's previous ban on gay scouts/leaders, girls, and BSA's discriminatory positions and history. 

Organization of my post -- 

Yes, I apologize for the long post. However, some posters had asked for specific examples of what people would want to see survive, update, or improve in a reconstituted scouting model. While I agree it would have been more digestible and perhaps better organized to break my list out by admin items vs. program, I do think many of the problems are linked and one component, particularly on the admin side, can be causative or at least contributory to another on the program side. I'll give a couple examples below. It's part of what I'm talking about when I say scouting functions in silos and tiers. We've got too many components that don't talk to each other and our responses as an organization to challenges -- and opportunities -- need to be more holistic. 

Home based programming -- 

I totally get the 'Meh" reaction on home based. However, what I'm talking about is a little bit different. We have a ton of content that could have easily been repurposed into some kind of weekly social media or blog post from BSA. This kind of thing is done all the time in corporate America. While current Cub Scouts might know, for example, what a one foot or ten foot backyard "hike" is, there were millions of kids stuck at home this summer who did not. All the parent groups, social media groups, facebook pages, etc., in my area were reposting backyard bird feeder ideas, cloud study lessons, astronomy charts, etc.,  from local nature centers. People were desperate for something to do outside with their kids while cooped up this summer. Did we get anything from scouting? Zip. When things started opening up in my area, all those nature centers recruited those families who had been reading their posts to sign up for socially distanced hikes, birding programs, etc. I'm on the board of one center, and membership has increased 30%. Covid was the best thing to happen to them. Conversely, my scout unit is down 20%. Scouting could and should use some of its content nationally to try and drive nonscout youth to scouting. That's what I was trying to say. 

Return to the past -- 

This may seem contradictory but let me clarify it's not necessarily the program aspects I'm disenchanted with, it's mostly the delivery system. I gave several examples of that. 

Religion -- 

I can empathize with COs that want the program to align with their beliefs but my personal conviction is that aside for some minor degree of flexibility the scouting program as a whole should not be discriminatory. Whatever COs do locally reflects on the organization as a whole so there has to be a reasonable limit on autonomy. In my area as well churches are very accepting and broad minded so I haven't encountered many units other than the old LDS ones that had any kind of issues. This is an example of a traditional scouting component that needs to be left in the past. This is also part of what I see as the schizophrenic reality of the BSA/CO relationship. If BSA is going to manage a franchise, then it has to ensure consistency.

Family campouts -- 

I understand the issues but my point is that if scouts wants to survive it has to figure out how to adapt to what Millennial, Gen X and soon Gen Z families want. You've got a good point about inconsistent and incomplete training materials from National. That is an example  of my point of how National administration problems impact local program delivery and that they are interconnected. However, liability issues are going to continue to drive the need for parental involvement and supervision and it is going to get harder to schedule lengthy adult training sessions. This is not unique to scouting it's also an issue in youth sports and coaching. What I threw out may not make any sense but better heads than mine will need to truly problem solve this with some innovative approaches and whatever it winds up being will probably be very different than what has been traditional. The post bankruptcy reality may be that no one will insure you if a couple of adult leaders want to take a bunch of non related kids off into the woods. You can see that problem, right? Youth leadership training will not be a relevant part of the equation. So scouters will have to figure out a way to do some semblance of youth leadership training in a different paradigm if we want to continue scouting in some way. 

Leadership -- 

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I don't see mixed patrols in the traditional program as being useful either. Kids are coming to scouting lacking basic interpersonal skills. Many adults are too. I don't know what you are seeing in your units, but management by text and phone app has kind of become the norm. The program side may need to incorporate some back to the basics components that teach such basic skills as listening, voting, consensus, etc., starting at the cub level.

Merit badges -- 

Allowing advancement tracks might not seem like a good idea to traditionalists but parents increasingly want targeted experiences for their kids. This is an example of trying to be more relevant to modern families. 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. Even if we disagree, I value the discussion.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yknot]

56 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

So you think a discussion on the subject is sexist.

You gotta love the irony that the subject would be discussed honestly on the GSUSA forum.

Barry

Again, I'm asking you what is your point. It repeatedly sounds through your posts as if you are arguing that women and girls don't belong in scouting. That's OK if that's your opinion and we can agree to disagree. Just be scout like and be honest about what it is you are trying to say. On the one hand you appear to dissemble and say the only problem with women was a training issue in the 1970s. On the other hand it appears you are saying that boys can't learn from women.  Which is it? 

[ParkMan]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

But that's the point I asked in another thread about following rules.

[...]

