Jump to content
Back Pack

Pack YP equal or double standard

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, cocomax said:

Can everyone at least agree that:

When male Scouters are treated differently from female Scouters with regard to YPT, that is unequal. And unfair.

 

 

As simple as that sounds. it is evidently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cocomax said:

Can everyone at least agree that:

When male Scouters are treated differently from female Scouters with regard to YPT, that is unequal. And unfair.

 

 

I can agree to that. It is unequal and unfair.

However, I think we sometimes need to be a little bit unequal and unfair to our volunteer scouters. My CO has never promised to be equal and fair in the selection of volunteer scouters. We choose our scouters based on the needs of the unit, not on the needs of the scouters.

In regard to youth protection, I think the needs of the scouts must come before the needs of the scouters.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David CO said:

I can agree to that. It is unequal and unfair.

However, I think we sometimes need to be a little bit unequal and unfair to our volunteer scouters. My CO has never promised to be equal and fair in the selection of volunteer scouters. We choose our scouters based on the needs of the unit, not on the needs of the scouters.

In regard to youth protection, I think the needs of the scouts must come before the needs of the scouters.

 

See there, you can agree that it is unequal and unfair.

. . . and you are okay with that,  because you have reasons that justify being unfair.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cocomax said:

See there, you can agree that it is unequal and unfair.

. . . and you are okay with that,  because you have reasons that justify being unfair.

 

 

 

Yes, I do. The main reason being that boys and girls are different. Their needs are different.

 

Edited by David CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David CO said:

Yes, I do. The main reason being that boys and girls are different. Their needs are different.

 

What about all the females in the news getting caught with young men. Under bsa rules there would not have to be a male adult present. That wouldn’t make your co very happy if something happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Back Pack said:

What about all the females in the news getting caught with young men. Under bsa rules there would not have to be a male adult present. That wouldn’t make your co very happy if something happened. 

 

Even though that makes for sensational evening news drama, statistically it is extremely rare. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EmberMike said:

Even though that makes for sensational evening news drama, statistically it is extremely rare. 

Should that matter when it comes to protection. It’s sad to hear adult leaders making a case for not protecting everyone. It’s a simple solution require a man to be present when male youth are present. We do this one Venturing all the time. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, David CO said:

Yes, I do. The main reason being that boys and girls are different. Their needs are different.

While they are different, and their needs are different, we should not treat their opportunities differently. Under the proposed rule, if no female volunteer is present, then girls may be disadvantaged - they may not be able to participate.

Additionally, this rule is so "2000 and late." There is nothing about someone's gender that protects a scout of the same gender from being assaulted. Two-deep is the best solution regardless of gender. Anything beyond that isn't likely to make someone more safe from a real predator.

Lastly, this rule assumes two more negatives, that the other male is also likely to be a predator and/or is complicit where as the female leader would not be either.

 

In the end, all this might be moot as legal defense probably trumps common sense. We all can relate to that outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Back Pack said:

Should that matter when it comes to protection. It’s sad to hear adult leaders making a case for not protecting everyone. It’s a simple solution require a man to be present when male youth are present. We do this one Venturing all the time. 

Or just have no one-to-one between any leader and young person, no matter what the gender. I.e. there's always another young person or adult there. It doesn't really matter what flavour everyone is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ianwilkins said:

Or just have no one-to-one between any leader and young person, no matter what the gender. I.e. there's always another young person or adult there. It doesn't really matter what flavour everyone is.

That's the point. Either have two-deep adult leadership (no matter the gender of the adults) or require one man/woman if at least one boy/girl are part of the event. As pointed out a few times here, the Venturing YP rules are very good and a great guide to use. It is simple and fair.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Back Pack said:

Should that matter when it comes to protection. It’s sad to hear adult leaders making a case for not protecting everyone. It’s a simple solution require a man to be present when male youth are present. We do this one Venturing all the time. 

Does it better protect youth? Think about it: If men are the abusers in child sexual abuse cases 90+% of the time, is adding in an adult male really a good solution if you want to better protect kids? 

Of course it's not realistic to eliminate men from a program that is so dependent on current male leaders, with them making up a huge chunk of the adult membership. But if you really want to make things safer, one could argue that the kids are safer with just the two women leaders. 

So is this about protection? Or is it about equality? Because I don't think we can check both boxes at the same time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

Does it better protect youth? Think about it: If men are the abusers in child sexual abuse cases 90+% of the time, is adding in an adult male really a good solution if you want to better protect kids? 

Of course it's not realistic to eliminate men from a program that is so dependent on current male leaders, with them making up a huge chunk of the adult membership. But if you really want to make things safer, one could argue that the kids are safer with just the two women leaders. 

So is this about protection? Or is it about equality? Because I don't think we can check both boxes at the same time. 

Then why doesn't Sea Scout and Venturing YPT allow for 2 females if a ship or crew is coed?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Then why doesn't Sea Scout and Venturing YPT allow for 2 females if a ship or crew is coed?

I have no idea. 

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

×