Eagledad

It will be interesting to see how volunteers are guided to deal with tenting two scouts of the same identified gender, but opposite biological gender. I read where a UK Girl Scout Professional was fired for not allowing opposite biological genders' in the showers at the same time. We live in complex times. 

Barry

41 minutes ago, qwazse said:

@SiouxRanger, I agree that bygone bathhouses would not stand a chance against video devices of today. I just don’t know if modern shower houses have provided any long term advantage against determined predators. Good scouters staying educated may be all we can count on.

Reminds me of one Webelos summer camp in 1993 where a female Webelos leader was asked to leave camp because she walked in the shower area to tell (shouted) her scouts that they were staying in the shower area too long. The whole camp could hear those scouts laughing and joking around. The scouts where in their swimsuits and she was just being a mom walking in the shower area without thinking to tell them to quit messing around and holding up the showers for the rest of the camp. That was when we knew Youth Protection was getting really serious.

Barry

2 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Strange. I haven't seen a whole lot of natural instinct for organization among girls. I challenge young teens to build crews, the first step being getting them and five buddies to show up at my door and tell me they want to get started. That first step is very, very, hard for them.

Totally agree. My Paintball analogy reflects the same thought. My guess is that organizing strangers into a functional group is a different type of organization skill The reason the Girl Scouts are able to do it so well is because they learned over the years in their Troop.

I did an exercise like this at each of our Council JLT training. After all the participants arrived to course, we gave them 15 minutes to organize into patrols of 7 with each scout assigned to a POR position. The only restriction was no two scouts from the same troop could be in a patrol.

Barry

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

Having sons, could you enlighten me about "girls' natural organization instincts?" Thanks.

Sure, with two older sons and a little girl trailing, I learned there and at other youth organizations that girls tend to fixate on being organized while boys tend to be more adventure oriented. And, in general, girls tend to think in a small picture of details while the boys think in the big picture. What I found is that the young girls will take over a group of boys when it comes to planning and organizing because they like dealing with details. Ever watch very young girls play house? Boys willingly give that up because they hate the tedious small stuff in organizing. 

What is more frustrating about those trends is that adults interpret the girls organization skills as good leadership skills, when that isn't the case. Girls struggle a lot with the chaos of group dynamics. Boys do to, but only when they don't agree on the goals. And I get so tired of adults bragging about the girls organizational skills to motivate boys to step up. It only frustrates boys relationship and trust with the adults.

Growth comes much easier for both groups when they are dealing with the same general struggles of the group personalities because the growth gains from the decisions are basically the same. Or can be coached or mentored basically the same. Many believe boys are slower to mature, but the reality is that the instincts of the two genders appose each other so much that the nature tendency for adventure contrasted against organization makes the boys appear less mature. Throw a few boys together in a paint ball match and see how quickly they will make a plan. It's amazing really. Girls struggle just coming together as a group.

This is not to say some boys are better at organization and some girls are adventure minded. But, in the big picture. the two genders don't mix well until puberty. AND that has it's own struggles.

Barry

My reason against girls in troops is that their natural instinct of organization disrupts the growth of boys learning to organize. But, I could see all girl patrols working within the true patrol method since the personal challenges wouldn't be gender specific. The problems of natural instincts fade as each gender reaches puberty, so I don't think older scout leadership is a big problem at the older ages. It's not perfect, but we live in a culture that cares less about maximin potential growth of the youth.

Barry

On 8/13/2021 at 4:42 PM, TAHAWK said:

 

I have been copying the Unit leader to prevent "one-on-one" communication.  A parent is now required?

I may be corrected, but I think the answer is "no", parents aren't required on all communications. Just a 3rd person. Of course the unit may have additional policies. 

Barry

59 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Since most scouters do not attain the rank of Eagle Scout (Eagle Scouts are older scouts and abuse victims tend to younger) and the fact that most victims withdraw from scouting old Eagle Scouts (exception @ThenNow) would tend not to be abuse victims.  But how were they approached...it couldn't have been thru the perversion files since victims names were redacted.  Do you know for a fact if they were abused or not?  If they were not abused are you saying someone (who) was trying to have them file false claims?

The older Eagles are friends and relatives in their mid 60's. The friends do not know the relatives. My Eagle son was contacted as well. None of these Eagles were victims.

Barry

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Sadly, there are still people here trying to downplay the child sexual abuse. You are right: if there wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be here. But some people are still claiming BSA had (and has) no child sexual abuse problem.

That isn't true. Some folks just want to see the facts..

Barry

23 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Incidents are always ugly.  Always.  People have a right to feel angry.  

The issue is as you said.  Numbers.  Standards.  Comparisons.  There are some numbers and I'm not sure BSA fairs any different than others.  Better in some ways.  Worse in others.  

