Creepiness?

[elfdream 10]

Oh dear. Our youngest is working hard to 'Eagle Out' in the spring. I guess my husband will just have to give it all up when that happens.

[srisom 10]

I guess that makes me creepy according to some. I have been involved with Scouting, as an adult, since 1982. However, my wife and I have no children.

I had a great time as a youth in Scouting and when the opportunity came along to give back, I did. Have volunteered in many prositions: OA Chapter Advisor, District Committee, District and Council Camping Committees, etc. Along with this, 16 years as a Scoutmaster.

Never thought of it as creepy and as far as I know no one else did either.

I have always felt that since I had such a great time as a youth, it was my responsilbility to give that opportunity to other youth. As far as I know, no one else who was in Scouting with me as a youth is still involved as an adult. A few of them were involved when their sons were members, but when the youth left so did the adult.

Over the years, whenever anyone asked my wife why we did not have kids, her response has been that we have xx number, depending on how many were in the troop. She would say that if we did have kids then I probably not be able to spend as much time with them doing Scouting. The youth response was - Don't have any kids.

Scouting needs all who are interested in spreading and maintaining the program.

[Stosh 3452]

Naw, I got everyone beat at creepy. I generally wear an Australian drover's coat (black) with the expedition hat (dark green) and at night I rarely carry a flashlight, going with natural lighting instead. Well, in order to keep the kids from flashing their lights in my eyes I generally step off the trail when I meet them and wait for them to pass. If they happen to catch a glance a me standing there, I can assure you no Girl

Scout can ever beat out the screams these boys can put out.

 

Stosh

[Kahuna 172]

Stosh, that's hilarious. I can just picture that and hear the screams.

 

BTW, I've been continuously involved in Scouting since age 8. Been SM, ASM, CC, IH, Skipper and other positions not involving boys for over 55 years. In fact, the best troop I ever saw was run by an SM and primary ASM who had no boys. I've been accused of many things, but being creepy has never been one of them. Maybe I'll get one of those black drover's coats . . .

[ScoutMomSD 10]

I think the over abuse of the term creepy which I used once can be substited for intuition. I dont want to put my small child in a position where I dont feel comfortable.

 

that is me - you can do whatever you want with your kids. I am responsible for my kids and if I am not comfortable with a situation and I find certain folks disturbing, I have the right.

 

Its just something I have never seen in Girl Scouting except in leadership positions, which are not troop involved. And the Girl Scouts dont have the same rep as Boys scouts with regard to discrimination, leader/boy "issues" etc.

[Gold Winger 9]

"I think the over abuse of the term creepy which I used once can be substited for intuition. I dont want to put my small child in a position where I dont feel comfortable."

 

Back peddaling as fast as she can, ScoutMomSD tries to justify insulting half the Scouters out there. Reminds me of that Irish politician, O'Bomba.

 

"Its just something I have never seen in Girl Scouting except in leadership positions, which are not troop involved."

 

Could explain why GS troops fold at the drop of a hat and why GSUSA is struggling to hang on.

 

"And the Girl Scouts dont have the same rep as Boys scouts with regard to discrimination, leader/boy "issues" etc. "

 

BSA does not discriminate against anyone who meets the requirements to join. "Leader/Boy" issues? Hard for that to happen in the Girl Scouts, isn't it? However, my daughter's SU leader told me of a few horror stories about women in GS who did things with girls but it got hushed up very quickly.

 

Also, BSA has a co-ed program. Does GSUSA? Noooo.

 

[Gunny2862 11]

ScoutMomSD, Either have the courage of your convictions, reword to say SOME non-parent/post-parent Scouters are creepy, or apologize. Backpedaling like that is dishonest to yourself and even more insulting to those volunteers that have been tarnished by your wide brush. No one will fault you for being concerned about your children - It's how I wound up getting involved - I was going anyway to allay the overcautious fears of HWMBO.

[Gunny2862 11]

ScoutMomSD, Either have the courage of your convictions, reword to say SOME non-parent/post-parent Scouters are creepy, or apologize. Backpedaling like that is dishonest to yourself and even more insulting to those volunteers that have been tarnished by your wide brush. No one will fault you for being concerned about your children - It's how I wound up getting involved - I was going anyway to allay the overcautious fears of HWMBO.