It isn't the CO's "youth program". If the only limitation you want to impose is "don't meddle with advancement" then you don't have a cohesive organization or program. Unit A can decide it will do away with BSA's Youth Protection, Unit B can be limited to only white children, etc.

Then you don't have Boy Scouts of America. You've got an off the shelf, customizable mess in which anyone can slap the label on their program and call it "Boy Scouts" or "Scouts, BSA."

However, it really is the CO's unit program.  They own it, they staff it, they decide what to do.  If they want to go camping, they go camping.  If they want to focus on just leadership development, they do that. 

Here is the text from the Chartered Organization Agreement:

Quote

The Chartered Organization agrees to:
• Use Scouting to further the Chartered Organization’s aims and values for youth.
• Chartered organizations must utilize the Scouting program to accomplish specific objectives related to one or more of the following:

• Youth character development
• Career skill development
• Community service
• Patriotism and military and veteran recognition
• Faith-based youth ministry

• Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies. They may be found on the My.Scouting website and at the following location: www.scouting.org/about/membership-standards/.
• Chartered organizations must not use the Scouting program to pursue any objectives related to political or social advocacy, including partisan politics, support or opposition to government action, or controversial legal, political, or social issues or causes.
• Be represented in the Local Council and the local Scouting district by a Chartered Organization Representative (COR), who will be appointed by the Chartered Organization. The COR will be the point of contact between the Chartered Organization and the Local Council; will serve as a voting member of district and council committees on which the COR serves; and will, with the Chartered Organization, select and approve volunteer leaders for submission to the Local Council for its consideration. The COR will work with the unit committees sponsored by the Chartered Organization.
• Support unit committee(s) made up of at least three persons for each unit.
• Assure that adults selected as unit leaders are suitable by, at a minimum, having the appropriate leaders of the Chartered Organization review and sign each application.
• Ensure appropriate facilities for the unit for its regular meetings to facilitate the aims of the Chartered Organization and Scouting.
• Encourage adult leaders to receive additional applicable training made available by the council.

Nowhere in the agreement is text that you have to follow the program exactly as defined by the BSA.

Now, one could look at this and think it's a mess.  The potential is surely there for huge swings in how programs are implemented.  However, in reality most units are leveraging the program because they want to utilize the program as defined by the BSA.  In essence why would you go to the hassle of having a Scout troop is you didn't want to have a Scout troop?

Further, I've found that the CO concept is actually a driving force in consistency across the program.  One of the other current discussions in this topic is about the impact of untrained leaders entering the program.  In that conversation is a reoccuring theme that untrained leaders result in derivations from the program.  Leaders who do not have experience in the program "guess" on the implementation and often go in unexpected directions.  What usually happens is that those leaders eventually realize that their actions resulted in something unintended and after a few tries settle in on a fairly consistent approach.  In essence junior leaders become senior leaders.  So, units that last for a long time tend to have a group of senior leaders that have the experience to guide through the issues and sort out the problems.  This results in a pretty consistent program.  In the case of the BSA standard programming, larger units with more stable leadership pretty much do the same things.  It's the newer units or those struggling for leaders that tend to see more variation in programming.  

So, as a result, by leveraging the CO concept, we have a fairly stable program offering across the BSA.  

Edited October 20, 2020 by ParkMan
clarified a thought

[ParkMan]

4 hours ago, yknot said:

OK I think I get what you are saying. You are talking about some of the research that shows that boys learn better from male teachers?  As a parent of two boys I would agree there is something to that. However, there is also research showing that women are far less likely to abuse children and abuse has a tremendously negative effect on ability to learn in both genders. There is also the teacher gene at play. Some people are inherently good at teaching and managing children. Others, despite whatever degrees or training they have, are not. There are also teachers, male or female, who seem to be better at teaching either boys or girls and it doesn't track at all by gender. And I use teacher loosely here -- I mean anyone who takes on the responsibility to interact with children in an extramural role.  I think these kinds of studies are worth noting and keeping under the belt, but I think we have to be careful of lasering in too tightly on one consideration because producing decent young human beings is tremendously complex and what works or doesn't work is multifactorial. 

 

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

So you think a discussion on the subject is sexist.

You gotta love the irony that the subject would be discussed honestly on the GSUSA forum.

Barry

The problem is that in either a GSUSA or BSA discussion it's too easy to draw a sexist conclusion from this.

It's certainly very probable that this are some inherent biological differences between genders that will exhibit themselves in subtle ways.  As such, it would be a mistake to not have boys learn from adult men and it would be an equal mistake to not have girls learn from adult women.  However, what we're seeing society tells us is that it's beneficial for boys to learn from both men and women and for girls to learn from both women and men.

