2022 Membership Numbers

[yknot]

Just now, InquisitiveScouter said:

Please view a few of the videos I posted, which discuss the science behind the gender differences, and I'll be glad to engage further...

Most of these clips/posts are by male authors with self validating biases. The Psychology Today piece says women are not in high risk professions but fails to delineate comparable risks associated with professions that are identified as female dominated. Health care for example is one of the highest risk professions. In other cases, women are invisible in certain dangerous sectors that have traditionally been considered male, like farming/agriculture where about 50% of operators are female. It also neglects to mention barriers preventing women from entering heavily male dominated fields like, say, mining or logging.  

The James Damore memo has been around for years. Those Medieval opinions are not worth the etherspace that they are wafted upon. I think they are beneath this forum.  

[yknot]

31 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I never said this ... and I don't think anyone has.  If you are going to debate a topic, please do not utilize a strawman argument.  

No, but as Moderator you are defending the comments of someone who essentially did. You tell me how else to read that comment and now some of yours. Maybe show some of the things that have been posted here to some random women, maybe even outside your immediate orbit, and see what their reactions are. I'd be curious to hear. Personally, I've got a houseful of livid people here. Maybe tell some of your girl scouts that the reason they can't be in mixed gender troops is because they like to menu plan too much. See how your Twitter feed blows up. 

[Eagledad]

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

No, but as Moderator you are defending the comments of someone who essentially did. You tell me how else to read that comment and now some of yours. Maybe show some of the things that have been posted here to some random women, maybe even outside your immediate orbit, and see what their reactions are. I'd be curious to hear. Personally, I've got a houseful of livid people here. Maybe tell some of your girl scouts that the reason they can't be in mixed gender troops is because they like to menu plan too much. See how your Twitter feed blows up. 

When I taught adult leadership, I explained that the actions of others around me are motivated by my actions., or misunderstood opinions.

I also must say that of the hundreds of times I have brought my opinion to this discussion, it is the first time I seen someone offended that the girls had the better skills than the boys. Most adults just smile. This is a strange discussion at some many levels.

Barry

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

No, but as Moderator you are defending the comments of someone who essentially did. You tell me how else to read that comment and now some of yours. Maybe show some of the things that have been posted here to some random women, maybe even outside your immediate orbit, and see what their reactions are. I'd be curious to hear. Personally, I've got a houseful of livid people here. Maybe tell some of your girl scouts that the reason they can't be in mixed gender troops is because they like to menu plan too much. See how your Twitter feed blows up. 

@Eagledadsimply said girls are better at planning and boys may feel intimated and back off.  He never said that means women belong in the kitchen (nor even eluded to that). 

https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/healthy-tips/battle-of-the-brain-men-vs-women-infographic

Quote

In studies examining connections within the brain, it has been found that women tend to have stronger connections side to side, which could lead to better intuitive thinking, analyzing, and drawing of conclusions. Men, on the other hand, tend to have stronger connections from front to back, which can result in heightened perception and stronger motor skills.

Perhaps this + the differences in development (female brains mature earlier than male) could lead to some behavior differences between boys and girls in a mixed setting.  

I read what @Eagledadwrote.  I think there is an argument to be made that boys could be better off within a single gender troop with only male leaders.  Again, the GSUSA argues for this as well (except for girls).  There is some science backs up the differences in brains and I think there could be a logical conclusion that there could be benefits in single gender settings.   I am ignoring the fact that gender in and of itself is a complex topic (for example, in my Troop I have one scout that doesn't identify as a boy or girl).

I land on the side of coed Troops.  For my son, and the Troop I lead, I think coed works.  I think seeing female and male leaders who share their interests is great.  Seeing powerful women benefits the boys in our Troop.  Having girls that can canoe, lash and fish right with the boys helps as well.  The girls and boys work well together in scouting situations.  So, that is the choice I personally made for our Troop (we have a very closely linked Troop and both male/female leaders).

That said, I haven't done much research to determine if there are negative consequences and if those negatives outweigh the positives I have seen.  I barely have time to run a half way decent Troop.  I think given the differences in development & brain ... there could be an argument made that single gender scouting is better overall.  

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Most of these clips/posts are by male authors with self validating biases.

So being male disqualifies them?  How sexist of you!  I hope the moderators take note of your discriminatory comments and take the action against you that you prescribe as you twisted others words to match your own biases and angst.

And Dr. Barber and Dr. Peterson are more studied in their fields than, I assume, you are.  Unless you care to reveal your academic credentials or put up the research and experience of others.

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Health care for example is one of the highest risk professions.

????  Gobbledygook

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Those Medieval opinions are not worth the etherspace that they are wafted upon. I think they are beneath this forum.  

The only opinions talked about there are Google's... However, there are upwards of forty citations to scientific research made in his memo.  Recommended reading for you.

 

2 hours ago, yknot said:

someone who essentially did.

"essentially" ??? Words matter, and you are attributing words to others that they did not write.  "Essentially" you are the guilty party in trying to stir up an argument based on your feelings and a perception of some offense offered, rather than what is actually there. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Health care for example is one of the highest risk professions.

