2022 Membership Numbers

[elitts]

1 minute ago, yknot said:

The Bureau of Labor statistics fact sheet clearly states it does not include any infectious event not linked to an injury. That is not the same as saying that no one is at risk of dying, which I think we both clearly agree is a high risk event. The thing about the health care profession though is that infectious disease events are not outliers, they are inherent to the work.  The type of fatality risk might be different for some professions -- falling out of tree for a logger for example vs. contracting a fatal disease for a doctor or nurse during periodic outbreaks -- but the types of individuals who choose to work in these fields both have a high threshhold for risk acceptance. However, healthcare is somehow viewed as a low risk, nurturing profession mainly because many women pursue it. When people use those kinds of false perceptions to buttress claims that women prefer menu planning and eschew action and adventure, or when they claim that women are incapable of holding leadership positions because they exhibit more neuroticism than men as was recently, and unbelievably, posted as evidence by Inquisitive Scouter, I think they need to be called out on it loudly. If you find that incomprehensible, I can only say you're going to have an interesting ride going forward in scouting as the numbers of girls and women in it increase. 

You are mixing up statistical and non-statistical terminology.  In the context of a statistical study if something bad happens frequently then it's a "high risk".  But a negative occurrence being a "high risk" has nothing to do with the severity of the potential outcome.  Elementary Teachers, particularly in their first few years, are at "high risk" of contracting all manner of infections from snotty, unhygienic children. (then after a few years they are often relatively healthier, illness-wise, than the average adult)  But the likelihood of a serious outcome from all those illnesses is extremely low.

So yes, Health Care personnel do regularly run the "serious" risk of death associated with being around potentially life threatening contagions.  However at this point in time, the actual rate of risk of contracting one of those illnesses is typically very low given the level of precautions built into the health care system. 

And Health Care isn't viewed as nurturing and "low risk" because it has been predominately a female profession, it's viewed as nurturing both because that's typically a requirement of the job (since a nurturing atmosphere is linked to better outcomes) and because dealing with people who are sick and in pain and dying is emotionally draining and often just a shit job; and only people with a genuinely caring, compassionate and nurturing personality can do the job well.

And once again, NO ONE SAID GIRLS PREFER MENU PLANNING OR DON'T LIKE ADVENTURE.  That was your (incorrect) interpretation of what someone said.  This is what Eagledad said:

Quote

Boys aren’t intimidated by the girls natural instinct of management and details, they welcome it. But many adults confuse the boys stepping back as a result being intimidated. It is instead the logical action of giving space for letting the girls do what they do best, and the boys find boring. Boys by nature want action and adventure. That other stuff like meeting, planning, and planning menus is not in their wheelhouse. Taking the girls out of the equation forces the boys to step to the mundane responsibilities of getting to to the actions and adventure.

While I don't know that I'd go so far as to say girls have a "natural instinct for management and details", it's pretty well studied that girls are better than boys at the kind of self-regulation and discipline required for scholastic, planning and organizing tasks (without regard to whether or not they actually enjoy it)  This is proven out by the fact that girls out-perform boys (on average) across the board at every level of school.

As far as whether or not girls like adventure, well the only statement I've seen anyone make with regard to that was to say boys are more drawn to adventure than girls.  Which can certainly be true in some respects.  The impact of testosterone exposure in-utero and in the body has been studied with the following result:

Quote

One important biological difference between men and women involves the hormone testosterone. Higher levels of testosterone in males can result in gender differences in behavior and cognition through the organizational or the activational effects of this hormone. The former refers to permanent modification of brain structure and function during prenatal and early postnatal life due to exposure to testosterone, whereas the latter refers to the transient effects of circulating testosterone on the brain during postnatal life, and especially after puberty (2). In humans, testosterone has been shown to enhance the motivation for competition and dominance (3), reduce fear (4, 5), and alter the balance between sensitivity to punishment and reward (6). Testosterone has also been associated with extremely risky behavior such as gambling and alcohol use (7–9).  https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0907352106

Now consider the first definition of the word "Adventure":

Definition of adventure

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a : an undertaking usually involving danger and unknown risks a book recounting his many bold adventures

b : the encountering of risks the spirit of adventure

2 : an exciting or remarkable experience an adventure in exotic dining They were looking for adventure.