[GaHillBilly 10]

ScoutMomSD wrote

 

"Its just something I have never seen in Girl Scouting except in leadership positions, which are not troop involved. And the Girl Scouts dont have the same rep as Boys scouts with regard to discrimination, leader/boy "issues" etc."

 

Well, I've seen it.

 

I've NEVER been involved in GSUSA, except as an outside contractor providing technical services at GSUSA camps. But, the stuff I, and my employees, encountered PERSONALLY at GSUSA camps would curl any responsible parent's hair. My experiences and observations at one GSUSA camp were precisely what caused me to warn friends to ALWAYS figure out why volunteers were volunteering.

 

Just to give one example, both in terms of utter inappropriateness AND total weirdness, not to mention immorality (which I gather may not be a category you recognize, ScoutMomSD), I was directly propositioned one year by the camp director, who knew I was married, and who was herself the lesbian lover of a local aquatics director. It took me an hour after to figure out that she really was propositioning me, because she knew I knew she was in a lesbian relationship. It was long enough ago, that it didn't occur to me that she might have been bisexual.

 

Granted, she was not in a "troop level" position. I didn't have as much contact with the volunteer staff, as I did with the professionals. But, I did have enough to discover that more than 1 or 2 local GS troop leaders were bitterly divorced man-haters, who were aggressively communicating those values to their Scouts! And, while I am not questioning that they had good reason to be man-haters, I don't think that either misogyny or misandry are appropriate values to teach Scouts, of either flavor!

 

ScoutMomSD, I suspect you've been living in La-La land so long, you've become accustomed to the knee-jerk approval of liberal -- but ill-thought out -- ideals, and are a bit shell-shocked to find that considered opposition to your opinions exists. I see the same thing here, living in the Bible Belt, among my friends when someone disagrees thoughtfully with some of their ill-thought out conservative opinions. I know that they -- and I suspect that you -- have developed a tendency to see evidence that supports your opinions, and to overlook all the rest.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

ScoutMom, you certainly have the right -- even the responsibility -- not to put your children in a situation that makes you uncomfortable. I wonder whether your discomfort results more from the particular individuals whom you have observed. If not, I wonder whether, with additional experience with the Boy Scout program, you might eventually change your mind.

 

The difference between Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in this respect may stem partly from the way that units in each program are organized. Years ago, I had some experience with Girl Scout program when my daughters (now adults) were members, and it did seem like more of a parent-run program (as is the Cub Scouts) rather than an adult (parents+others)-supervised program like the Boy Scouts. Regardless of the reasons, that's just the way it is.

 

You allude to the problem of child abuse in Scouting. As you probably know, the BSA has made great strides away from this unfortunate past with its Youth Protection program, which I am proud to serve as a training facilitator. I have to wonder whether the statistics in that area would show any greater incidence of wrongdoing by leaders without sons in the program than by those with sons in the program. I doubt it. As the Youth Protection training teaches us, child abusers fit no pattern, which is why the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of how sure we may be that a particular person is not a problem.

 

Perhaps my thinking on the subject of leaders without sons currently in the program is influenced by the memory of my father. He was an adult Scouter for more than 60 years. Roughly in the middle of that period, he had sons in various levels of the program for 16 years, so you do the math: Most of his service as a unit-level Scouter was during times when he had either no children, sons below Scouting age or sons who had aged out or quit. I can assure you that he was in the program for the right reasons. I think he saw himself as a teacher, but of the Scouting ideals of character, fitness, citizenship, leadership, self-reliance, duty to self and others, etc., rather than any particular academic or career topic. (Although he did the latter as well, as a merit badge counselor in his career field, among others.) Near the end of his Scouting career, he focused on mentoring young men as they went for Eagle, as well as encouraging Scouts to achieve their religious awards, although he himself was not very religious. I'm feeling a need to stop typing now. But isn't this an example of someone with a good reason to continue as a Scouter, as long as circumstances allow?

[fleetfootedfox 10]

I have no connection with Girl Scouting, but from what I understand they tend to be more neighborhood-oriented. They define a troop as "a unit in a local neighborhood, school, or church", but they don't require a troop to have any sponsor or chartered organization. Anyway, bad things go on in Girl Scouting too.