In 2020, the country is functionally a gender integrated place.  Most every job is open to both genders.  In whatever role these kids play in life they will interact with both genders.  75 or 100 years ago gender seperated Scouting programs made sense because adult life was very different for each gender.  Today, adult life is not that different at all for each gender.  Further, we now have both genders with equal technical and leadership skills.  Some of the strongest outdoor people I know are women.  Some of the strongest leaders I know are women.  These women bring real value to the boys (and girls) in the program.  Boys (and girls as well) benefit from having both male and female leaders.

Where I think this gets sexist quickly is that despite all the benefits of having mixed gender leaders, we all too often bring up the opposite gender in examples.  I don't think people are trying to be sexist, but it becomes sexist.  Why else have a discussion about the impact of women as leaders if not for the purpose of making the argument that men as leaders is inherently preferable to women as leaders?

This, by the way, is why I think the GSUSA model is inherently sexist.  I find it shortsighted that the GSUSA believes that the path to empowering girls to become strong leaders is by having an environment where they are supported by strong women.  In this I think the BSA is already years ahead of the GSUSA.

[yknot]

24 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

 

The problem is that in either a GSUSA or BSA discussion it's too easy to draw a sexist conclusion from this.

It's certainly very probable that this are some inherent biological differences between genders that will exhibit themselves in subtle ways.  As such, it would be a mistake to not have boys learn from adult men and it would be an equal mistake to not have girls learn from adult women.  However, what we're seeing society tells us is that it's beneficial for boys to learn from both men and women and for girls to learn from both women and men.

In 2020, the country is functionally a gender integrated place.  Most every job is open to both genders.  In whatever role these kids play in life they will interact with both genders.  75 or 100 years ago gender seperated Scouting programs made sense because adult life was very different for each gender.  Today, adult life is not that different at all for each gender.  Further, we now have both genders with equal technical and leadership skills.  Some of the strongest outdoor people I know are women.  Some of the strongest leaders I know are women.  These women bring real value to the boys (and girls) in the program.  Boys (and girls as well) benefit from having both male and female leaders.

Where I think this gets sexist quickly is that despite all the benefits of having mixed gender leaders, we all too often bring up the opposite gender in examples.  I don't think people are trying to be sexist, but it becomes sexist.  Why else have a discussion about the impact of women as leaders if not for the purpose of making the argument that men as leaders is inherently preferable to women as leaders?

This, by the way, is why I think the GSUSA model is inherently sexist.  I find it shortsighted that the GSUSA believes that the path to empowering girls to become strong leaders is by having an environment where they are supported by strong women.  In this I think the BSA is already years ahead of the GSUSA.

Again, I ask what we are debating here. Up until the post WWII era in the US, and even in many parts of present day Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Asia, and Africa, many women have mastered and still have many of the outdoors or rural living related skills that most US men have forgotten and no longer have simply because they need them to survive. This is not a discussion on what women are capable or not capable of. It is a discussion of what US men's perceptions are regarding women in scouting. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by yknot

[yknot]

29 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

 

The problem is that in either a GSUSA or BSA discussion it's too easy to draw a sexist conclusion from this.

It's certainly very probable that this are some inherent biological differences between genders that will exhibit themselves in subtle ways.  As such, it would be a mistake to not have boys learn from adult men and it would be an equal mistake to not have girls learn from adult women.  However, what we're seeing society tells us is that it's beneficial for boys to learn from both men and women and for girls to learn from both women and men.

In 2020, the country is functionally a gender integrated place.  Most every job is open to both genders.  In whatever role these kids play in life they will interact with both genders.  75 or 100 years ago gender seperated Scouting programs made sense because adult life was very different for each gender.  Today, adult life is not that different at all for each gender.  Further, we now have both genders with equal technical and leadership skills.  Some of the strongest outdoor people I know are women.  Some of the strongest leaders I know are women.  These women bring real value to the boys (and girls) in the program.  Boys (and girls as well) benefit from having both male and female leaders.

Where I think this gets sexist quickly is that despite all the benefits of having mixed gender leaders, we all too often bring up the opposite gender in examples.  I don't think people are trying to be sexist, but it becomes sexist.  Why else have a discussion about the impact of women as leaders if not for the purpose of making the argument that men as leaders is inherently preferable to women as leaders?

This, by the way, is why I think the GSUSA model is inherently sexist.  I find it shortsighted that the GSUSA believes that the path to empowering girls to become strong leaders is by having an environment where they are supported by strong women.  In this I think the BSA is already years ahead of the GSUSA.

