Latest Boy Scout poop (and I don't use that term lightly)

[Vort]

Quiet discussions and inquiries underway about integrating girls into Boy Scouts, either as separate troops, separate patrols, or fully integrated. They feel they have to do something about falling enrollments. Gee whiz, maybe selling their soul to the sociopolitical special interests wasn't the greatest idea. Ya think?

[Snigmorder]

The church says they pulled our boys out of the scouts because they wanted to go in a different direction. But I think we all know the real reason.

[paracaidista508]

Bsa ....why are we still doing the fos thing? All our $$ is doing is helping to pay for integrating gay adults with kids and apparently now possibly making it into a gender neutral org. If they have troops which are male and female, our scouts will not be allowed to go to any campouts which has kids in tents. Will violate church rules since now they will have access to girls and vice versa. And there will be women scout leaders out there without their husbands and we can't have that either. Either because we don't trust the women or we don't trust the men. I'm thinking we dont trust out priesthood leaders. I mean, we can't even teach a scout class alone. There has to be two of us. Anyhow...

Until a new program is implemented and we leave the bsa completely,  we will be subsidizing this garbage. Maybe we should donate to planned parenthood too. I mean as long as we think our money only goes to legit med treatment and not abortions then it should be fine right?

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by paracaidista508
Freaking typos

[Grunt]

At church they were discussing pulling the kids out of BSA.  They didn't get into detail and everything I've read as an outsider is vague.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

At church they were discussing pulling the kids out of BSA.  They didn't get into detail and everything I've read as an outsider is vague.  

To get you caught up:

The Church is/was the biggest participant in the BSA. We had the most units and were the biggest financial contributor.  As of 2015, the BSA decided to allow gay leaders in the organization. This was done without our Church's board representatives present. This brought the ire of many members of the Church against the BSA.  But the BSA assured the various religious units that each charter organization would have the freedom to make adjustments themselves.  This essentially protected the national BSA organization from lawsuits and opened the charter organizations to lawsuits.

At the time the Church indicated that

1. We'd see how such "freedom" worked out.
2. The Church had already been working on a plan to separate from the BSA.  Now they had impetus to hurry up the development of the program.  Their earlier motivation to create such an organization was because the BSA was only a US organization.  They were looking to create a uniform program for the entire Church.

Many members of the Church wanted immediate withdrawal.  Many didn't like the change regardless of the provisions made for religious organizations.  We began realizing that the BSA simply didn't represent LDS values anymore.  So, we sat quietly waiting for this "new program".

Earlier this year the Church announced the new program to be implemented next year.  This program only affected 14 year-olds and up.  So, the cub scouts and the younger scouts will remain in the program.  This essentially cut our participation in half.  The BSA will feel the financial pinch from that announcement.

Since that day some indicated that it is a sad day because they still valued the BSA goals, believing it is still a good organization for boys to grow up in.  I believe the majority opinion of the politically aware are thinking that the Church hasn't gone far enough.  We believe we ought to pull out altogether.

My belief is that it will be coming in a few years.  But the Church needs a program ready to go before we just drop the one we have (i.e. the BSA).  Right now we have a program for the older scouts.  In a few years, we'll have a program for the younger scouts.  Then we'll have one for the cub scouts.  But it takes time to develop such programs and then a few years to work out the kinks in the implementation.  So, it will be a while for this entire phasing out process.

[Grunt]

Thank you!   My boys don't participate in Cub Scouts for that reason.  

[NeuroTypical]

Culture has shifted under our noses, and we're struggling to keep up.  Remember the last three decades of arguing online about the impact of progressive education on our children?  Well, here it is my friends.  The kids who graduated are now teaching the next generation, and traditional gender roles are getting revamped in deeper ways than "This is not your father's Oldsmobile" rebranding efforts.

You can tell we lost the majority by following the dollars.  For centuries, toy manufacturers sold dolls to girls, swords to boys, board games to families, and soft fuzzy things to new mommies.  Feminist and liberal groups complained that you couldn't buy a Star Wars kid's shirt with Princess Leia on it, but nobody cared.  Boys simply wouldn't wear a shirt with a girl on it, they'd get beat up at school.  There was no money in it.

That's all changed.  Like in 2014.  Have you been to the toy aisle recently?  The next time you stop by Target, go look for the pink aisle and the blue aisle.  You may be in for a surprise.  Hasbro just recently joined Mattel and other toy giants in abandoning their longstanding toy segment philosophy.  Nobody breaks down toys by boy/girl/family/infant any more.  It's now stuff like 'fan driven' and 'storytelling' and whatnot.  Nerf guns went pink a few years' back with the Rebelle line, which is off happily making money.  