 

BTW, I thought it rather annoying that this year the girl scouts have an extra fundraiser that is just before our popcorn sales. Is this a national thing or something local?

 

Anyway, the only problem I've had with some guys who don't have boys in the program is an attitude that parent leaders are short-timers who are less than welcome. Of course, this is a whole separate issue.

 

You can't tell who bad people are through "profiling". So, best thing is to have enough adults around at all events to make it hard for the bad people to take advantage. That's why we have two deep leadership. However, if two deep is good, three is even better, and four or more doesn't hurt.

[GaHillBilly 10]

NJCubScouter wrote:

"ScoutMom, you certainly have the right -- even the responsibility -- not to put your children in a situation that makes you uncomfortable"

 

NJCubScouter, I can guess what you might have meant, and I'm pretty sure I might even agree with you. But, what you actually wrote is seriously mistaken!

 

Now, I have a high view of parental authority and responsibility. In every situation, someone (or some institution) has the 'right to be wrong'. Different politics, different religions decide who that is, differently. In the USA, with soldiers, for example, it's the President. In old line Communist states, it is the State. In fundamentalist Islamic countries, it's either the male head of household OR the Islamic courts. And so on.

 

I believe that, by "natural law", it is the family -- not the state and not the courts -- who has the "right to be wrong" with respect to children. in some extreme cases, the state may step in, but generally, I believe it's "the buck stops" with the parents.

 

A lot of people struggle with the fact that the 'right to rule' is also the 'right to be wrong'. In America, we've adopted, in practice if not in theory, the statist view that "there oughta' be a law". I believe that generally this a huge mistake, and my experiences as a grand juror have only confirmed that belief.

 

So, I believe that ScoutMomSD has the 'right' to screw up her own kids, just as I have the 'right' to screw up mine, without interference from the State (or Georgia or California!). But, I believe that such 'rights' come with responsibility, and that I am responsible for my son's rearing, as ScoutMomSD is for her children. And, I further believe we are obligated to do the best we can.

 

NJCubScouter, I'm sure you've had to do many things, as a parent, that made you "uncomfortable". For me, it started either with the first dirty diaper or the first milk-down-the-back throw-up. And it hasn't ended. I was intensely uncomfortable about 2 weeks ago, when my son was standing on the edge, more or less, of a rock cliff with a 200' drop. I'd given him appropriate cautions, and he was following them. It STILL made me almost unbearably uncomfortable to watch him standing there. My wife couldn't look.

 

Nevertheless, as a parent and as a Scouter, I'm pretty sure you'll agree it was the right thing for me to do.

 

A couple of nights ago, after I'd described the location of our next campout, and delivered the cautions appropriate to an area with an abundance of copperheads, slippery rocks and high cliffs, and a smaller number of possums, raccoons, coyotes & bats, and a few nearby predatory homosexual men, and even (currently!) a single wandering bear, several parents came close to yanking their sons from the campout. As I've mentioned before, we've got an upside down troop, in which the older boys are mostly mommy's boys. One of the moms did announce she was going to pitch her tent with the older boy's patrol, rather than with the adults!

 

I'm pretty sure the idea of camping with no adults closer than 100' made her (and her Life Scout son) uncomfortable. But, I'm pretty sure that allowing that discomfort to determine where she camped was a mistake.

 

And, I'm pretty sure that any parent who exercises their "responsibility" (as you put it) to keep their son away from any situation that makes the parent uncomfortable . . . that such a parent is screwing up badly. If you care about your kids, but give them opportunities to learn and grow, there's simply no way to avoid some pretty substantial discomfort.

 

Bottom line? Parental discomfort is a pretty poor guide to what should, or should not be done!

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

[anarchist 10]

Adult leaders with no kids in scouting is creepy, wow!

 

I did some research a couple of years ago as our troop was approaching what we thought was it's 50 year mark...Council had lost (in a fire) most of the old records but I did find a few bits and pieces including some "original" membership lists and several advancement forms from various years etc. What I found interesting was it appear that the same name appeared on the SM line over quite a long time.

 

Seeing as how the troop was in a rapidly gentrifying rural area many old family farms still existed and I was able to locate many old scouts or their families. It seems the orginal CO was a fire house and a volunteer member became the SM...for over 20 years...this guy and his wife had no kids of their own but obviously, he had a good heart.