Depends on how you define "risk" I suppose....for infection?  Sure.  For fatalities? No way...

https://www.facilities.udel.edu/safety/4689/

Edited May 16, 2022 by InquisitiveScouter

[yknot]

10 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Depends on how you define "risk" I suppose....for infection?  Sure.  For fatalities? No way...

https://www.facilities.udel.edu/safety/4689/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/hospitals-health-care-workers-face-inordinate-violence-they-need-our-ncna1286705

My friend's sister is an epidemiologist who accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for Doctors Without Borders. More than 75% of their workforce is female. Infection is not their prime risk concern when working in regions of conflict. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

You are mixing apples and oranges...

The article is referencing physical assaults, not fatalities.  Would you agree one is worse than the other?  (Just to be clear, a fatality is worse than an assault, in my book.)

And DWB is 45K people from around the planet.  Can we limit our discussions to folks in the US as our target population?  If so, there are 22.3M healthcare workers in the US.  Even if I allow you the courtesy of saying all 45K were from the US, they are still only 0.2% of the entire healthcare workforce.  Obviously, far less than that fits the bill...

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-health-care-workers.html

My cousin's uncle's brother's sister's dog once barked at the moon.  Doesn't make the dog an astronaut.

Edited May 16, 2022 by InquisitiveScouter

[yknot]

36 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

You are mixing apples and oranges...

The article is referencing physical assaults, not fatalities.  Would you agree one is worse than the other?  (Just to be clear, a fatality is worse than an assault, in my book.)

And DWB is 45K people from around the planet.  Can we limit our discussions to folks in the US as our target population?  If so, there are 22.3M healthcare workers in the US.  Even if I allow you the courtesy of saying all 45K were from the US, they are still only 0.2% of the entire healthcare workforce.  Obviously, far less than that fits the bill...

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-are-our-health-care-workers.html

My cousin's uncle's brother's sister's dog once barked at the moon.  Doesn't make the dog an astronaut.

Wow...  Those were a couple examples for illustrative purposes. As far as Covid, I didn't think you'd dismiss the thousands of health care workers, from physicians to nurses to aides, who have died in the past few years from Covid, far eclipsing fatalities in any other profession. Infection doesn't count in your book? That doesn't qualify as bravery or a high risk profession?  Wow.  Those were not people who got infected and just got sick... Those are people who died. Google yourself how many. You won't believe what I post anyway.  
 

[InquisitiveScouter]

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

Wow...  Those were a couple examples for illustrative purposes. As far as Covid, I didn't think you'd dismiss the thousands of health care workers, from physicians to nurses to aides, who have died in the past few years from Covid, far eclipsing fatalities in any other profession. Infection doesn't count in your book? That doesn't qualify as bravery or a high risk profession?  Wow.  Those were not people who got infected and just got sick... Those are people who died. Google yourself how many. You won't believe what I post anyway.  
 

J'ai mon voyage

[elitts]

On 5/16/2022 at 8:33 PM, yknot said:

Wow...  Those were a couple examples for illustrative purposes. As far as Covid, I didn't think you'd dismiss the thousands of health care workers, from physicians to nurses to aides, who have died in the past few years from Covid, far eclipsing fatalities in any other profession. Infection doesn't count in your book? That doesn't qualify as bravery or a high risk profession?  Wow.  Those were not people who got infected and just got sick... Those are people who died. Google yourself how many. You won't believe what I post anyway.  
 

Look, it's another sweeping generalization based upon some headline somewhere.  Not to diminish the mental and physical sacrifice people in the Health Care industry made during the first 12-18 months of COVID, but again, you just aren't relating the actual data accurately.

1. The way statistics works is that when data is being unusually impacted by some specific factor that isn't likely to be ongoing, that data gets excluded the study as an "Outlier".  When it comes to industry related mortality rates, that's what all of the COVID related deaths would be considered because world-wide pandemics are highly unusual.  So NO, Health Care doesn't even come close to being a hazardous profession in general.  Pre-COVID, Health Care didn't even make the top 20 and had a rate of death very similar to other professional and scientific fields.  At least, that's what the Bureau of Labor Statistics thinks.
2. Even if we were just looking at which industries suffered the most fatalities from COVID, it's not Health Care. 

   Quote

   From March 2020 through November 2021, essential work was associated with higher COVID-19 and excess mortality compared with non-essential work, with the highest per-capita COVID-19 mortality in agriculture(131.8 per 100,000), transportation/logistics (107.1), manufacturing (103.3), and facilities (101.1)  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.14.22270958v1.full.pdf

   Though to be fair, there was a brief window of July 2021 - Nov. 2021 where Health Care workers tragically took the top ranking.

[InquisitiveScouter]

30 minutes ago, elitts said:

Look, it's another sweeping generalization based upon some headline somewhere.  Not to diminish the mental and physical sacrifice people in the Health Care industry made during the first 12-18 months of COVID, but again, you just aren't relating the actual data accurately.

