dsteele 20 Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 NJ -- To answer your question to me, it is a -- no b -- for the most part c -- somewhat d -- yes and the one that needs to be watched for by both. To elaborate, so you don't have to backtrack It has never occurred to me that the adult males might prey on the female youth attending the overnight. It could happen, but it would be treated by the BSA and perhaps the law as child abuse. There is a very good YPT tape for Venturers that is different than the one you've probably seen and is worth watching. b -- you asked if it had to do with female related injuries where you would want a woman to go in rather than a man. That's a large part of it. If you reverse it, it can make more sense -- let's say you're a 14 year old boy and step on something in the shower. You cry out in pain and a woman charges in to help your naked self. It would be mortifying. Even if it was your mother. The reverse applies as well. c -- female role models for female Venturers. That's a big part of it as well. Adult association is one of the methods of the Boy Scouts of America. There are plenty of moments on most overnighters to bond with adults and it's important. Not that young men can't bond with (admire, emulate, etc.) female leaders and vice versa, but having a female role model when there are females present certainly can't hurt. d -- Something you haven't mentioned. The biggest problem I have run into when dealing with teen aged boys and girls together in the woods was my ultimate goal when I was a teen aged boy. I don't have a problem with boyfriend and girlfriend being in the same crew, but the necking stays out of the outing. A male will tend to react to the boy's behavior and the female will tend to react to the girl's. In the teenage years, boys and girls also react differently. (Real life example here) I once had a crew go on a cabin campout. They did it right with at least two male adults and two female adults. They are required to have separate sleeping facilities and rented two cabins. (I wonder why? ) During the night, some of the young men snuck off to "raid" the girl's cabin. No harm came the hijinks quickly stopped when the two women shrugged off their sleeping bags and cast away the demon boys. I do have to admit that I think it could have easily been the girls raiding the boys' cabin. I think it helps to remember that not everything in youth protection is there to protect against abuse. Quite a bit of it has to do with health and safety. DS Link to post Share on other sites
Fat Old Guy 11 Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 "You never know with 100 percent certainty that anyone on a trip is heterosexual." Sure I do, I'm 100% certain about myself. " If you reverse it, it can make more sense -- let's say you're a 14 year old boy and step on something in the shower. You cry out in pain and a woman charges in to help your naked self. It would be mortifying." However, that rules permit two women to take a group of boys camping. A man and a woman are only required IF and ONLY IF the outing is co-ed. So you can easily be in a situation where the only adult to aid an injured boy is a woman. Role models? Why should we worry about providing positive female role models for girls when there is not a similar fuss about providing male role models for boys. True, it seems that the men are slackers. I've lost count of the number of women that I see wearing an SM or ASM patch. In my troop, In the troop with which I am affiliated and humbly serve as best as I can, most of the ASMs are women, their husbands are all "very important and very busy" so they have no time to spend with their families. Maybe the women are better role models. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Why, thank you, packsaddle! Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Thanks Dave. Although I had not specifically thought of the chaperoning/counseling function (which makes a lot of sense!), your post does confirm what I thought about the claim made by FatOldGuy, that the function of the female leader on a co-ed outing is NOT to "protect" the girls from the "evil", "predatory" male leader(s) -- except for the 2-deep leadership that is part of YP, which can be fulfilled equally well by 2 men, 2 women, or 1 of each, regardless of the composition of the youth membership. This has implications for FatOldGuy's statements about gays as predatory toward boys, but Dave, I will be nice and not draw you into that discussion -- not that I think you would allow yourself to be drawn into that one anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob White 20 Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 I think that a main concern of the BSA, and one that has been overlooked to this point of the discussion, is the potential for fraternization between leaders and participants in the two programs. In the Boy Scout program the danger of fraternization between adult women and scout aged boys is very low, whereas in Venturing the age difference between leader and participant is much narrower. For that reason any two adults can be present on a troop outing, but Venturing requires a female adult to supervise female participants, and a male adult to supervise the male participants. Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White) Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 My troop, sorry, the troop that I serve, has several very active women leaders. I enjoy their contribution very much but I find myself reminding them often that it is mildly annoying to the boys when leaders call them things like 'snookums' and 'sweetie', etc. They are unapologetic and to this day, quite incorrigible. Maybe I'm just jealous. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Snookums??? Sweetie??? Is there a hazing argument that could be found here? Oh wait, we have beat that dog already and I AM NOT going to start up again here. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Yep, I knew I could count on OGE. The answer is a definitive...well, maybe. Especially if I'm addressing the female leaders. ...and now back to your regularly scheduled argument. Link to post Share on other sites
eisely 13 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 OGE, "...beat that dog...." Really? You need to put in a disclaimer that you are referring to a rhetorical dog and that no real dogs were beaten in writing your post. We have enough grief from PETA already... But then maybe you really are beating dogs...care to clarify? Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Eisely, Aye did nawt beat that dawg...(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to post Share on other sites
Fat Old Guy 11 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 "Snookums??? Sweetie??? " The fastest way to get women to stop using cute nicknames like that is to call them "toots" or "babe". Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Sauce for the goose is sauce for the Gander Turn about is fair play Paybacks are maternal Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now