skeptic

12 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

And that is why I said past 10 past 5 and past year. However, an asterisk denoting that most male victims may not come forward for the next 10 to 20 years.

How to say this without being "accused"?  IF the time frame denoed for victims coming forward is valid, and every thing I have read indicates it likely is, or even off in that some "never" can bring it out, then how does that reflcect on the basic abuse event?  Somewhere on here, one survivor noted that his father never knew.  The studies indicate that male abuse victims are far less willing to even broach the abuse, but rather try to hide it.  

That is not giving any excuse for the abuser, only asking how, at the time, was it dealt with?  If the parent(s) were not told, how might that have made the situation more difficult?  Would not the survivor/victim have been left with little support when things did not follow as they should have?  Again, we see evidence today with some studies that the emotional effects often manifest in ways most parents are not likely to understand without knowledge of the event, and some, of course unfortunately even then do not understand.  

Part of the updated YP is a discussion of flash points that might indicate some trauma, and what to watch for.  That is a step in the right direction, but we need to continue to reinforce this concept and not hide our heads in the sand as was too often the case in the past.  

Please, I understand that trauma, whether abuse of this nature, or simply something that frightened a child severely can not just be forgotten; it is buried too often as part of the human response (?), or lack of emotional strength at the time.  It has to be worse, perhaps for abuse, but it also can relate to night mares, or even painful injuries.  I am trying to get perspective, not suggesting the survivor/victims are to blame.  This is far too complex for most of us to completely understand, if even the "experts" still do not do so.  

3 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

Careful, lest you reveal yourself as partisan on the other side.

 

Well, nevermind...

Why must everything always have "sides"?  People are people, and in most cases they should be able to just live and do their own thing.  What  is the purpose of constantly finding fault and making inuendo?  Certainly does not reflect well on the idea of Scout Spirit, or most religious doctrines, or even the the Constitution.  Just asking.

I am putting this here, as I am unsure where it might be a point of discussion.  This quote is from an opinion piece related to the current SCOTUS issue.  But it seems to me that with a tweak or two, it might well reflect on the problems in BSA and really society in general.  BSA or Scouting began as an effort to create better citizens at a time of great turmoil and change.  It became very idealistic, even as it struggled to fit into the changing society.  The repetitive use of its "goody-goody" image as out of sync grew, even possibly making some refuse to recognize that it still had elements of the greater society or culture in which it was living.  Here is the quote; 

"What is clear is that the court has become a tragic anachronism in our age of rage: an institution that relied on the integrity and ethics of its members and staff at a time when such values are treated as naive. It relied on justices and clerks alike remaining bound to the institution and to each other by a constitutional faith."

Moderators, please feel free to do what you choose and put it in the right place if you feel it does not fit.  

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

From someone who is on the fence as to pro/anti BSA it also would make sense if you said the opposite. The BSA has ruined so many lives how could any one be in support of it? 

You see the error in your statement.  Lives were ruined by the perpetrator.  Others that chose to cover up, or keep private, or simply ignore for whatever reasons are not the ones that did the damage, they are secondary.  The focus should not be first on BSA, or local authorities that chose to say they had no proof, or not enough, or on famillies that felt the need to keep it quiet for some reason.  IF the actual abuser had not done it, the others would not even be in the picture.

Where do I find the cobbler?

It seems apparent to me from the recent series of post on Bryan On Scouting that there is awareness of the ongoing concerns and need to keep the issue openly visible.  Today's link is a great reminder and offers tools, again.  https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/04/29/five-takeaways-from-child-abuse-prevention-month/

1 minute ago, elitts said:

 

Yeah, I get that's probably what people are thinking when they read that line, and hopefully that's where it stays.  But people only intended for rapists to end up on Sex Offender registries too; then in addition to rapists we ended up with teenage couples, public urinators, drunks that go streaking through the quad and so on.

BTW, actual privacy laws have nothing to do with why employers restrict their reporting; they do that because they don't want to deal with defamation lawsuits.

Oh please, don not bring up actualities and what actually happens.

The idea that there is an "absolute" to keeping abuse out of the program is simply not real.  That, to me, is where the train derails, as it simply not possible in the human environment.  I take pause at the statements that suggest that those making bad decisions could have stopped ALL the abuse, especially in the time contnuem about which we are speaking.  It still comes down to two things.  NO ABUSE is acceptible, and it is impossible to take abuse out of the world unless you find a way to keep all human in separate, non interacting environments.  And then we have nothing, as it is simply a utopian idea in this world and broader realities.  