1. The way statistics works is that when data is being unusually impacted by some specific factor that isn't likely to be ongoing, that data gets excluded the study as an "Outlier".  When it comes to industry related mortality rates, that's what all of the COVID related deaths would be considered because world-wide pandemics are highly unusual.  So NO, Health Care doesn't even come close to being a hazardous profession in general.  Pre-COVID, Health Care didn't even make the top 20 and had a rate of death very similar to other professional and scientific fields.  At least, that's what the Bureau of Labor Statistics thinks.
2. Even if we were just looking at which industries suffered the most fatalities from COVID, it's not Health Care. 

   Though to be fair, there was a brief window of July 2021 - Nov. 2021 where Health Care workers tragically took the top ranking.

elitts, thanks...I had exhausted my supply of pearls

[elitts]

On 5/10/2022 at 1:35 PM, Tired_Eagle_Feathers said:

Like I said, "If your idea of equity/equality means that everyone has the right to participate in something and give it the old "college try" with whatever they came to the game with, then sure, that's my idea of equity/equality."

It's your responsibility and (and your parents, and their parents before them) to build up generational excellence to gain the advantages thereby.  It's not anyone else's responsibility to take a handicap to make someone else equal in the starting lineup.  The whole point of building generational excellence is to make sure that you get a head start in the race.

I have no problem if someone who has come lately to the game gets to take their swing.  That's equity.  What's not equity is giving an advantage to them or handicapping everyone else to try and force some equal starting line.

Everyone gets dealt a hand of cards in life.  Equity means having an equal opportunity to use what you've got the best you can.  It doesn't mean giving everyone the same deal of cards.

That's a great idea; and in many ways I agree with it in principle.  The problem is that the US government spent 80 odd years (after slavery was abolished) keeping their thumb on the scale (via redlining) when it comes to minority populations.  So we aren't talking about some new kid "coming lately to the game getting to take a swing".  What we have here is something more like a kid who's been on the baseball team since 1st grade, but wasn't allowed to do anything in practice but chase stray balls.  Now it's High School and he/she is told, "Congratulations, we've decided to give you a shot at making the Varsity team.  All you have to do is play better than one of the 20 other kids who've been given practice time and game experience for the last 8 years while you rode the bench." 

I'm not sure how you go about "fixing" what the Government did, I certainly don't like the idea of quotas and affirmative action.  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.

Edited May 18, 2022 by elitts

[yknot]

42 minutes ago, elitts said:

Look, it's another sweeping generalization based upon some headline somewhere.  Not to diminish the mental and physical sacrifice people in the Health Care industry made during the first 12-18 months of COVID, but again, you just aren't relating the actual data accurately.

1. The way statistics works is that when data is being unusually impacted by some specific factor that isn't likely to be ongoing, that data gets excluded the study as an "Outlier".  When it comes to industry related mortality rates, that's what all of the COVID related deaths would be considered because world-wide pandemics are highly unusual.  So NO, Health Care doesn't even come close to being a hazardous profession in general.  Pre-COVID, Health Care didn't even make the top 20 and had a rate of death very similar to other professional and scientific fields.  At least, that's what the Bureau of Labor Statistics thinks.
2. Even if we were just looking at which industries suffered the most fatalities from COVID, it's not Health Care. 

   Though to be fair, there was a brief window of July 2021 - Nov. 2021 where Health Care workers tragically took the top ranking.

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. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

49 minutes 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. 

@yknot, you really are too much...

1.  "However, healthcare is somehow viewed as a low risk, nurturing profession mainly because many women pursue it."  No one ever said it was "low risk"  I even said, 

On 5/16/2022 at 6:59 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

Depends on how you define "risk"

2.  I never made any such claim, that women are incapable of holding leadership positions...

53 minutes ago, yknot said:

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

Please search my posts, and show me wrong.

3.  No one ever said women prefer menu planning.  What @Eagledad said was "Boys by nature want action and adventure. That other stuff like meeting, planning, and planning menus is not in their wheelhouse. "

Again, search his posts and prove me wrong, please.

4.  And Neuroticism is a trait described in the well-accepted Big Five Personality Trait model.   https://www.verywellmind.com/the-big-five-personality-dimensions-2795422  And, IT IS A FACT that women exhibit the characteristics of Agreeableness and Neuroticism MORE THAN MEN!

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178/full

"Neuroticism

Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability. Women have been found to score higher than men on Neuroticism as measured at the Big Five trait level, as well as on most facets of Neuroticism included in a common measure of the Big Five,..."

"Agreeableness

Agreeableness comprises traits relating to altruism, such as empathy and kindness. Agreeableness involves the tendency toward cooperation, maintenance of social harmony, and consideration of the concerns of others (as opposed to exploitation or victimization of others). Women consistently score higher than men on Agreeableness and related measures, such as tender-mindedness"

And these two traits are consistently NOT demonstrated by people in positions of high stress leadership.  Which is but one explanation as to why women do not lead more corporations than men

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijtd.12113

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8733164/

I cast four more pearls before you...let's see how you receive them...