Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

[Cburkhardt]

Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

 

For this posting, let us predict and discuss fundamental cultural changes that might affect our program and activities.  Here are hypothetical examples to get the discussion going:

 

·       Parents may no longer repose sufficient trust in Scouting leaders.  As a result, a significantly higher number of organization-registered and YPT parents might need to be present at meetings and campouts.

·       YPT will have to get very serious.  Physical contact presents unacceptable YPT and liability risks.  There might be an “absolutely no touching” policy whereby leaders and camp staff are not allowed to physically touch or even get close to any child (with narrow exceptions for emergencies).  No touching demonstrations of first aid, “tick removal” or assistance with sit-ups – nothing.  Merit badge counseling might be required to take place in coordinated environments, like “merit badge universities”.

·       Absolute privacy will be required.  Individual tents, single bathroom/shower facilities and similar facilities might become the immediate and permanent normal.  Presence of privacy-violating phone/cameras and similar electronics will be prohibited.

·       YPT policy compliance might not be assumed.  Paid or volunteer YPT policy compliance personnel might make visits to unit meetings and activities.

·       Scouting may no longer be a property management organization.  The BSA will sell many of its properties at all levels during the bankruptcy.  Most councils will no longer operate a long-term summer camp facility and will rely on a small number of councils capable of fielding the expertise and finances.

·       Scouting above the unit will be volunteer.  Structures will function with minimal paid staff and provide only core unit-oriented services.  Property management, public relations, product fundraising sales and many other activities currently provided by councils will cease or be outsourced.

·       Parents will look to their own family religious institutions or the COs they have chosen to affiliate with on matters concerning God, and not Scouting programs (except for the religious emblems program) or Scouting leaders.

·       Scouting will be local and not national.  A national entity will maintain a program and only services that are best provided on a national scale.  Jamborees and high adventure bases may cease to exist, with perhaps the exception of a reduced-footprint Philmont operation.  Above-council youth leadership structures might be reduced or terminated.

 

These are notional examples not based on inside information.  I do not personally advocate many of these, but each strikes me as possible.  Some combination of cultural changes will come quickly due to the bankruptcy and other “perfect storm” factors identified during earlier postings.  Thoughts?

[qwazse]

My standing projection is that scouting in the US will not be brokered by not one, but a federation of independent scouting organizations.

Rather than seeing the end of  jamborees, we will see broader gatherings of American youth from multiple organizations.

BSA may or may not be a player in all of this.

[David CO]

7 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

   Thoughts?

Yes.  I don't think Boy Scout units can survive as a Cub Scout program for older boys.  If BSA tries to turn it into that, it will die.  Boys won't be interested in joining.

Boys are aware of this prevalent attitude of girls are good/boys are bad.  They get it all the time in school.  They don't like it.  If BSA keeps pushing this idea in scouting, boys won't be interested in joining.

Boys understand the good touch/bad touch thing.  They understand the difference between someone giving them a pat on the back and someone fondling their genitals.  They're not stupid.  If BSA starts saying all touch is bad touch, boys won't be interested in joining.

Boys are aware of the fact they will soon be men.  They are also aware of BSA's attitude toward men.  They don't like being told that men are bad.  As future men, they feel than the negative attitudes BSA has about men reflect poorly on them as well.  

[yknot]

9 hours ago, David CO said:

Yes.  I don't think Boy Scout units can survive as a Cub Scout program for older boys.  If BSA tries to turn it into that, it will die.  Boys won't be interested in joining.

Boys are aware of this prevalent attitude of girls are good/boys are bad.  They get it all the time in school.  They don't like it.  If BSA keeps pushing this idea in scouting, boys won't be interested in joining.

Boys understand the good touch/bad touch thing.  They understand the difference between someone giving them a pat on the back and someone fondling their genitals.  They're not stupid.  If BSA starts saying all touch is bad touch, boys won't be interested in joining.

Boys are aware of the fact they will soon be men.  They are also aware of BSA's attitude toward men.  They don't like being told that men are bad.  As future men, they feel than the negative attitudes BSA has about men reflect poorly on them as well.  