Maligning BSA based on incidents is wrong.  Label the incident and the individuals, but many of us are uncomfortable labeling the larger organization due to this.

Good post.

I have no trouble with the anger. I struggle with how the vague numbers are used as fact. One way or the other. When data can't be defended, it becomes a weapon for both sides of debate. Doing this was a big no no in debate class back in high school because it gets nowhere. The 82,000 has gone nowhere for a long time. Better to leave this thread as a reporting the facts of the case.

Barry

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Of course it makes a difference. I challenge you to say that my presence here, and the presence and voices of those victims who followed me in speaking up, changed no minds, made no difference and was of no value to the discussion. 

Hmm, not enough data.

Barry

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

I do not use this forum normally for one-on-one debate.  That said, it appeared to me that your assumption was that there were fewer than 82,000 cases of abuse.  If I was wrong and you believe there were more, my apologies.  If your assumption is that we will never know the true number then we both agree.  My point was that when 16% is generally accepted as being the prevalence, and this as been cited consistently, then before anyone assumes the amount in abuse is less in scouting they should do the math.

I don't have an assumption of numbers in this discussion because there isn't accurate data one way or the other. That is the point of my post. 

Barry

Just now, MYCVAStory said:

Multi-tasking while the hearing proceeds.....  Your comments will certainly create head-shaking.  I'd like you to consider one accepted principle of abuse, especially among men. That is the fact that it takes years and decades for people, again, especially men, to come forward as victims of sexual abuse.  While the validation process will determine the number of unduplicated valid claims I'd like you to consider that there will also be many many victims who have not come forward, or never will, or may later in life.  PLEASE do your research into the prevalence and behavior of sexual abuse victims, especially males.  Here's a place to start: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15894146/   "Contact CSA was reported by 16% of males"  Again, PLEASE spend some time educating yourself regarding this topic and ask questions.  The shared experience in this forum, while not always in agreement, really helps understanding this topic not only quantitatively but also qualitatively.  You, like many, might find your assumptions changed.

What are my assumptions? 

Barry

45 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Wait, Mr. Engineer. You never, ever, not even once used even a teeny tiny itty bitty bit of predictive modeling or analytics based on hard data to calculate and extrapolate in your research and design? Hm. Curious. Never? Never, ever, cross your heart and hope to die? Pinkie swear, too?

 

Oh, I see. You're only using a teeny, tiny itty bitty bitty predictive model. Well that is different. See how well that works when engineers used the same amount of design to defend a car wreck or plane crash..

You folks admittingly don't have a clue of the numbers, high or low. Nobody does. Lots of emotion, but not a lot of data.

I'm curious, I can understand lawyers using these numbers in court to your advantage. But what do you gain defending those numbers on this forum where it doesn't make a difference. You're situation implies an obvious bias, so you aren't changing any minds. I don't get it.

Barry

43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

we don’t KNOW how many scouts were abused. All we know, maybe, is 82,500 people claim abuse. There were likely thousands if not tens of thousands more victims who did not file for a host of reasons.

You have said this before and you should stop because it's purely conjecture based on nothing.

I'm an engineer and we learn quickly that quality of the design, and safety in my field, is the result of the precision of facts and elements used in development. Anything less looses integrity. We all have our quirks and the scouts in my troop (and my kids) learned quickly that I am a patient man/father until someone spreads guesses and conjecture as facts. Once they do that, they loose integrity, and that is hard to earn back. 

In this case, I know a lot of elderly Eagles Scouts who were approached several times in the last couple years to join this law suit. And what about all those TV commercials in front of millions of viewers. The temptation for easy gain was very tempting.

43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Moreover given that BSA deliberately destroyed files from the “perversion files” subcategory of the IVF files we will never know the full scope.

 

Exactly! We will never know the full scope. Any guess that is used to forward an opinion is just an emotion looking for an audience.. 

I saw a poll a few months ago that showed the American public has the lowest respect for the American new media ever. Is anyone surprised by the loss of that Integrity?

Barry

18 minutes ago, skeptic said:

 The main thing here is being aware, and also open to apologies and hopefully positive corrective measures.  As far as smoke shifters go, we use it as a group joke at times, including demonstrating the method of right hand and left hand holding the shifting device.  Kids still are more receptive to simple fun than we may think.

 

I found the greatest role modeling action that bonds and raises trust with scouts is admitting a wrong choice or action. Adults instruct at youth so much of their early life that they rarely see admissions of being wrong from the adults. Youth feel an adult admitting they are wrong raises them, the youth, to an equal level of character and it changes the relationship. 

Barry

2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Yeah.  There is a line.  I'll miss things like upside-down bobcat ceremony, but I agree it's more a safety issue.  BUT then again, I could see one in 10 or one in 30 scouts reacting badly.   I'd fear more for the 45+ year old, out of shape dad than the kid.