Star Wars isn't for boys only any more.  You've seen the main characters of the last two movies, yes?

Those of you with boys - when you took them to see the movie, did any of them care?  Or grouse about girls?  If not, it's because they're part of this new dominant culture shift.

From the My Little Pony world, Hasbro reports that 30% of it's cartoon's global viewership are not girls.  You look at MLP toys, you still find the standard dress-up real-brushable-hair doll type stuff, sitting next to action figure ponies with armor and spears and fire breathing dragons, and the MLP card game that works like pokemon or Magic the Gathering.   

We Mormons, with our Proclamation on the Family and our Priesthood/Relief Society, are not part of the majority culture any more, folks.  We're in the minority.  It's going to get worse before it gets better. 

I suggest we all realize it, and start acting like we're in the minority.  Puffing out our chests in outrage, making snarky comments about hidden agendas, and pulling our kids out of changing institutions in a huff isn't going to get us anywhere any more.   Where will you put your kids?  What battles will you fight, and which losses will you accept?

Edited August 2, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[zil]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I suggest we all realize it, and start acting like we're in the minority.  Puffing out our chests in outrage, and making snarky comments about hidden agendas isn't a tactic that's gonna accomplish anything any more.

Excuse me while I draw my sword to prepare for battle!

Violently yours,

Sheathen Mistress

[Just_A_Guy]

34 minutes ago, zil said:

Excuse me while I draw my sword to prepare for battle!

Violently yours,

Sheathen Mistress

Sword?  But you're a girrrrrl--

Oh, wait a minute. . .

[Snigmorder]

47 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Star Wars isn't for boys only any more.  You've seen the main characters of the last two movies, yes?

That's what the toy commercials would have you believe. I don't know if girls [at large] actually like pretending to blow people up or pretending they're a Jedi cutting people in half.

 

[Guest]

I may be missing the point here, but my five year old daughter has a room full of Star Wars toys and is a huge fan of Star Wars and Star Trek.  I think this is a good thing - I would rather see her playing with Star Wars and Star Trek toys than smutty Bratz dolls any day of the week.  And no, I don't think me and my daughter having toy lightsaber duels is warping her sense of gender for life.

[NeuroTypical]

30 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

That's what the toy commercials would have you believe. I don't know if girls [at large] actually like pretending to blow people up or pretending they're a Jedi cutting people in half.

Well, the new dominant culture hasn't managed to rewire DNA, that's true.  Boys still make guns out of sticks and girls still dress up their infant brothers.  

But yes indeed, girls like Star Wars now.  They talk about the sexual tension between Jyn and Cassian, and about Kylo's chances at redemption after killing his father, about the technology and the diversity of the SW universe and a million other topics.  They have come to the table of SciFi fans and have taken their places.  Go to any StarWars fan page of Facebook group and swing a dead cat - you'll hear lots of females yelling at you to stop swinging that dead cat around.  

19 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I may be missing the point here, but my five year old daughter has a room full of Star Wars toys and is a huge fan of Star Wars and Star Trek.  I think this is a good thing - I would rather see her playing with Star Wars and Star Trek toys than smutty Bratz dolls any day of the week.  And no, I don't think me and my daughter having toy lightsaber duels is warping her sense of gender for life.

Your daughter rocks, and me too.  It's not about gender senses being warped, but traditional gender roles bing morphed.  It's about cultural shifts us guys over 40 are in denial about.  Bratz dolls, and other heavily gender-specific toy lines, are becoming a thing of the past.  

Here in the world of boring corporate quarterly results reporting, you can see the real news:

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14095753/1/mattel-gets-thrashed-as-sales-of-barbie-dolls-fall-off-a-cliff.html

All of this says something about the future of the Boy Scouts. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[person0]

49 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

I don't know if girls [at large] actually like pretending to blow people up or pretending they're a Jedi cutting people in half.

My daughters are both very girly girls.  They love makeup and dressing up pretty.  They also love to play pretend, house, family and barbies, and all the things you might normally associate with little girls.  Yet, they also regularly ask me to let them watch Dragon Ball Z, build fires, take them camping, play in the dirt, etc.  They aren't at the age where I will let them watch Star Wars, but they do like to play superheroes and pretend to destroy the bad guys (they always make me be the bad guy ).  Not sure if this is all related to society, or just their personalities, given their ages, but it is certainly interesting.  I like it because I don't have any son's right now, but that could also be a factor in their liking of those things.