Also, I agree about the GSUSA. I don't like double standards. I think everything should be integrated and kids should be tracked by ability or interest not by gender or anything else. If a girl is good enough to play little league, let her play. If a boy is more successful playing on a rec league vs. a travel team of any gender, let him play there.

[ParkMan]

7 minutes ago, yknot said:

Again, I ask what we are debating here. Up until the post WWII era in the US, and even in many parts of present day Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Asia, and Africa, many women have mastered and still have many of the outdoors or rural living related skills that most US men have forgotten and no longer have simply because they need them to survive. This is not a discussion on what women are capable or not capable of. It is a discussion of what US men's perceptions are regarding women in scouting. 

From what I saw, an errant comment kicked off a side conversation about gender.  That comment was that about how adding women as leaders in the program 40 years ago resulted in fewer trained leaders.  That led to a debate about why it was even mentioned and pointed out.  One person thought it was sexist to mention it, the person thought it was fine to mention it as a historical fact.  The minute the term sexist entered the discussion people got defensive because no-one really thinks that they are being sexist.

The question I see on the table is whether we should even discuss gender anymore in the context of Scouting.  My perspective is that we should not.

[yknot]

1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

From what I saw, an errant comment kicked off a side conversation about gender.  That comment was that about how adding women as leaders in the program 40 years ago resulted in fewer trained leaders.  That led to a debate about why it was even mentioned and pointed out.  One person thought it was sexist to mention it, the person thought it was fine to mention it as a historical fact.  The minute the term sexist entered the discussion people got defensive because no-one really thinks that they are being sexist.

The question I see on the table is whether we should even discuss gender anymore in the context of Scouting.  My perspective is that we should not.

I so appreciate your viewpoint and agree. I will do my best not to sally forth to do battle the next time something yanks my chain. 

[ParkMan]

Just now, yknot said:

I so appreciate your viewpoint and agree. I will do my best not to sally forth to do battle the next time something yanks my chain. 

Hah!  It would be a lot quieter around here with less battling

Joking aside - I find that in these exchanges we're getting to some of the more ingrained issues that normally don't get discussed.  We're a very small microcosm of Scouting, but I see lots of great ideas being shared here.

[Eagledad]

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Where I think this gets sexist quickly is that despite all the benefits of having mixed gender leaders, we all too often bring up the opposite gender in examples.  I don't think people are trying to be sexist, but it becomes sexist.  Why else have a discussion about the impact of women as leaders if not for the purpose of making the argument that men as leaders is inherently preferable to women as leaders?

You hit the nail on the head. The issue I have about this forum is that the discussion isn't sexist because in reality both youth genders learn more faster with role models of the same gender. But, members here have an agenda and that fact doesn't fit in their agenda. It's like the word racist, seems to be the go to defense these days when racism has nothing to do with the topic. It's just a word to shut down the other persons opinion.

If each gender learns more from same gender leaders, then at the very least, we have to admit that we are willing to loose that advantage by mixing the adult genders, At least that is honest.

Oh, I know we can go on all day speaking of the outstanding skills and role modeling examples of each gender in the scouting program, but, that wasn't my point. I'm very pragmatic and find emotionally driven discussions frustrating. I believe intelligent people should make intelligent choices based from facts. And then justify their decision with intelligent reasoning. If you value  growth of your scouts is better with mixed genders than the advantages of single gender programs because mixed gender leadership give scouts a more rounded experience, I'm good with that. That is an intellectual choice and the reasoning admits sacrificing an advantage for another. But, if you believe all units should agree with you, then I would say that is an opinion biased on bias, not reason. If you really believe in the local option, you better be ready to support a unit you disagree with.

I do agree that the GSUSA reason for not including boys or even men is not honest, what ever their reason. But, at least they are strait about it and I do respect that. Folks here on the BSA forum ignore the GSUSA all together as if the BSA is the evil sexist giant and the GSUSA doesn't exist. I think that hypocrisy is worse. 

Barry

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

You hit the nail on the head. The issue I have about this forum is that the discussion isn't sexist because in reality both youth genders learn more faster with role models of the same gender. But, members here have an agenda and that fact doesn't fit in their agenda. It's like the word racist, seems to be the go to defense these days when racism has nothing to do with the topic. It's just a word to shut down the other persons opinion.

[...]

I do agree that the GSUSA reason for not including boys or even men is not honest, what ever their reason. But, at least they are strait about it and I do respect that. Folks here on the BSA forum ignore the GSUSA all together as if the BSA is the evil sexist giant and the GSUSA doesn't exist. I think that hypocrisy is worse. 

On being able to discuss gender issues like this... 