I'm sure I awarded at least 1000 Bobcats for that ceremony and I never saw a single scout who wasn't giddy with excitement waiting for his turn. I was the CM of a pack with 140 scouts, so 30 bobcats wasn't unusual. We looked for several dads to alternate, mainly for the scouts safety. 

Then Branding became popular to replace the hazing ceremony. An ink print of the Bobcat  was dipped in a water base paint and applied to the arm. But, political correctness ended that ceremony. That was before tatoos were as popular as they are now. I'm thinking the ink print might be popular now. 

Adults know how to take the fun out of scouting.

Barry

31 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO, seems quite a jump to equate "teasing" with "hazing".

Back to work, I need to fetch a left-handed screw driver and a sky hook. 

Yes, National hasn't helped either. They for-bided the up-side down Bobcat ceremony because it was hazing. That was stupid, it was a simply holding scouts up-side-down because it was fun for the scouts. Not for the adults. They could have easily said it was a safety concern and everyone would have agreed. I know I would. After holding a dozen scouts up-side-down, I was done for the day. But, National instead insinuated volunteers were purposely humiliating the scouts. They felt they needed leverage I guess, but it only makes National look irresponsible.

And how far does hazing and teasing go. Some councils recommended units not sing the Happy Birthday song because it could embarrass a scout. Hmm. 

Barry

5 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I have to agree with @yknot. Seems like @The Latin Scot is agreeing with you.

I have trouble following the rest of the post of @The Latin Scot.

The use of the word "chose" or "choose" in a discussion of "being gay" opens a whole level of discussion and debate that likely will never resolve until future Watsons and Cricks explain it to us.

And, I don't really follow the notion of judging someone by how they seek to define themselves.  Few think of Gacy as a benevolent, community-minded clown.

Perhaps, "Do as I say, not as I do," becomes, "Judge as I do, not as I say."

A friend whom I judge to be very astute once said to me, regarding the issue of "choosing" to be gay or not:  "I never sat down and considered my alternatives, and what my orientation would be.  I was hetero and I never thought about it.  Who would make such an evaluation of their life?  'I can be hetero, accepted by virtually everyone and move along smoothly among my family and peers, or 'decide' to be gay, and be ostracized, shunned, ridiculed, live life in the shadows, cut off from family and friends and perhaps be strung up on a fence in Wyoming to die?'

Hmmm.  Some choice.

For whatever reason, genetics, chemistry, ???, it seems to me that folks who are gay are born that way and have no "choice" in that matter.  They do have a choice in whether they express their feelings at all, only openly among their good friends, or include their family, or include everyone (without regard to the societal consequences).  Why is "outing" as gay so significant an event?  Is anyone "outed" as hetero?

In my mind, that raises the question of how should gays conduct themselves?  And THAT, to me, is THE question.  Should a gay person have to live their life to meet MY expectation of their acceptable behavior?

To paraphrase Lincoln:  I certainly don't intend to live my life to anyone else's expectation, and thereby can't expect them to live their life to mine.

On the other hand, I am not interested in a person's orientation being the principal projected component of their personality whenever I encounter them or for the duration of the encounter.  It is distracting and impolite.  It is not the time, nor place, and not to an appreciative audience.

One reason it appears to be genetic, chemical, or ???, to me, is that despite the profound societal ostracization, and concomitant emotional impacts, is that it appears that no manner of either internal or external pressures or influences, agony or grief, changes behavior.  That gay behaviors are elicited among like-minded adults, well, they are adults.

Child abusers, it seems to me, at least my working hypothesis, are subject to the same genetic, chemical, ???, influences.  What else explains that many are repeat offenders.

Even after being caught, exposed, punished-lose their jobs, their family, and move on to another locale, they abuse again-and the cycle repeats.  I am not taking the position that they have no ability to control themselves-they do-but they don't.  But whatever drives them, it is powerful and apparently cannot be changed. Subdued temporarily, but ever present.  It resurfaces to ill-effect.

But, child abusers, their activity is not between consenting adults.  They target and damage innocent and vulnerable children.  I have no doubt that child abuse severely affects the victim life-long.  I have a crushed best friend for whom I just don't know what help to offer.  I flew across the country to spend time with him once I learned, but now he has grown silent.  Push or lay back? I am not sure what will help.

There does not seem to be any statistically meaningful connection between gays and pedophiles.

And in a world where statistics, mathematically sound statistics, are practiced, there are surely some, though very few, gays who are pedophiles, but when your faucet is leaking and the flooding Mississippi is headed to your basement, you address the Mississippi first-that's practical statistics.

So, these are some of my thoughts.  Not set in concrete, but working hypotheses, always subject to reconsideration and reformulation.

