Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kc8vqf

confusing policies two women leaders taking boys on overnight trip

Recommended Posts

Without a doubt, the spirit of the rules of YP would not have two females without a male on a campout with a bunch of boys, especially in this day of headlines of female teachers and their male students. I wouldn't let my sons go on a campout without an adult male present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Headlines are rife with every possible combination ... :( Anybody got real stats about the relative risks of accusations during overnight activities among groups with same sexed leaders of youth of the opposite sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you do need male on this trip just for the reason if the boys are messing around in the Men's room how are you going to go in there and tell them to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you do need male on this trip just for the reason if the boys are messing around in the Men's room how are you going to go in there and tell them to stop.

 

1. Men's room?

2. What are SPL's for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep that's what SPL and PLs are for - and if I absolutely had to go in I would yell out female needs to enter in 15 seconds cover-up. But that wouldn't be needed with my scouts so only place that might be needed would be summer camp where disagreements happen among other troops and there are always plenty of males around.

 

For us I'd say only about 2 campouts a year we can't get a male to attend. I do prefer there to be a male solely in case there is an injury in the area the scout would prefer to have a male take a look. But that's never happened either other than chaffing at summer camp but parents of new scouts are told to go over proper powdering with their sons before hand and then it's the spl or pl that helps out if a boy isn't doing it well enough.

 

As for abuse - being a survivor myself and all the adults know this about me they know if I were to even see a setting that is looking like it could break YP rules I speak up before YP is broken. I know signs if things are wrong at home and I will report. And with my abuse being the cause of my PTSD I know the wreckage that lays in the wake and I don't want anyone to have to go through that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for abuse - being a survivor myself and all the adults know this about me they know if I were to even see a setting that is looking like it could break YP rules I speak up before YP is broken. I know signs if things are wrong at home and I will report. And with my abuse being the cause of my PTSD I know the wreckage that lays in the wake and I don't want anyone to have to go through that!

 

Thank you for being candid and I am sure it's not easy.

 

I'm concerned. I read your statement as saying you know what to look for and as such can keep the scouts safe. The trouble is that is what many leaders say, good and bad. "I can be trusted." It's why the policies exist.

 

The policies are the barrier and we set an example by following them or by saying "I can be trusted. So we can be flexible with the rule here." That's staging someone else to use the same reasoning and they may not be as trustworthy.

 

I encourage you to revisit those YP rules. Page 2. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf ... ​Perhaps the policy could be more explicit of each situation, but it seems clear that the rule and expectation is there is at least one person of each gender present. AND, it takes a more flexible reading to interpret "coed" as only applying to the scouts.

 

....

 

For me ... if this were vague ... I'd exercise it with the different genders. If it is good for two female adults to go camping with a group of boys under the age of 18, test the opposite. Is it okay for two male adult leaders to go camping with a venturing crew of only girls under the age of 18?

 

Because the age we live in, we need to treat the policies as gender neutral. If one is not acceptable, the other should also not be acceptable. Otherwise, we are watering down the rules with "oh you can trust me. I would never do that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Is it okay for two male adult leaders to go camping with a venturing crew of only girls under the age of 18?
Well, let's see ... If it's a choice between some token female and a dad who I can trust to speedily dispatch anyone who lays a hand on my female youth, guess what I'm choosing? In the same vein, I kinda trust IMK to choose a mom who will be accountable. I don't believe the group less safe from abuse because the men she trusts can't make the hike, but the one woman she trusts can. And, given the probabilities, I definitely don't think a troop full of boys are at less risk if you cancel the weekend and leave them to their own devices. All that said, IMK, I would recommend extending your contacts to other troops, commissioners, and unit reserve types who've earned.your trusts, so that you have a bigger depth chart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. But that's never happened either other than chaffing at summer camp but parents of new scouts are told to go over proper powdering with their sons before hand and then it's the spl or pl that helps out if a boy isn't doing it well enough.

 

Proper powedering? Are you kidding me? We're teaching boys to powder now? This is exactly you need men as leaders. Do you break off for manicures and facials after afternoon tea?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proper powedering? Are you kidding me? We're teaching boys to powder now? ...

 

Gold Bond is your friend, gsd. Just sayin'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Proper powedering? Are you kidding me? We're teaching boys to powder now? This is exactly you need men as leaders. Do you break off for manicures and facials after afternoon tea?

 

Its' called Gold Bond. My sons swear by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gold Bond is your friend, gsd. Just sayin'!

 

 

I am fully aware of the miracle we know as Gold Bond, and sing it's praises. But to cover it with parents is a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am fully aware of the miracle we know as Gold Bond, and sing it's praises. But to cover it with parents is a bit much.