Edited August 2, 2017 by person0

[zil]

11 minutes ago, person0 said:

I like it because I don't have any son's right now, but that could also be a factor in their liking of those things.

I have no idea either, but...  I grew up with two older (by 1 year and 2 years) brothers and no sisters.  I liked army men and GI Joe dolls (actually, Jungle Jim was my favorite), didn't like Barbie, and thought Ken was a wimp.  But make no mistake, my reason for preferring GI Joe over Barbie was likely very different from my bothers' reasons: GI Joe had muscles (not like wimpy Ken).  So, the apparent gender-appeal of the toys may be less important than the reason the child is, ahem, attracted to the toy...  (PS: My Jungle Jim had an Australian accent.  I can't find a picture online - he was a blonde GI Joe, complete with the karate chop button in his back...)

Edited August 2, 2017 by zil

[Guest]

My wife almost dropped out of young women as a teenager because her leaders were very insistent on doing only traditional feminine activities.  My wife had zero interest in scrapbooking and crafting - she was far more interested in taking apart computers.

The fact is, just as not all men are into woodworking and camping, not all women are into traditional feminine activities.  

I would have no problem with my daughter being in a girls only BSA troop.  If she wants to hike and camp, that is fine and I think it is a serious stretch to say such interests somehow threaten the sanctity of the family.

I do see problems with mixed gender troops - when you have a bunch of teenagers of both sexes on campouts together, you have the band camp problem of major risks of chastity violations.  

But in and of itself, I have no problem with girls joining BSA-like troops.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said:

My wife almost dropped out of young women as a teenager because her leaders were very insistent on doing only traditional feminine activities.  My wife had zero interest in scrapbooking and crafting - she was far more interested in taking apart computers.

The fact is, just as not all men are into woodworking and camping, not all women are into traditional feminine activities.  

I would have no problem with my daughter being in a girls only BSA troop.  If she wants to hike and camp, that is fine and I think it is a serious stretch to say such interests somehow threaten the sanctity of the family.

I do see problems with mixed gender troops - when you have a bunch of teenagers of both sexes on campouts together, you have the band camp problem of major risks of chastity violations.  

But in and of itself, I have no problem with girls joining BSA-like troops.

That's kind of my thoughts too.  I don't mind boys playing with "girl" toys or vise versa- I think such a distinguish is rather silly.  I have zero problem with girls learning knot tying, compass skills, computers, hiking, etc-- in fact I would highly encourage all of those.  A boy learning how to cook and feed himself properly is also to be highly encouraged.  If we were talking about some other gender-nuetrual scouting group that didn't do mixed gender campouts, I would be all for it.  But we're not: we're talking about BOY Scouts of America, which SHOULD encourage boys to grow into men and does many campout activities.  While I'm all for girls doing "boy" activiies, I think a girl denying the fact that they are a girl is denying a big part of yourself and tragic (and all of this vise versa too).  

[a mustard seed]

53 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

My wife almost dropped out of young women as a teenager because her leaders were very insistent on doing only traditional feminine activities.  My wife had zero interest in scrapbooking and crafting - she was far more interested in taking apart computers.

The fact is, just as not all men are into woodworking and camping, not all women are into traditional feminine activities.  

I would have no problem with my daughter being in a girls only BSA troop.  If she wants to hike and camp, that is fine and I think it is a serious stretch to say such interests somehow threaten the sanctity of the family.

I do see problems with mixed gender troops - when you have a bunch of teenagers of both sexes on campouts together, you have the band camp problem of major risks of chastity violations.  

But in and of itself, I have no problem with girls joining BSA-like troops.

She didn't go to girl's camp? I'm actually not sure how old the girl's camp program is but it is for girls to interact with the outdoors and stuff related to that. Some are more cushy than others - like the ones I went to as a teen and the one I went to as an adult leader both had cabins and mess halls - but some of them still do the tent set up thing. And with the emphasis on Youth leaders taking charge, even our first years were expected to know how to set a fire, tie knots and whatnot. It's something they do teach in YWs to prepare for that yearly outing.