Yes, I think it is excruciatingly hard in 2020 to discuss gender issues like this.  In fact, whether it's gender, race, or another characteristic where people feel there is discrimination, it is hard to do that.  My hunch is that as we've progressed in removing discrimination in our country, we are now tackling a lot of subtle and implicit discrimination.  It's taken a lot of pushing for a lot of years to get this far.  People are just naturally on the lookout for what they perceive as discrimination and push back.  

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

If each gender learns more from same gender leaders, then at the very least, we have to admit that we are willing to loose that advantage by mixing the adult genders, At least that is honest.

Oh, I know we can go on all day speaking of the outstanding skills and role modeling examples of each gender in the scouting program, but, that wasn't my point. I'm very pragmatic and find emotionally driven discussions frustrating. I believe intelligent people should make intelligent choices based from facts. And then justify their decision with intelligent reasoning. If you value  growth of your scouts is better with mixed genders than the advantages of single gender programs because mixed gender leadership give scouts a more rounded experience, I'm good with that. That is an intellectual choice and the reasoning admits sacrificing an advantage for another. But, if you believe all units should agree with you, then I would say that is an opinion biased on bias, not reason. If you really believe in the local option, you better be ready to support a unit you disagree with.

On the technical part of your comment...

I'll admit - it is just my opinion.  Yes, I do believe that it is better for our scouts to have the more rounded experience of mixed gender leadership.  I suspect there is probably no fact based way to decide that question - it's just a policy choice about what kind of skills do we want the Scouts to develop. 

If we were rolling back the clock to before the choice to have female leaders had been made, then yes - I would have lobbied for a unit choice option.  I would have been absolutely fine in supporting both unit models.  Today, I would not roll back the decision thought and would not off this as a unit level choice.  I recognize that this can be viewed as inconsistent.  To be transparent, I do strongly favor mixed gender leaders in units (again a bias of mine).  However, I do not believe that my personal bias is the basis for this recommendation. 

The basis for my position is two fold: 1) I believe that BSA should reflect the trends in our country and, 2) should actively work to stay above divisive political issues.  Years ago when the BSA saw that the country was moving in the direction of mixed gender leadership teams, they should have gone along and said - "ok, this is a new idea that is clearly becoming part of accepted life.  As such, we will leave this choice up to you."  The would have followed the trends and stayed above politics.  However, in 2020, the country is well integrated and the time for this decision long passed.  If the BSA made all male leadership teams a unit choice today, it would be going counter to the general direction of the country.  The BSA would be opening up yet another controversial political decision.  So while they would have left this to unit choice, they would be doing so at the expense of yet another political battle.  The BSA needs to be above polticial battles - not starting them.

 

[Eagledad]

9 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

The would have followed the trends and stayed above politics.  However, in 2020, the country is well integrated and the time for this decision long passed.  If the BSA made all male leadership teams a unit choice today, it would be going counter to the general direction of the country.  The BSA would be opening up yet another controversial political decision.  So while they would have left this to unit choice, they would be doing so at the expense of yet another political battle.  The BSA needs to be above polticial battles - not starting them.

 

You had me up to here. What is the point of the local option if some options are off the table? All the examples you gave for supporting the local option are political in nature to some degree. This is exactly why many posters (pro gays included) didn't support the local option. How can the local option give COs room to provide a program if the CO is given limited options based on perception. I thought the whole idea of the local option was to give the BSA a break on perception.

Barry

[qwazse]

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

... the discussion isn't sexist because in reality both youth genders learn more faster with role models of the same gender. ...

It is sexist because empirical studies have never universally confirmed this. I have cited studies that point this out. (And here's a review article https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/coed.) Yet you continue to use the same hackneyed assertions.

For example, if I were in rural Africa and needed my sons to learn how to start and maintain a fire, I would not send them to the male elders of the village. Because, it is invariably the women who have that responsibility. (My Ugandan niece had formidable skills.) Here in the US, the woman deferring to the man for fire building is a 20th century, almost romantic, role. Prior to that, it was invariably something a boy learned from his mother.

At WSJ I sat on Mt. Jack teaching an Indonesian scouts everything about sassafras. One girl took notes and had me draw the leaves in her notebook (with spelling in English and Arabic). I later showed her and her friends how to find blackberries and track bear. Would she have learned more about the plant faster from a woman? I doubt it, simply because there was no woman stopping, with root in hand, offering to brew them some tea while we rested. Meanwhile, the boys were more interested in video games, of which I apologetically said I knew little.

We humans learn more faster when the teacher is competent. Competency does include respecting social norms -- which include sex roles.