 

If you consider "Adventure" to be something risky and exciting then the more adventurous something is, the higher the level of risk you would expect it to entail.  So it would make complete sense that boys would be drawn to riskier adventures (on average) than girls.  However, I don't know that that distinction has much relevance when it comes to the relatively watered-down risks associated with anything the BSA permits Scouts to do.

[yknot]

1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Nope, still here... no petard used or detonated.

I claim victory, and leave the field to you with your perfectly displayed trait of Neuroticism.

I think you should stop posting because if anyone from the mainstream world visits this forum and reads posts like yours claiming that neuroticism is why women aren't in leadership positions... that is very far outside the mainstream and is really terribly offensive. 

 

Again, where are our moderators? Are these fringe views acceptable and defensible? 

[elitts]

8 minutes ago, yknot said:

I think you should stop posting because if anyone from the mainstream world visits this forum and reads posts like yours claiming that neuroticism is why women aren't in leadership positions... that is very far outside the mainstream and is really terribly offensive. 

 

Again, where are our moderators? Are these fringe views acceptable and defensible? 

This isn't a fringe view, you just aren't reading what he wrote in context.  He's not saying women are "Neurotic" he's talking about the "Big Five Dimensions of Personality".  Neuroticism is a trait, not a mental illness or criticism.  Another phrase for Neuroticism is "Emotional Stability".

But everyone should alsways keep in mind that not all the moderators read everything every day.  If anyone thinks a post is contrary to the forum rules, they should "Report" the post rather than assuming a moderator will be along soon and notice it.

Edited May 18, 2022 by elitts

[elitts]

I've hidden a few posts here because we were moving from arguing on issues to just arguing with each other.  Not all of the posts were un-scoutlike, but I also removed those that were responding directly to the offending posts.  Let's all just take a breath or two before continuing. 

If you disagree with the hiding of these posts, please message the moderators in general and if the collective disagrees with me, the posts can be un-hidden.

[yknot]

How does one message the moderator team? 

[InquisitiveScouter]

3 minutes ago, yknot said:

How does one message the moderator team? 

@yknot, in the upper right corner of any post you do not like, you can select the three dots and hit "Report"

[elitts]

Just now, InquisitiveScouter said:

@yknot, in the upper right corner of any post you do not like, you can select the three dots and hit "Report"

This is correct.  Doing that allows you to provide an explaination or comment on the post.  You can even create your own reply and then report it with a comment to draw the Moderator's attention to an ongoing problem.  Alternately, you can click on a moderator's name and message them directly, though that doesn't go to everyone the way "Report" does.

[Tired_Eagle_Feathers]

6 hours ago, elitts said:

But at the same time, once you really look at how pervasive and long-lasting the impact of those policies were, it starts getting pretty hard to think just saying "Ok, we're not going to do that anymore" makes today's world anything like a fair playing board.

There is no doubt that our history has led to where we all are today.  The past created our present.  So a lot of people today are behind the eight-ball from the outset.  It will take generations to right the ship.  But, we've now also had generations of a relatively level playing field.

My parents, born in the mid 1940s, were born poor.  My dad's family had to get water in a bucket from the neighbor to flush their toilets.  My mother was slightly better off but they did not own their own home when she was growing up, had ice delivery long after refrigerators were mainstream, and had no heat in their bedrooms to deal with Wisconsin winters.  Christmas gifts were limited to a new nightgown and slippers which had to last all year. 

My dad's generation saw every male member of the household (and possibly the girls too, I don't know) get STEM college degrees.  They paid for this themselves and by each brother who graduated helping the one behind them.  My mother had an excellent civil service job and was making more than my father did out of college.   Consequently, I was set up for a good stable family and a college education, and now my children are also.  Generational excellence builds quickly - if the parents make good choices.