I had a great friend, now passed, who at committee meetings was famous for saying, "Could you please say that again-I WANT to understand you."  He had an uncanny ability to defuse and achieve consensus.

I have said to many clients, "Most folks are just trying to get through the day."

And finally, the ultimate arbiter of wisdom, "That which you do to the least of mine, you do to me."

And few among us have claimed to stand higher than that.

What?
 

Barry

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

This is a little disappointing to read as it was @mrjeff who started this thread. As was said if you want to post your opinion be ready to hear the other side. Hasn't history taught us anything?  

 

This post makes no sense. David’s post is just the other side.

Barry

37 minutes ago, elitts said:

I wouldn't actually object to it being required, as long as it was permanent and offered all summer long at summer camps.  But there's absolutely no reason to make a basic skills class on canoeing need to be retaken ever 2-3 years.  I mean, it's essentially just the requirements of the Canoeing Merit Badge, plus a test over Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat.

This is a a good point. There came a point when I was SM that I quit taking these types of classes because the refreshers were taking too much of my time. Also, I realized I needed to stop being the go-to person for every activity, but the continued training was a pain. 

Barry

30 minutes ago, yknot said:

I think what he is referring to is the conservative/liberal split within the Methodist church, which is occuring both inside and outside of the US. Many other denominations are having similar issues. It's still basically the UMC though right now. 

Yes, but the United Methodist Men's Foundation group that supports the BSA is not part of the Church leadership that is liberal. So, in a sense, there are two groups. While the leadership isn't directly involved with the church BSA support, they wouldn't mind if that part of the program fell by waste side.

Barry

1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

I've said this before, but it's relevant. That's what makes No One on One Contact so important. While adults can be friendly, courteous and kind with youth, there's no justifiable reason for an adult to be alone with a youth that isn't their child. 

Correct, and that is where Youth Protection policies and procedures and training guide the adults. 

1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

I feel like I have strong relationships with my Scouts, that they know me and I get to know them, but these aren't secret or private interactions. They take place in view of/ including other adults/youth, whether in person or virtually. 

You are certainly right. The adults can have a good mentoring relationship under the YPT guidelines. Many of my Eagle Conferences where in the middle of camping and venturing activities right in front of the whole groups. I did one while driving to Philmont. If you were to ask the scouts, they would probably say they weren't even sure it was a conference because we had so many casual conversations in the those settings.

I remember buying a ice-cream bar for a scout while doing his 2nd class SM Conference at summer camp. The review board told me later he didn't know that we were having a conference.

But, I feel like the YPT is appropriate for the intention of protecting the scouts, as well as the adults'. The adults just need to insure everyone is held accountable to following the guidelines. In life, most behavioral habits we grow to learn come from consistent expectations of the adults. I'm sure your troop worked this way. Most do. 

The reason many kids struggle today is that many of us are afraid to speak up when they see something that appears wrong. I found that adults and scouts are afraid to speak up when they see an action they want to question because they don't like confrontation. I taught on this very subject in training because I saw so much of it in both Packs and Troops. But it's  still hard when instincts push a person to stay away from trouble.

YPT is good enough to protect the scouts, but maybe both the scouts and adults need to be trained that reporting something suspicious is OK and expected. But, saying that, I know it's hard.

Barry

41 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

The point of this exercise is to identify steps and identify the types of behavior associated therewith, so that predators can be identified prior to actual abuse.

Good luck. What everyone is basically saying is grooming is a process of Living the Scout Law. Are we going to turn Friendly, Courteous, and Kind into suspicious behavior now?

it would be easier to keep the adults 100 yards away from the Patrols.

Barry

19 minutes ago, MattR said:

I think the challenge is giving the adults the tools to make this work. How to work with scouts at different levels of maturity to find that which will give them a passion for scouting.

I'm skeptical because scouts already join for the outdoor fun and adventure. That part of the program is fine. The adults are the ones that turn it on its head, and I'm not sure how that can change. 

Where I disagree with Fred is he wants to simplify the program so the adults can do a better job. But, if we take away goals, adults by nature fill in with their own ambitious desires. I don't believe that adults will allow scouts to lead if leadership is not part of the goals. I've watched to many adults fill in their self-desires where they see gaps in the program. An afterschool outdoor program fits because it doesn't matter what the adults do, it's part of the program.

I also don't believe older scouts stay in the program for fun and adventure. I have actually polled our scouts on this. Only 1/4 of the scouts 14 and older hung around for the outdoors activities.  If you can get an honest answer as to why older scouts stay with the program, you will learn they enjoy adult mature responsibilities of running a complicated program, mentoring the younger scouts. You don't see older scouts in adult run troops for two reasons: First, they have been doing fun and adventure for several years, it's not a draw anymore. Second, the only responsibility that have with younger scouts basically comes down to babysitting. That is not the same as mentoring. 

Barry