>The gender issue has never been a "problem" at the local level.. >and it is not a problem for the boys...
Actually, it has been a large problem in some churches, but that's not the issue here, as I understand it. National policy is the issue here, right? >Women freely come to serve boys as leaders. Allways at the local >level they are welcome, and given full respect. They often are the >helpmates of a Commander, and have sons in the program. And they do a wonderful job as leaders. I don't think you would find much disagreement here with your statement -- and certainly not from me. I'll come back to this statement at the end of my comments. This is also not the issue here. >So called "National Policy" a fabrication of upper management being >stuck between a rock and a "Hard" place, of their own makeing. Not so. This may be a poor analogy, but in our denomination, we have never allowed boys and girls to go swimming together, right? Why? That's the same reason boys, men, and women don't go camping together in Royal Rangers. Simply put, we have a higher standard than the world does. It may be O.K. for secular buckskinning groups, or Boy Scouts, but it's not O.K. for the Assemblies of God ministry to boys. It's easy to say that we can easily have separate camping areas and restroom and shower facilities for ladies on camp-outs, but that's not always true, especially in areas that Rangers have to camp in. Having women on camp-outs introduces all sorts of complexities that distract from the main purpose of the camp . . . ministering to the boys. And THAT's what it's all about. Let the leadership of the camps focus on the boys, and not on the details of where the women will be camping, or where their restroom will be, or worse, having to deal with the occasional woman who intends to spend the night in the camp with the boys (I've been on staff at more than one sectional, divisional, and district camp where that has happened, even though it was well known that they were not to do so). We also have to worry about the safety of the women -- I was on staff at one district camp where someone did disturb the women in their camper during the night. By putting them away from the camp for their privacy (and that of the men and boys) we exposed them to danger. Those are the types of situations that begin to expose Rangers to legal liability. What if those women had been harmed? The lawyers would have started circling like a bunch of vultures! >As with any diplomatic solution, "official policy" is debated behind >closed doors, and perhaps run up the "flag pole" on occasion, to test >it's effects to draw *Fire.. Are you implying something with your "closed doors" statement? <G> Obviously national policy can't be hashed out in an open forum with everyone involved . . . you would never reach any kind of consensus. National policy is developed by the national executive committee and approved by Brother Trask and Brother Crabtree. Every region has a representative on that committee. Thus, everyone is represented in the discussion. If you don't like the current national policy on some issue, talk with your regional coordinator. He's your voice in the executive committee, and thus your voice in the debates on national policy. But there is nothing sinister about the fact that the executive committee meetings are closed. Attendance has to be limited, or as I stated above it would be impossible to reach any kind of consensus. As it was, there were about 20 folks at the last several meetings of the exec committee. Women at Camporama was discussed at the last two meetings, and consensus was reached on all issues. Keep in mind that each district also sends up to six members of your executive district staff to National Council each year. This year, the issue of women in leadership positions above the local level came up for discussion on the Council floor. Two people spoke to the issue from the floor. . . just two. If people in the field feel strongly about this issue, you should also discuss your feelings with your district commander. At this point in time, there was 700-800 people at national council last month who nothing about the current policy. That was an open forum, and an opportunity for folks to speak up. They didn't. >I don't beleve this has anything to do with effective Leadership, >and has everything to do with man made *Domination, as it just seems >contrived. Domination? I don't see it. >The test for effective leadership is the resultant High "Morale" that >follows success and freedom, as in Victory over obsticals.. >since "morale" is the emotional force that gives drive to group action. > >You can convince yourself that the sticking point is the uniform or >some other consideration, but the real issue is justice/ fairness >and respect to all, by includeing every "Adult leader" in all training >and positions of service to the Lord, and the boys. Since national policy is that women do not camp in Royal Rangers (for reasons stated above), it would be contrary to national policy to include them in training that involves camping. They are welcome to any training Royal Rangers have to offer that is not camping-based. >*If there are reasons for gender policies, I sincerly hope they are >clearly published and each individual given resources to have them >explained to their full satisfaction. They have been published, and explained. They have also been hashed over and over here on RangerNet. There is no way that the national office staff is going to be able to convince everyone that the standards are just and fair, so you may never have things explained to your full satisfaction. But the current national Royal Rangers policies regarding women in Rangers were developed and endorsed by our own national executive committee, with, as I understand it, the full agreement of Brothers Crabtree and Trask. I agree with Duane that women are valuable assets in Royal Rangers. I had a lady on my sectional staff as SA/B coordinator the whole time I was sectional commander (five years) -- she did a great job. For a while, she was even my senior commander (I know, I know, totally contrary to national policy <G> but she was the person who held that outpost together before, during, and after the time my family was involved in that church). I was senior commander when Straight Arrows was brand new, and I actively recruited one of the young ladies in our church to be the leader of that group . . . she ended up as my sister-in-law. She did a great job. My first exposure to leadership in Rangers was as a junior commander in the Buckaroos group. I worked under a husband/wife team. Both of them did a great job. I've seen many women over the years doing a great job ministering to the boys. But I support the current national policy on women in Rangers . . . I feel that it's the right policy for this day and age in which we live. Jonathan > > > > > "Jose F. Rodriguez" wrote: > > > > > > Yesterday I went to the Official RR website and saw a glimps of the > > uniform > > > that the female (and probably the male) Ranger Kids commanders are > > going to > > > wear. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about go to > > this page: > > > http://www.royalrangers.ag.org/royal-rangers/applications.cfm and > > click on > > > "Page 1: General Information" (you of course need an Acrobat Reader to > > view > > > them). Once your one the first page of the All New Transition > > Brochure look > > > closely at the picture on the lower left which should show a group of > > Five > > > male commanders and two female commanders in the front. The female > > commander > > > on the left is apparently wearing the new uniforms that Ranger Kids > > commanders > > > will wear. Apparently the women and men will be wearing uni-sex > > uniforms > > > instead of a separate female and male uniform. As you can see in the > > picture > > > female commanders in that age group will be able to wear pants also. > > I have > > > nothing against women wearing pants but that uniform looks so > > "unfeminine" on > > > the lady in that picture. When I first saw the picture I thought to > > myself > > > "is that a boy or woman?" I'm not trying to make fun of the lady in > > the > > > photograph by the way, but just something doesn't look right about the > > > uniform. I was wondering if anybody else sees what I'm trying to say. > > _______ > > Let the Golden Rule be your daily rule. > > > > Please pray for your list sponsor: http://eBible.org/mpj/ > > > > To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm > > http://rangernet.org > > >===== >*High MORALE is the Index of effective Leadership. >--------------********+********-------------------- >Morale raises belief of the Leader in the follower, >of the follower in the Leader, of each in themself, >and both in the .....cause! > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax >http://taxes.yahoo.com/ >_______ > Let the Golden Rule be your daily rule. > > Please pray for your list sponsor: http://eBible.org/mpj/ > > To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm > http://rangernet.org ------------------------------------------- Jonathan Trower South Central Regional Training Coordinator E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 254-420-1941 Fax: 254-710-1091 Home Page: http://mis.baylor.edu/trower _______ Let the Golden Rule be your daily rule. Please pray for your list sponsor: http://eBible.org/mpj/ To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm http://rangernet.org