While there are a number of caveats in the Warren Report as to the applications and interpretations, it is fairly clear that the magnitude of things is hard to judge, as there are too many missing pieces.  On the other hand, there is little other currently that delves into the subject at the level needed, and the few other bits and pieces are vague and prone to serious bias.  On the other hand, the report goes into a l great deal of detail and suggests other areas of study beyond it.  

It is likely that any study of this difficult problem, in Scouting or outside, will encounter many inconsistencies and will be prone to the bias of the investigators to some extent.  

Still, the sensational approach with that infamous broad brush that often did not even get its drips stopped before application to the wall is not likely the best approach for serious consideration.  And like the mess that type of painting usually leaves, there is a great amount of touching up and outright do overs.  

Just like the long term affects of the McMartin fiasco, once it goes to a certain point of blind panic and drama, it becomes an unfortunate overly zealous attempt to prove something beyond the actual evidence and prone to that unbalanced and narrow, partially blind crusade.  

Few on here would suggest that "nothing" bad happened or really write off the verifiable cases or even the likelihood that much was missed or handled badly.  That is a given at this point.  And the overlaps with a few other of the more blatant societal CA stories uncovered cannot be simply ignored.  

BSA, from my perspective, is doing and has attempted to do more than most in our fallible society and within the bounds of being human.  True perfectionism is generally limited to that vague utopian concept of the misunderstood spiritual level.  We will never reach that plateau, at least not in this world.  

Lets simply continue to use all the tools we have to lessen the probability that the abuses will recur.  YP and paying attention to it is the only real way, and that goes beyond BSA and into the broader society.  

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I believe you only want to look at the details and then interpret them to fit the scenario in your mind. You try to make the BSA look better by trying to point out others (though you fail to name them or show real statistics). You fail to answer key questions such as why did they lie to congress. You ignore the fact that it took the Oregon Supreme Court to have them turn over any of their files. 

Here is the link to the Warren Report:  https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/youthprotection/pdf/WarrenReportSummary.pdf

IF you have read it, it is not a smoking gun destroying the BSA, and it was reported to the federal government.  The summary states  "

Taken as a whole, these data underscore the threat posed to youth by individuals who have or develop a sexual interest in children or adolescents. This is a problem that has been present throughout history yet one that has been addressed more consistently and thoughtfully throughout society over the past twenty-five years. As reflected by these data, prior to this time, Scouting involvement served a significant protective function for youth and BSA’s use of a community vetting system and a national registration system succeeded in offering youth an overwhelmingly safe environment in which to grow and develop according to the values espoused by the organization. "

You can of course actually spend the time to review the entire report, and it consistently does not put the type of info that you continue to suggest, rather, it in a number of instances notes the BSA was and is a better protective youth organization.  There are also data fields that indicate parents choosing to not persue things, the percentage of files that were given to authorities, and so on.  

I have not tracked down a recently shred study on camps that show the preponderance of abuse in various types.  I posted it on this Forum, but have not found the post again yet.  It also indicates that BSA is generally safer than types of camps listed in the data.  

So, say what you like, and make your own claims.  I have offered data and links.  None of my statements have EVER suggested the abuse was or is okay, nor that the Survivors or Victims should not be given some type of justice.  My only claim is that the problem is one of our larger society, and indicators are that it is less of an issue with BSA, even in the past as compared to others, especially.  With the enhanced YP guidelines, it should be even safer.  It will NEVER be absolutely safe, just as we are never totally safe in the larger community, even as adults.

I do continue to be amazed how many people simply will not look beyond their own biases in even a slightly balanced or unanced way, and choose to instead try to skew the larger picture, no matter what it is.  

20 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

And exactly when did that effort start before or after the public was made more aware of the issues and why did the BSA lie to congress about sexual abuse?  

Once again you ignore the details.  The IV files were not normal for the time, and they did take notice and began the YP efforts that were used as a model by others.  But, this is a useless effort, as you know perfectly well that their less than wonderful efforts were more than was common at the time.  And more recently, we have seen the stats that indicate they were not the only ones not doing their best, shown by other studies of camps ans such.  Believe and say whatever makes you feel better. 🤫

Or, because they made more effort than the broader community, there were fewer fires, especially in comparison to the community overall.