 

After talking with many different "locals" I got a pretty good picture of a man who liked the out doors and thought scouting was a good way of preparing boys to be good adults...and he also liked to hike the legs off of scouts who didn't listen well...

 

To a man, everyone I spoke with respected this old leader and loved him...I wished I had been around to know him...No one thought he was creepy or strange...just a good neighbor.

 

Eventually, we were given a box of old scouting records that had been left in the old scouters brothers house...not good for much... but fun to go through and learn appreciate a long lasting program. It was only several years after he had passed the reins to others and a new CO was "found" that the program started to slip...and the charter lapsed for a few months...but eventually the troop found its way and grew strong again. Now many of our more active dads stick with the troop for a couple of years (some more) after their sons Eagle or age out. It is sort of a way to be sure we pass on the program to other capable hands before steping into the shadows...

 

Fear and unfounded suspicion are terrible barriers to many areas of growth and knowledge.

 

anarchist

 

[funscout 11]

I want to thank all the men and women who have stayed on in scouting even after their kids have graduated. Those who no longer have kids at home, actually have more time to give. They do not have to run kids to various activities like those of us who still have kids at home. Also, they have years of experience that are an invaluable resource.

 

That said, as a Mom, I would be a little concerned about men in girl scouting, just because of the stories I have heard. That doesn't mean I wouldn't allow a daughter (if I had one!) to attend scout events with men present, but it does mean I would find out all I could about them. I hate to say it, but even Adam Walsh's dad, John Walsh advises against having male babysitters. Even though 99 percent of men can control themselves around girls (or any children), there is unfortunately, that small percentage (actually I don't know the numbers, I'm just guessing) who seek out childrens' organizations because they are child predators. I'm not saying women can never be child predators, but we all know they are rare.

 

Okay, men, don't hate me for being cautious. I've always lived under the idea of not putting temptation in your way, if you can help it. I've advised my boys not to date one on one, but rather stay in groups of friends, to help avoid temptations. If I'm trying to lose weight, I don't keep sweets around.

 

Please don't paint me as man-hater, because I'm not. I love all those wonderful men who give so much of their time to run the scout meetings and events. I would just advise parents to know the leaders, and talk with your kids, to get a feel for what is going on when you aren't there.

 

And once again, thank you to all you veteran leaders who continue to give your time to scouting.

 

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

What I think this all boils down to is perception.

Part ofScoutMomSD's original remark (and I am not trying to take this out of context) was "My mom used to say, 'avoid the appearance of evil'." This is, I believe the key to ScoutMomSD's perception of what is creepy. Avoiding the appearance of "evil" is important. But how one sees that statement is important. Would one question the motives of achurch youth director who was unmaried or too young to have children, or whose children had left home to go off to school? Obviously not.

I think we should all be concerned about how people percieve us, our units and our organization. Christian knights (and priests)of the middle ages engaged in many un-Christian-like actsin Eastern Europe and the Middle East(during the crusades). Should I thereforebe sceptical ofchurch leaders and members who display a sword as part of their emblem or sign? Should that church, mindful of their church ancestorsof 700 years ago, change their symbols because others may think they are about to go off slaughtering "unbelievers"?

Perceptions are sometimes hard to change. In many cases, perception (regardless of how accurate that perception may be) is reality. Changing someone else's perception can be difficult. It is said that it someone is 10x as likely to communicate a bad experience than a positive one. For every bad apple leader you read about in the paper, there are a thousand or more that you never hear about, working and guiding youth every week.

I attended a fundamentalist Christian school while in middle school. Staff members and their families were forbidden to go to the movie theater. Why? Because (as the story goes) the preacher's kids came out of the theatre once after the marquis had been changed from what they were watching to an "R" rated movie playing in the same theatre next. Someone saw it and perceived that they were doing something wrong. Therefore, they felt thatthey can preventtheperception of "wrong doing" by banninga positive activity.My perception is that banning movies because ofwhat mightbe misconstrued, is a very un-Christian way to live (should they not minister to those in the inner-city slums because someone may think they are buying drugs there?).

ScoutMomSD, I hope we can provide you with some positive feedback, and hopefully we can influence your perception of what may be seen asevil in Scouting.