Also, I take umbrage with the classification of "feminine activities." As a YW and even as a new Relief Society member, I did not like the activities either. I am kicking past me in the shins right now because of how much I missed out on, stuff I don't know how to do now that I'm trying to claim independence and get my life on track that sure woulda been useful if I'd went outside of my comfort zone and tried to learn and challenge myself a little bit. They do teach practical things to help in the home that anyone who is running their own house can stand to learn. Quilt making for a service project doesn't seem "feminine" to me; making gardens doesn't seem feminine to me; learning to cook certain things, can fruits and vegetables not just feminine but stuff everybody should probably learn how to do. I don't know, I get it interests go in a different way - for me, it was books, art, and writing - but the activities we can learn in YW are not just "girly" things that nobody uses unless they are a prissy, whiny little girl. Some might be, like those stupid folded paper boxes but there's more to it. And guess what? They have YW meetings where they ask for input from the girls on what their activities will be for the next few months. Barely anybody raises their hands sometimes and I know I never did during those meetings, so, did I really have the right to complain when it came time to do something I "didn't want to do"? They do sports for activities, they play games and they make stuff. There's options. And in the springtime we're supposed to be preparing the girls for camp by having them complete certain qualifications from the camp booklet, like different methods for building and setting a campfire or practice hikes because they usually have a big hike at camp itself.

Edited August 2, 2017 by a mustard seed
not YSAs; mispoke

[Snigmorder]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

My daughters are both very girly girls.  They love makeup and dressing up pretty.  They also love to play pretend, house, family and barbies, and all the things you might normally associate with little girls.  Yet, they also regularly ask me to let them watch Dragon Ball Z, build fires, take them camping, play in the dirt, etc.  They aren't at the age where I will let them watch Star Wars, but they do like to play superheroes and pretend to destroy the bad guys (they always make me be the bad guy ).  Not sure if this is all related to society, or just their personalities, given their ages, but it is certainly interesting.  I like it because I don't have any son's right now, but that could also be a factor in their liking of those things.

This reminded me of something. I'm a guy, and when I was young my parents let me choose my first bike. I chose a pink Barbie tricycle.

(Good thing my parents weren't Progressive or enlightened. Or else they might have decided I was gay or trans.)

Edited August 2, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

She didn't go to girl's camp? I'm actually not sure how old the girl's camp program is but it is for girls to interact with the outdoors and stuff related to that. Some are more cushy than others - like the ones I went to as a teen and the one I went to as an adult leader both had cabins and mess halls - but some of them still do the tent set up thing. And with the emphasis on Youth leaders taking charge, even our first years were expected to know how to set a fire, tie knots and whatnot. It's something they do teach in YWs to prepare for that yearly outing.

Also, I take umbrage with the classification of "feminine activities." As a YW and even as a new Relief Society member, I did not like the activities either. I am kicking past me in the shins right now because of how much I missed out on, stuff I don't know how to do now that I'm trying to claim independence and get my life on track that sure woulda been useful if I'd went outside of my comfort zone and tried to learn and challenge myself a little bit. They do teach practical things to help in the home that anyone who is running their own house can stand to learn. Quilt making for a service project doesn't seem "feminine" to me; making gardens doesn't seem feminine to me; learning to cook certain things, can fruits and vegetables not just feminine but stuff everybody should probably learn how to do. I don't know, I get it interests go in a different way - for me, it was books, art, and writing - but the activities we can learn in YW are not just "girly" things that nobody uses unless they are a prissy, whiny little girl. Some might be, like those stupid folded paper boxes but there's more to it. And guess what? They have YW meetings where they ask for input from the girls on what their activities will be for the next few months. Barely anybody raises their hands sometimes and I know I never did during those meetings, so, did I really have the right to complain when it came time to do something I "didn't want to do"? They do sports for activities, they play games and they make stuff. There's options. And in the springtime we're supposed to be preparing the girls for camp by having them complete certain qualifications from the camp booklet, like different methods for building and setting a campfire or practice hikes because they usually have a big hike at camp itself.

My wife said they did do camp... and at camp they would sit on a bench and scrapbook!

I should probably rephrase - "feminine activities" as I used it refers to "feminine activities" as classified by my wife's young women leaders.  It is kind of a loaded term I should probably be careful throwing around anyways.  I agree, if a young women's program is properly implemented, it can teach all kinds of good skills that everyone of both sexes should know.  But my wife's young women's program was not properly implemented.

[a mustard seed]

Just now, DoctorLemon said:

My wife said they did do camp... and at camp they would sit on a bench and scrapbook!

I should probably rephrase - "feminine activities" as I used it refers to "feminine activities" as classified by my wife's young women leaders.  It is kind of a loaded term I should probably be careful throwing around anyways.  I agree, if a young women's program is properly implemented, it can teach all kinds of good skills that everyone of both sexes should know.  But my wife's young women's program was not properly implemented.