5 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

"And so Grasshopper, a house catches fire...do the authorities and community rush to extinguish the fire and limit the damage...or do they lay back, content in the knowledge that their house is safe, and that house fires are rare and though they have been spared, and the damage to the homeowner and family is severe, few will suffer it, so no action is required and they speak not of it ever after?"

"And, if the authorities and community never speak of the loss, is the sense of loss and actual damage to the homeowner and family reduced to zero?"

"And if the authorities and community fail to step in to assist, and then fail to acknowledge the loss, will the risk of house fire be reduced, and the future loss to other homeowners and families be reduced?"

Not an accurate comparison.  BSA actually did more than many, though they failed in too many cases, for whatever reasons.  The proverbial fire was not simply ignored, though in too many instances the efforts to not only combat, but make it less likely for another fire, were not made as they might have been, and surely still should be.  That does not take away the fact they often did do the right thing and went beyond the community standards of the time in many cases.  

38 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Your view of what happened in the past comes from someone with a rosy picture of the BSA. My view is as a survivor of what transpired in reality in the BSA. You cannot water down what happened by saying such society in those times. Child abuse was as illegal, abhorrent and cruel 60, 50, 40 or 30 years ago. The only difference now is that it is no longer covered up. Your arguments remind me of those who still defend Jimmy Saville because he raised so much money for charity. If you asked any of his victims I am sure that they would say that what he took from them does not equal any of the good that the money he raised was used for. I ask you this, if you could change history and not have BSA come into existence would you for the sake of all of the victims?

Your pain and struggle can never be erased, even you have noted that.  But, that does not remove the reality that the instigator of that pain wa one person, a predator that preyed on you, and he was part of the larger community and others, besides the BSA failed you.  That is my point.  That cannot be changed; but it should be part of the picture presented, to be accurate.  I suspect you, and others actually understand that.  This is a time when that broader brush likely should be used. 

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

What is hypocritical is to expect coverage of the abuse that went on in the BSA to have it within the same articles/videos etc. to also paint a rosy picture of BSA when the BSA never acknowledged to the public its abuse issues until lawsuits/publicity and the Oregon Supreme Court compelled them to. As a survivor I find it repugnant that you use us survivors a basis for your objection to media coverage.  The "media circus" has made it at times more aware of our pain but it also has been therapeutic and empowered us to speak out and try to bring change.  You only have to look at powerful voices such as the survivor who spoke during the confirmation hearings and is using his voice to change YPT.

To the moderators I try to refrain from using language of hate and I do not believe what you edited from me was graphic. It unfortunately is one of the constant reminders I have of my past abuse.

Balance and perspective, along with somehow also seeing beyond the outline to other lines of intersection.  You cannot have that if somehow the subject is removed from its outliers, which in this case is society at the times these things occurred.  As far as the video is concerned, I have yet to see it in its entirety, so perhaps that will alter my view.  As far as you comment about my view being repugnant; it is not me that is using survivors.

It is simply sad that there is so much hate being displayed by a few on here.  I have not ever suggested even that the abuse that happened was okay or should not be addressed.  But I have said, and still point out that the level of sensationalism and exaggeration is beyond logic.  That is especially in regard to the continued claims that BSA never did anything about it, when as has been noted enough times, they did more than was usual in those earlier years.  They made huge errors, and they should be held accountable.  But it was not the doing of the larger organization nor a larger percentage of members.  It was the doing of people that took advantage of opportunity, and often was made worse by the scocietal norms of the time.  Are you going to spend as much time maligning the authorities that also would not bring charges, or the families that chose to not make things public?  If not, then you are hypocrits.  As at least a couple of survivors have said on here, this whole media circus has made their pain worse, especially those that had to some extent found a little less of it over time.🙁

Until I find the real video and see it I cannot make judgment beyond the blatantly sensationalized trailer.  But, the only thing I see is another case of using the survivors to make money, by prolonging their already overtaxed.  As far as your number goes, we all should by now understand that a large number of those are very possibly not accurate, or simply not real.  Until they actually vet them, we will not know.  And for some reason, there appears to be a great many of the lawyers that would prefer that did not happen.  Just my observation of course.  And it appears that Netflix is also going to push this, again for profit since they will likely sensationalize it really well.  What do I know.  I am a product of the twentieth century and a society that still published stories of positive community things and at least made an effort to not allow blatnat cruedness and foul language.  