 

True, in our troops, the boys tell the boys about it. The older boys brief the younger boys about what to carry to summer camp, usually about a month or so out. Gold Bond is one of the main topics of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well' date=' let's see ... If it's a choice between some token female and a dad who I can trust to speedily dispatch anyone who lays a hand on my female youth, guess what I'm choosing? In the same vein, I kinda trust IMK to choose a mom who will be accountable. I don't believe the group less safe from abuse because the men she trusts can't make the hike, but the one woman she trusts can. And, given the probabilities, I definitely don't think a troop full of boys are at less risk if you cancel the weekend and leave them to their own devices. All that said, IMK, I would recommend extending your contacts to other troops, commissioners, and unit reserve types who've earned.your trusts, so that you have a bigger depth chart.[/quote']

 

It's not about whether IMK is trustworthy.

 

It's not about whether any one single person is a predator. It's about creating a consistent barrier so that it is difficult to abuse. When some leaders stretch and weaken the barrier, others will too. It's the example. It's teaching that the barrier to abuse is not critical if you have "good leaders". The sad part is when you read the ineligible volunteer files, most abusers were the super best volunteers. Parents and others thought they were the best and beyond reproach.

 

That's why with youth protection, we focus on the barriers and not the individual. If you want to argue skill and ability to run a camp out, then yes discuss the individual. But for youth protection, it's the consistency of applying the rule that is important.

 

We follow the rules because abuse happens and there are bad people out there.

 

=====================================

 

And yes, Gold Bond. LOL. I've seen a few kids emit a small puff of white powder when they sit down. It's funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... It's about creating a consistent barrier so that it is difficult to abuse. ...

And how, pray-tell, does encouraging units across the country to procure a politically-correct-sexed person they may barely know from Adam or Eve to supplement their complement of chaperons-of-uniform-but-opposite-to-the-youths' sex do that?

How does cancelling the activity help that one youth who might have been counting on it to get a day away from an abusive situation?

 

When some leaders stretch and weaken the barrier' date=' others will too. It's the example.[/quote']

The critical barrier IMHO, is depth. Fred, if you're with my females (and you'd only be if I had it on more than just internet profession that you're a stand-up guy), I've got eyes on you and I'd expect you on me. Same holds for IMK, 'cept she and I ain't goin' to the bathroom together or sharing the same sleeping quarters ... which might leave a period of time where one of us will be left to our own devices.confused.png Oh, but at least with her on the overnight I'm "in compliance".:(

 

... That's why with youth protection' date=' we focus on the barriers and not the individual. If you want to argue skill and ability to run a camp out, then yes discuss the individual.[/quote']Not talkin' skill and ability. Let's just assume everyone forgot the Gold Bond. ;) We still need integrity.

 

But for youth protection' date=' it's the consistency of applying the rule that is important.[/quote']I sincerely hope you don't believe that. Because out there is some predator who is memorizing the rules and hoping for that special unit that will be blindly consistent with them.

 

We follow the rules because abuse happens and there are bad people out there.
Most rules are a reaction to something gone wrong. It's always good to know when they aren't likely to have the intended effect of making things right, and adjust accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qwazse - I'll end the conversation at this post. I did not mean to make you irate. Youth protection is supposed to be the most non-controversial issues out there.

 

But I do fully believe with youth protection ... and we are talking abuse here ... not the protecting scouts from using fire or an ax wrong ... I do fully believe that putting barriers in place and following those barriers as consistently as possible is the most important protection. ... And if we can't follow the rules, then canceling an event / activity is the right choice.

 

BSA youth protection rules are not a cafeteria of options that you can pick and choose from. It's a set of barriers that work together to protect. And from what I've seen, one of the best that is in place so far from the youth groups I've seen.

 

... The critical barrier IMHO' date=' is depth. ... .[/quote']

 

Depth can be number of people or skill. From what I understand of your comment, you mean I-watch-you and you-watch-me. That's good, but if you communicate the YP barriers are not "required" or can be "flexibly interpreted", other groups will also pick and choose. They may pick your de-emphasis of BSA YP barriers without picking up on your self-taught you-watch-me and I'll-watch-you rule.

 

If what's documented, taught and had our name put to with the membership application isn't really required, what is.

 

To be explicit ... IMHO, depth only keeps scouts safe after we've already committed to the YP barriers. The abuser history is a listing of scoutmaster, ASM, UC and camp staff. All with depth, skill and numbers.

 

 

... Oh' date=' but at least with her on the overnight I'm "in compliance". ... .[/quote']

 

You start with compliance. Anything less disassembles the barriers built to protect our scouts.

 

My apologies. I did not mean to push your buttons. BSA could improve the wording, but I always thought the words and meaning were clear. Apparently, there is room for significant improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×