Huh. Yeah, that does not sound good. At this latest I went to as an adult leader, we did have arts and crafts - one in which included taking hammer and nails to a block of wood and making string pictures - but we also had archery and a kickball kind of game called Gaga, and swimming during the free time activities. And I remember one year for my girl's camp, it wasn't catered and we had to cook our own meals at the campfires, lol. The leaders did not like that year.

I didn't mean to isolate you and your wife's experiences specifically but saying merely that we do have an outdoorsy program available for girls. At least, when leaders put it into practice properly. And some places even have Trek which is a separate thing from girl's camp to replicate the pioneer experience. I think things are getting better and more inclusive in recent years.

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

To get you caught up:

The Church is/was the biggest participant in the BSA. We had the most units and were the biggest financial contributor.  As of 2015, the BSA decided to allow gay leaders in the organization. This was done without our Church's board representatives present. This brought the ire of many members of the Church against the BSA.  But the BSA assured the various religious units that each charter organization would have the freedom to make adjustments themselves.  This essentially protected the national BSA organization from lawsuits and opened the charter organizations to lawsuits.

At the time the Church indicated that

1. We'd see how such "freedom" worked out.
2. The Church had already been working on a plan to separate from the BSA.  Now they had impetus to hurry up the development of the program.  Their earlier motivation to create such an organization was because the BSA was only a US organization.  They were looking to create a uniform program for the entire Church.

Many members of the Church wanted immediate withdrawal.  Many didn't like the change regardless of the provisions made for religious organizations.  We began realizing that the BSA simply didn't represent LDS values anymore.  So, we sat quietly waiting for this "new program".

Earlier this year the Church announced the new program to be implemented next year.  This program only affected 14 year-olds and up.  So, the cub scouts and the younger scouts will remain in the program.  This essentially cut our participation in half.  The BSA will feel the financial pinch from that announcement.

Since that day some indicated that it is a sad day because they still valued the BSA goals, believing it is still a good organization for boys to grow up in.  I believe the majority opinion of the politically aware are thinking that the Church hasn't gone far enough.  We believe we ought to pull out altogether.

My belief is that it will be coming in a few years.  But the Church needs a program ready to go before we just drop the one we have (i.e. the BSA).  Right now we have a program for the older scouts.  In a few years, we'll have a program for the younger scouts.  Then we'll have one for the cub scouts.  But it takes time to develop such programs and then a few years to work out the kinks in the implementation.  So, it will be a while for this entire phasing out process.

A few more relevant facts: 

-- Even before all these happenings, interest/productivity of Scouts was greatly diminishing in the Church.  A lot of the boys didn't want to do it, a lot of the leaders didn't want to do it, and the entire thing devolved into a half-baked chore, if not "hey let's just skip scouts and play basketball again."    Outdoorsy activities are just declining in their interest to a computer-enteric society nowadays.  

-- Scouting is expensive.  Really really expensive.  Something like half of the current youth budget goes straight into BSA's pockets, leaving the leftovers to be split between all the other boys activities and the girls activities.  On top of that there's Friends of Scouting, camp fees, and other fundraising things which are money and time consuming.  It super not popular with people.

[Backroads]

Part of me wonders if the BSA would just return to its roots instead of trying to please everyone enrollments might go up. 

I worked for the BSA both professionally and as the evil waterfront lady at a camp for 5 years. When Scouting is good, it's good. Why try to muddle about for followers? Venturing already allows girls.

[a mustard seed]

7 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Part of me wonders if the BSA would just return to its roots instead of trying to please everyone enrollments might go up. 

I worked for the BSA both professionally and as the evil waterfront lady at a camp for 5 years. When Scouting is good, it's good. Why try to muddle about for followers? Venturing already allows girls.

Why do girls need to be in Boy Scouts? Isn't there Girl Scouts or something? What do they do?

Sorry, that seemed somewhat accusatory towards you. I didn't mean that to sound so aggressive, lol. I'm just asking generally because when you said that I remembered there was like a girl thing wasn't there?

Edited August 2, 2017 by a mustard seed

[Backroads]

2 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

Why do girls need to be in Boy Scouts? Isn't there Girl Scouts or something? What do they do?

They don't. There is Girl Scouts.

Venturing was meant to be op-ed. It's older teens and young adults in high adventure scenarios. Under the Boy Scout umbrella, yes, but having a different feel and focus.

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

Why do girls need to be in Boy Scouts? Isn't there Girl Scouts or something? What do they do?

Sorry, that seemed somewhat accusatory towards you. I didn't mean that to sound so aggressive, lol. I'm just asking generally because when you said that I remembered there was like a girl thing wasn't there?

Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are very different organizations.