Another thing on the net earlier today is a short thing publicizing the "first" openly Gay executive in Scouting.  Now why is that important, especially in the focus on the new merit badge?

If the trailer is any indication of the entire video, the "producers" have gone out of their way to focus on the worst, and ignore anything else from over a century of Scouting.  And, the people in the trailer are seemingly chosen to look sleazy as adults, and helpless as children.  Anyone that rad the book by the same name, should see similarities.  This too is a dark reflection on our society, well beyond Scouting.  We see little of the positive in the media, obviously simply preying on the worst and seldom if ever putting positive things in the forefront.  Meanwhile, so called Reality TV and such make sleaziness and crudeness somehow okay, often in the same media that is pushing the sensational, even if it is only a small piece of the larger stories.

We are living in a very sick society, and it is made worse by our apparent fascination with the worst rather than the best, especially in the media.  The really sad thing is that it is likely to simply make things worse, as suggested here.  

Somehow, crassness is okay as long as it is bleeped in TV.  Crude and often once considered foul language is shrugged off by most today.  I challenge anyone here to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" within school out of class groups, or in many offices and listen to what type of language and stories are being shared casually, somehow considered okay.  

Yes, as had been beat to death, BSA and a minority of its adult and likely youth members, that we do not actually hear much about, have made poor decisions and even a few majorly blatant abuses.  But, it is NOT the larger picture, and even the nay sayers surely understand that.  What is it about our society that finds it necessary to try to destroy things, even as they look the other way a often worse actions?  

Tighten the barriers and the oversight, by all means.  But stop with the burning down the forest.

To me, fortunate to NOT be a survivor, but understanding (as best as one can from outside) there are ambiguous feelings and views with this larger morass, I still feel Scouting is better than this and has a place in society and our country.  Our duty and goals should be to correct the compass point and to NOT abandon the mostly positive place Scouting can play in our communities.  While doing that though, we need to not wear blinders in relation to past mistakes and poor judgment, and to do all we can to keep the safeguards working and continually strengthen them as we are able.  

I found it interesting that in today's email notice for Bryan On Scouting, the subject relates to Child Protection and offers some perspective on what we already have available.  I know for a fact that much of what is listed and available is not commonly in use, and that in itself might be a major opportunity.  https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/04/15/child-abuse-prevention-is-woven-into-the-fabric-of-the-bsas-advancement-structure/    

Thank you for your contributions to helping navigate this, and your patience with those of us that have different perspectives, but still real concerns that this has some positive outcomes.  

Please try to be factual.  The records, known as IV files, were not sealed, simply not open to public scrutiny.  They were and are kept as one barrier to those that would try to prey on the members.  Before computers, it was difficult to check unless a council had suspicions for some reason, as it was done by phone or mail.  The easier access for that check grew with the advent of dependible computer files.  During much of the mid twentieth century, there was a fefinite concern about legal issues related defamation, and if an entry was not well verified, it would not be something to make public.  We know that there were, and actually still are, public entities tasked with follow up on abuse issues that often either cannot get enough real proof, or unfortunately choose to not rioritize, and simply shove it to the side as not important for myriad reasons.

Did BSA also enter into these types of actions?  Yes, and those choices were not for the best interests of victims, and very poor rationalizations or even CYA.  That does not reflect well.  But you cannot separate the issue from the larger public and societal responses from past eras, nor can you fault BSA while ignoring that the greater problems often came due to parental or law enforcement choosing to not pursue things for whatever reason.  

As far as the inuendo by some that post that it is black and white, and if someone looks at the broader picture and suggests it is/was not as bad "statistically" as outside the program, we are somehow okay with the abuse as discovered, or with some of the BSA decisions or judgements on how to respond.  I have said many times that the abuse is not excusable, and the errrors and poor decisions are worth reviewing for better responses.  My point though has been, and is, that we cannot take the BSA to task alone, as the issue is rampant across our society, and "statistically" worse in most similar groups, and especially bad within the very government entities meant to combat it.  

NO ABUSE IS ACCEPTIBLE, PERIOD.  But that is the case with the myriad other groups in society that serve youth, and especially within the governmental entities that appear to have an even worse problem.  