I think if scouting survives it will be a much smaller organization. 

I think it's clear the only kind of scouting that will continue will be more family oriented experiences/camping because that's what millennials and younger want and liability insurance and issues will likely demand. 

I think it's clear we are headed to mixed gender because that is what millennials and younger want. It also just doesn't make any sense to try to run this bureaucratic/volunteer heavy organization with different groups of volunteers just to preserve the illusion of segregated units when that's not how many are operating in reality. 

I think there are plenty of boys who would still be interested in scouting even under the above scenarios. It will be different, but kids that like to camp and get outdoors will still want to do that. High school age boys that are into sports still do sports even if their parents come along. Any parent of a teen or young man knows there are ways to be there but also be invisible. The kids whose parents are ASMs deal with it just fine. The kids whose mothers are ASMs deal with it just fine. 

 

[CynicalScouter]

20 minutes ago, yknot said:

I think it's clear we are headed to mixed gender because that is what millennials and younger want.

To my knowledge it is what every other WOSM organization on the planet does other than those in Islamic nations where there are laws prohibiting such co-ed programs.

[qwazse]

43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

To my knowledge it is what every other WOSM organization on the planet does other than those in Islamic nations where there are laws prohibiting such co-ed programs.

It is an ecological fallacy to dismiss predominately Islamic nations as choosing segregated programs simply because of some legislative mandate.  They also choose such programs because they are very popular among youth and adults alike. So-called "Islamic" directives are popular with the prevailing culture -- which partly explains why the Islamic conquest has been successful in such places. No leaders in such a situation would push for coed after school programs. There would be a backlash from Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

We also would do well to recognize that the inspiration of the co-ed scouting movements comes from Karl Gustav, King of Sweden. His mandate drove Swedish troops to be majority coed. He basically made an edict prohibiting segregated units.

The BSA seems to be "late to the party" simply because there was neither legislative pressure nor groundswell of girls desiring this program specifically. Coed troops remain unpopular, according to my random sample of every 11 year old who I've consulted. By age 14 they kinda-sorta  become okay with the concept again -- but it's the rare bunch who actually pull themselves together as a crew who attracts as many young women as men.

Now, as kids are brought up in coed packs, that may change. But, IMHO, it would take a forceful legislative mandate before coed troops would be the standard across the nation. Otherwise, given the diversity of this melting pot, the popularity of organizations tailored on one sex or the other will continue.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, qwazse said:

It is an ecological fallacy to dismiss predominately Islamic nations as choosing segregated programs simply because of some legislative mandate

Except I didn't dismiss it. I noted that there are laws prohibiting it. I did not try to address whether the culture caused the law or the law caused the culture.

[FireStone]

13 hours ago, David CO said:

Boys are aware of this prevalent attitude of girls are good/boys are bad.  They get it all the time in school.  They don't like it.  If BSA keeps pushing this idea in scouting, boys won't be interested in joining.

...

Boys are aware of the fact they will soon be men.  They are also aware of BSA's attitude toward men.  They don't like being told that men are bad.  As future men, they feel than the negative attitudes BSA has about men reflect poorly on them as well.  

Specifically where is this "boys are bad" thing being suggested by the BSA? Can you please reference anything that suggests this or could be interpreted that way?

[MattR]

Or maybe we should step back and ask about the point of this topic. Besides the fact that "cultural changes" is just asking for a fight (that I'd like to wave off right now), how does it help? The only thing we can control is how we respond to our environment. I don't see a point in discussing the what-ifs. Rather than describe, discuss and explain a future that we're all clueless about, how about talk about what we're doing locally, to help our units get through what has to be the worst year for scouting ever. This is like the predictions that magazines put out around new years, only it's the 10 most horrible things that might happen rather than the 10 best.

[Eagle94-A1]

38 minutes ago, FireStone said:

Specifically where is this "boys are bad" thing being suggested by the BSA? Can you please reference anything that suggests this or could be interpreted that way?