I feel like we've had a pretty equal playing field for the last 50 years.  Certainly the last 30.  Much of what I see in regards to inequity today is the result of poor parental choices vastly over the sins of the past.  Now, I will say that many of these bad parental choices are made simply because the parents have never had good role models and thus don't even understand what the potential is out there let along how to go about achieving it.  This is where it is going to take time for families to grow up and discover how to play the game of life to get ahead.

It's also true that the world has changed from 50 years ago.  Wages have not kept up with inflation.  You could buy a house 50 years ago for a couple of times an annual wage.  Today it's 10 times that.  College is vastly more expensive now (though there are still lower cost community college options).  Most people have to take out loans to go to school and this makes them start out their working lives with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.  The days of getting any degree and being successful are over.

So while I feel the playing field is pretty level today, it's also more rocky than it used to be.  People have to work harder today to make it than they used to.  That's life.

Neal Boortz used to say something like the way to make it in life was to follow a simple formula:  Stay in school.  Don't do drugs.  Don't get pregnant.  Get a job, any job, and work hard at it.  You back this up with the Scout Oath and the Scout Law and I think you have as good a shot as anybody to have a decent life.

[KevinW]

I see the yearly BSA reports to the nation through 2019 at https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/about-the-bsa/annual-reports/.
I see the 2020 here:   https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BSA-Report-to-the-Nation_2021.pdf
Where can I find the 2022 one that covers year 2021 (?

[malraux]

49 minutes ago, KevinW said:

I see the yearly BSA reports to the nation through 2019 at https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/about-the-bsa/annual-reports/.
I see the 2020 here:   https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BSA-Report-to-the-Nation_2021.pdf
Where can I find the 2022 one that covers year 2021 (?

my understand is that a lot the annual reporting is waiting on the bankruptcy case to finish up. I suspect the goal is to have the case finished so going forward the reporting can talk about the path forward.

[RememberSchiff]

53 minutes ago, KevinW said:

Where can I find the 2022 one (Report to the Nation) that covers year 2021 (?

Good question. As  i understand by Congressional Charter, it was due April 1.

Related

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by RememberSchiff

[RememberSchiff]

Moved recent posts to their own topic. Please continue here discussion of this topic,  2022 Membership Numbers.

Thanks

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by RememberSchiff

[Ojoman]

BUILD BACK BETTER While that hasn't worked for Biden or the country it could be a motto for the BSA in growing membership. The first step to fixing any problem is to admit that there is a problem, identify the causes of the problem and go to work on those problems, (underlying issues) My first boss and mentor in professional scouting was Harry Mangle. Also my best boss and mentor. Harry would be shocked and saddened by where the BSA is today. We (the BSA) have lost our connections with our schools (teachers and administrators), lost our relationship with our chartered partners, councils/districts have lost their connections with leaders/volunteers and instead of raising the funds to maintain services we have merged councils and districts, cut unit serving positions and sold off properties. In the 1960's we served as much as 20% or more of the available youth in many parts of the nation. Today we serve less than 2%. Instead of cultivating the public to support local scouting councils are tacking on 'service' and 'insurance' fees to the national fee. If we were serving just 10% of the available youth national could get along quite well on a $12 registration fee. 

I tend to agree with many here that the membership and program will continue to decline because the national office and local councils are unwilling or unable to address the real reasons for membership decline. 

Now and then, here or there, we find a pack, troop or crew that is having an outstanding success but we fail to learn from them. We have failed to KEEP IT SIMPLE, MAKE IT FUN. and the result is where we are now. 

We need to be the best show in town! We were once and we could be again but we don't have the leadership or the will anymore. 

[yknot]

 

I'm not sure if this will post here or not, but this was posted on discussions.scouting.org before all the non scoutbook threads were deleted a couple months ago. It was the actual BSA number as of March 2022 after some of the post recharter reconciliations had been done. The actual membership number shown is about 647K. I believe the projected numbers are/were what are in the BSA reorganization plan. 

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by yknot

[curious_scouter]

Does this mean their business plan currently relies on nearly doubling membership over the next 3 years?  I'd love to see that, any one have insight on how they expect to hit that goal?