So, if some choose to focus only on BSA, especially since this is in theory a BSA board, fine.  But please try to look at the larger picture in a realistic manner, and do not paint those of us that see the larger problem and the "statistical" comparisons, as terrible and uncaring individuals.  The village has a problem, and BSA is part of that village, but not the whole village.

1 hour ago, yknot said:

You're entitled to your opinion but it's not based on facts. There have been similar claims made here that scouting is somehow safer than other youth organizations and repeatedly that has been debunked. One of the largest youth organizations in the US is 4-H but if you google sex abuse claims and 4-H you come up with very few cases. There are unique characteristics in scouting that have made it more prone to infiltration by predators. This was recognized by organized scouting as far back as the 1920s; before we had the ineligible volunteer files they were called the red files.  Scouting has done a lot to clean up its act in the past few years which is good but no one should think kids are somehow safer in a tent on a scout campout than they are in the middle of a public ballfield in daylight with multiple kids, parents, coaches and spectators watching. That defies logic. 

So, I short search turned up this particular broad list of "camp" abuse cases.  Note that there are BSA camps, but they are not the majority.  And there is one 4H camp with multiple victims it appears.  Also a number of Y camps, but most seem to be church related or community groups of some type.  

https://crime-stoppers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Spreadsheet-of-Camp-Molestations-8-5-2019.pdf

And, while I could not get to see the article, as the Glade has a reader wall, there is a search record specific to 4H in at least one instance, plus the one on the list in the shared link.  

So, certainly this short search and share of results might suggest my comments are not out of the box, but rather on target.  Note the title of the shared link.  

Addendum;  It does appear from the search that overall the 4-H has a strong focus on abuse awareness and fairly in depth training for volunteers.  

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Denial of the dangers or feeling of comfort in the level of danger in the program also leads to a repeat of history. 

Ignoring the facts that the abuse is rampant in many areas of youth programs and especially in the very groups that are supposed to protect them does not serve anyone well.  I have never said that some abuse did not occur, and that some was truly bad and should have been dealt with properly.  But, putting the onus on BSA and the Catholic Church, while simply ignoring all the rest of the issues thoughout society related to youth does not serve children either.  What I have said is that the actual percentages of abuse in BSA, based on proven data, is lower than in most other youth serving groups, and particularly less heinous than what continues in the very governmental agencies charged with protection of the children.  The efforts undertaken by BSA to try to deal with the problem stem back farther than most such efforts by others.  Those very efforts have been used as bludgeons to mislead and overstate the problem by yellow journalism and a lot of less than scrupulous lawyers.  You cannot simply keep beating the BSA tragedy without taking on the larger one that still exists.  And the ongoing circus of a trial has shown a lot of this, including the very questionable claims that seem to be waiting to be vetted, but no one want that, especially the lawyers that set the bait.  Put all the already in place safety rules into play not just in the BSA, but in the wider communities of youth.  Actually fix the criminal governmental agencies that allow foster children to have far more abuse than almost any of the worst BSA cases, and put in place real barriers to coaches and teachers, as well as even doctors.  

Of course, none of this really matters it seems, as long as you can continue to pound on BSA and not have to deal with the rest of the iceberg.  

The potentiaol is always there, but that is reality for any group involved with youth, and is less likely in Scouting in reality,l as has been discussed numerous times.  The real issue is the media putting the spotlight on certain grouops, even when statistically they are safer than others.  It is a refelction of our societal fascination with sensationalism of negative images of negative things in normally postively positioned groups and people.  And it also is relective our our broken legal system.  With that in mind of course, BSA needs to do everything possible to adhere to its safeguards, period.

I would think that this particular report would be a major point of discussion and concern.  Some things immediately stand out as already know, specifically that the largest percentage are family members, by far.  Interesting to me, and a surprise, is that apparently this study anyway indicates that females are slightly more responsible for abuse.  Age groups are not a huge surprise.  I would think the takeaway from this particular study and report would be that more focus needs to be where the most perpetrators are; the family.  We continue to demonize a small percentage of people at higher level than we do the worst offenders, or so it appears.  No abuse is okay.  That is a given.  But we still need to have the courage to put the spotlight on the highest levels of perpetrators, rather than focusing on the sensational and actually lesser of the evils.  Just an observation, and I am NOT the expert, only a moderately aware reader of the data.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabelmans#Production