The double standard in youth protection, i.e. 2 female adults over 21 can take a bunch a males out camping, but 2 males over 21 cannot tale a bunch of females on any meeting or activity. Also 18-20 year old males no longer count as a 2nd adult for YP purposes.  

[Eagle94-A1]

My Thoughts.

 

21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

 

 

 

For this posting, let us predict and discuss fundamental cultural changes that might affect our program and activities.  Here are hypothetical examples to get the discussion going:

 

 

 

·       Parents may no longer repose sufficient trust in Scouting leaders.  As a result, a significantly higher number of organization-registered and YPT parents might need to be present at meetings and campouts.

If the parents are trained and leave the Scouts alone, OK. If it turns into "Family Scouting" as I have experienced it. Scouting will slowly die. Scouts will lose interest fast. Or you will will see more of the extremely young Eagles who couldn't lead a Tiger Cub den on a short hike. who Eagle and leave.

 

 

 

 

21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

 

·       YPT will have to get very serious.  Physical contact presents unacceptable YPT and liability risks.  There might be an “absolutely no touching” policy whereby leaders and camp staff are not allowed to physically touch or even get close to any child (with narrow exceptions for emergencies).  No touching demonstrations of first aid, “tick removal” or assistance with sit-ups – nothing.  Merit badge counseling might be required to take place in coordinated environments, like “merit badge universities”.

This can cause major problems. There is no way I can teach certain BSA required skills: First Aid MB and Lifesaving MB and Lifesaving BSA come immediately to mind. Scouts know the difference between " good touch bad touch."

 

 

 

21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

 

·       Absolute privacy will be required.  Individual tents, single bathroom/shower facilities and similar facilities might become the immediate and permanent normal.  Presence of privacy-violating phone/cameras and similar electronics will be prohibited.

Showers and bathrooms are already the norm in many places. Individual tents will eb new.

 

21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

·       YPT policy compliance might not be assumed.  Paid or volunteer YPT policy compliance personnel might make visits to unit meetings and activities.

We have a hard enough time getting unit commissioners.

 

21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

·       Scouting may no longer be a property management organization.  The BSA will sell many of its properties at all levels during the bankruptcy.  Most councils will no longer operate a long-term summer camp facility and will rely on a small number of councils capable of fielding the expertise and finances.

While the lose of council camps will hurt in some areas, in others it may not. I know in some areas it is cheaper to camp at local, state, and national parks.

 

As for summer camps, sadly they are turning into MB mills, and it seems that is what parents want.

 

21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

·       Scouting above the unit will be volunteer.  Structures will function with minimal paid staff and provide only core unit-oriented services.  Property management, public relations, product fundraising sales and many other activities currently provided by councils will cease or be outsourced.

 

My only concern si will the professionals finally listen to the volunteers?

 

 

21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

·       Parents will look to their own family religious institutions or the COs they have chosen to affiliate with on matters concerning God, and not Scouting programs (except for the religious emblems program) or Scouting leaders.

Been happening for a long time.

 

 

21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

·       Scouting will be local and not national.  A national entity will maintain a program and only services that are best provided on a national scale.  Jamborees and high adventure bases may cease to exist, with perhaps the exception of a reduced-footprint Philmont operation.  Above-council youth leadership structures might be reduced or terminated.

if it can cut the cost of registration, I am for it.

 

 

21 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

 

 

 

These are notional examples not based on inside information.  I do not personally advocate many of these, but each strikes me as possible.  Some combination of cultural changes will come quickly due to the bankruptcy and other “perfect storm” factors identified during earlier postings.  Thoughts?

 

 

[qwazse]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Except I didn't dismiss it. I noted that there are laws prohibiting it. I did not try to address whether the culture caused the law or the law caused the culture.

@CynicalScouter you said that a law prohibited such programs, and I pointed out that that is a fallacy. You attributed cause to legislation when the reality is that such total desegregated programs are unpopular.

The observation across multiple countries has been that it takes decades for coed scouting to be come so popular that the organization recoups the numbers of a given sex lost to the merger.  The only countries where there aren't drastic losses, are where government implores multiple sex-segregated organizations to start working closely together.

