So This Happened

[SSScout 1615]

Llama, llama, llama, llama, llama, llama.

 

LLAMA.

[walk in the woods 888]

Everything has perspective.  My son is autistic.  I advocate for him in situations where he's unable to do so for himself.  Happily, those situations are becoming fewer and fewer.  If the original poster of the slur snowflake had ever seen me or my wife advocating for our son, he probably would have accused me of being a hyperactive helicopter parent.  Of course, he'd have done so with absolutely no knowledge of me or my son or the situation.  So yeah, when I hear a scouter use the word generically, it bothers me significantly.  I just assume the speaker has the arrogance of ignorance.  Been down the path with teachers as well as strangers who thought they knew how to tell me how to parent my child in public.  

[Stosh 3452]

One does, but the above quote is also an example of the fact that snarkiness, meanness and bullying are often in the eye of the beholder, and that some people do not apply the same standards to their own actions as they apply to the actions of others.

 

Then one can conclude that snarkiness, meanness and bullying are only able to be defined by the victim and how they understand it?  I don't think that's what BSA policy is working towards with it's bullying policy.

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

Everything has perspective.  My son is autistic.  I advocate for him in situations where he's unable to do so for himself.  Happily, those situations are becoming fewer and fewer.  If the original poster of the slur snowflake had ever seen me or my wife advocating for our son, he probably would have accused me of being a hyperactive helicopter parent.  Of course, he'd have done so with absolutely no knowledge of me or my son or the situation.  So yeah, when I hear a scouter use the word generically, it bothers me significantly.  I just assume the speaker has the arrogance of ignorance.  Been down the path with teachers as well as strangers who thought they knew how to tell me how to parent my child in public.  

 

Been EXACTLY where you are. I liked it once when my boy roared back at a (jackass) teacher (...years later I recognized she was just a bully) "that's why its called a dis-ability!" If we hadn't advocated for him at certain times he would have gone under...and frankly few would have cared.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

The sponsoring corporation/organization (NOLS, US Army, Home Depot, NRA, AT&T, Hooters,...) decides what their employees/members wear. They want publicity with photos clearly showing their employees helping.

The question is, what is the BSA "policy" on that? Is there one, and if not, should there be one? Or should it be left up to the councils?

 

The council in question, with its "wrong attire" comment, seems to be saying that the employees should not have been wearing the sweatshirts with the name of their employer on them. And probably, by extension, they should not have been handing out Hooters paraphernalia to the Cub Scouts. I do not blame these young ladies for doing so, they were most likely following the instructions of their employer and they were on company time. There is also the issue of the Facebook page, on which Hooters (not unsurprisingly) sought publicity for their good deeds. This is really about publicity. It could have been General Motors or TGI Fridays or the Olive Garden, rather than Hooters, and the same issue would be present. It only gets attention in this case because of the "image" of Hooters.

[Stosh 3452]

Well, this Pandora can of worms could eventually escalate to the point where no outside sponsors will be allowed to help the BSA with their activities because if they let Gander Mountain in, then they have to let Hooters in as well.  I hope BSA has the sense to stay off that slippery slope.  This is why up here in the north country the endearing tradition of ringing bells for the Salvation Army the volunteers need to stand outside the store in often times sub-zero weather.  If they let the SA inside then they have to let everyone in.

[RememberSchiff 3660]

The question is, what is the BSA "policy" on that? Is there one, and if not, should there be one? Or should it be left up to the councils?

 

The council in question, with its "wrong attire" comment, seems to be saying that the employees should not have been wearing the sweatshirts with the name of their employer on them. And probably, by extension, they should not have been handing out Hooters paraphernalia to the Cub Scouts. I do not blame these young ladies for doing so, they were most likely following the instructions of their employer and they were on company time. There is also the issue of the Facebook page, on which Hooters (not unsurprisingly) sought publicity for their good deeds. This is really about publicity. It could have been General Motors or TGI Fridays or the Olive Garden, rather than Hooters, and the same issue would be present. It only gets attention in this case because of the "image" of Hooters.

 

Right, if the Denver Council did not want Hooters employees wearing company attire, they could have just told Hooters no thanks for their help and money. Simple as that.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Then one can conclude that snarkiness, meanness and bullying are only able to be defined by the victim and how they understand it?  I don't think that's what BSA policy is working towards with it's bullying policy.

No, one can't conclude that, or at least, I don't. I think that for this purpose, the operative word in my post is "often", while the operative word in yours is "only". Those are two very different words.

 

Although I would say that in its anti-bullying policy, the BSA does seem to focus in large part on the perception of the victim, or as the BSA says, the "target", and not only on the "intent" of the alleged bully.  See http://www.scouting.org/filestore/training/pdf/Bullying-What_is_Bullying.pdf.  In fact, that document doesn't ever actually mention the "intent" of the alleged bully but says quite a bit about the perceptions of the "target."  I think that, in practice, the "intent" of the alleged bully does get taken into account (and it probably is in that document by implication), but it is not the only factor.

[Fehler 118]

No corporate logos that boys wouldn't be allowed to wear to school.

[desertrat77 1144]

A random thought:

 

The council didn't make this decision in a vacuum.  

 

Councils don't strike me as very autonomous.   I'll bet you a slice a pie (your choice) and a cup of coffee the council ran the issue up the flag pole to Irving.  

 

Irving may have dithered a bit but they probably set down some guidelines (respectable attire at camp, etc.).

 

Just a hunch.

[Stosh 3452]

School?  That would exclude a lot of logos that would be totally appropriate for youth in my church youth group to wear.  The standards set by school nowadays isn't really a good litmus test.

[David CO 1783]

My school doesn't allow any commercial logos.

 

There is a special exception for scout uniforms on meeting days.  This exception only applies to the uniform.  No BSA logo tee shirts are allowed.

Edited July 8, 2016 by David CO

[David CO 1783]

Right, if the Denver Council did not want Hooters employees wearing company attire, they could have just told Hooters no thanks for their help and money. Simple as that.

 

Rather than banning commercial sponsors, it would be much more practical to simply inform the parents and unit leaders in advance.  Let them make an informed decision for themselves.

 

I would definitely pass on a Hooters sponsored event.  That's my choice.  You choose for yourselves. 

Edited July 8, 2016 by David CO

[Stosh 3452]

My school doesn't allow any commercial logos.

 

There is a special exception for scout uniforms on meeting days.  This exception only applies to the uniform.  No BSA logo tee shirts are allowed.

 

Applies to the shoes?

 

What about the outside label on blue jeans?

 

NFL apparel?

 

IZOD polo shirts?

 

Football team tape over Riddell on the helmets?

 

Where do the older kids park their cars if they can't park on school property?

 

Or is there a double standard just for the students?

 

Heaven help the kid who wears a cross on a chain around their neck.  But then that's not much of a branding logo is it?

Edited July 8, 2016 by Stosh

[RememberSchiff 3660]

Rather than banning commercial sponsors, it would be much more practical to simply inform the parents and unit leaders in advance.  Let them make an informed decision for themselves.

 

I would definitely pass on a Hooters sponsored event.  That's my choice.  You choose for yourselves. 

Some years ago, a national brewery sponsored a local scout camporee in these parts. Units and scout families made an informed decision. Many did not to attend.

 

Do councils seek National approval of local sponsorships? I am guessing councils would rather keep revenue sources close to their wicking layer. Could be wrong.