What does this mean for BSA's? Well, lacking a president who devotes some cabinet level officials to shuttle between it and GS/USA and other youth organizations to work together and provide more joint activities for the youth, market pressure will increasingly reduce BSA's and GS/USA's numbers as other organizations gain a little traction.

Now, some European coed organizations have shown some phenomenal growth in the past few years. But, their tort law doesn't saddle organizations with the burden of the behavior of each of its members. Again, we have a situation where legislation makes the risks involved in overnight coed activities less onerous for the organization who promotes them.

In other words, lacking legislation to buoy it, America is unlikely to have a single organization promoting minimally chaperoned coed overnight activities on a large scale anytime soon. Organizations are barely in the clear to do single-sex activities of that nature.

Edited December 8, 2020 by qwazse

[yknot]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

The double standard in youth protection, i.e. 2 female adults over 21 can take a bunch a males out camping, but 2 males over 21 cannot tale a bunch of females on any meeting or activity. Also 18-20 year old males no longer count as a 2nd adult for YP purposes.  

The statistical reason is that less than 5% of perpetrators are women and it's generally a different kind of abuse than we've seen in scouting. It's more often an older female taking advantage of a juvenile male. The other sad statistic is that while in BSA we are hyper focused on the horrific abuse of boys, in reality girls are five times more likely to be victims of abuse and the abusers again are almost exclusively male. Apart from the statistics, I think the practical reason BSA has allowed two women to take boys on outings is  because if they didn't a lot of cub scout dens wouldn't be functional.  I know things can vary regionally and change cyclically, but around me almost all the dens are run by moms and meet after school. Of course, future liability concerns may demand a change in that and the after school model is also changing somewhat as more families become two career. 

[FireStone]

6 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

The double standard in youth protection, i.e. 2 female adults over 21 can take a bunch a males out camping, but 2 males over 21 cannot tale a bunch of females on any meeting or activity. Also 18-20 year old males no longer count as a 2nd adult for YP purposes.  

I'm still not following. How does that translate to "boys are bad" in any way that reaches scouts? Even if that is you're interpretation of the YPT rules (it's not my interpretation), that still should never influence scouts in any way. Those parts of the adult training regarding the gender ratio of adults at any activity aren't ever expressed to kids.

How are boys "being told that men are bad" as David suggested?

If boys in any unit are getting that kind of message, that's coming from the local adults, not the BSA.

Edited December 9, 2020 by FireStone

[Eagle94-A1]

16 hours ago, yknot said:

The statistical reason is that less than 5% of perpetrators are women and it's generally a different kind of abuse than we've seen in scouting. It's more often an older female taking advantage of a juvenile male. The other sad statistic is that while in BSA we are hyper focused on the horrific abuse of boys, in reality girls are five times more likely to be victims of abuse and the abusers again are almost exclusively male. Apart from the statistics, I think the practical reason BSA has allowed two women to take boys on outings is  because if they didn't a lot of cub scout dens wouldn't be functional.  I know things can vary regionally and change cyclically, but around me almost all the dens are run by moms and meet after school. Of course, future liability concerns may demand a change in that and the after school model is also changing somewhat as more families become two career. 

Thank you for proving my point that society in general, and now the BSA, does view  men as abusers and evil because of the deeds of a few, yet the abuse that women do gets overlooked and does not affect all women.

 

11 hours ago, FireStone said:

I'm still not following. How does that translate to "boys are bad" in any way that reaches scouts? Even if that is you're interpretation of the YPT rules (it's not my interpretation), that still should never influence scouts in any way. Those parts of the adult training regarding the gender ratio of adults at any activity aren't ever expressed to kids.

How are boys "being told that men are bad" as David suggested?

If boys in any unit are getting that kind of message, that's coming from the local adults, not the BSA.

Do you really think the Scouts do not notice these things? They do observe, and do see the double standards. And yes some adults do talk to their kids about YP and why things cannot be done. And those Scouts who work day camp and summer camp do indeed get the YPT training as it is mandated in the NCAP.