skeptic

Definitely a YP issue as discussed. IF the tale is accurate, it appears some individual has a problem with the color pink worn by a male. And that is very biased, or worse; IMHO. One way of course would be to ask the whole troop to wear a pink shirt; but not sure that would do anything but annoy someone. Still, it might help the young lad too, especially if the other troop members show their support somehow. Years ago, we had an 11 year old that was always in sine conflict with other youth, both at scouts and with peers in school and neighborhood. He had a really difficult time as he was very small and had two sisters that drove him crazy at home and he was the one in trouble. Also a domineering father. Anyway, he had ridden his bike to the meeting and got into it again and chose to go home. It was not dark, and his parents allowed him to ride, so I told him okay, but we would check to see he got home okay. We have a large hall in the church that we used for games, and we were up there near the meeting end. Here comes the boy with his bike, covered with egg and dirt. He had been jumped in the school yard next door; not hurt physically, just made a mess of. Well, the rest of the troop had to be restrained from running to the school to find those responsible, because he was part of the troop. That was a turning point for him. While he never bade it past FC, he stayed involved into JC. He is now a father with a GS and Cub and retired from the Army. Scouting works.

Wasn't there some type of atttempt by GS to attach their suit to the bankruptcy?

There goes one week of cookie profit. And into the pot for survivors I would think.

Thanks for sharing. More perspective on the evolving issue. I find myself wondering though is these suggestions are universal, or seriously tied to a small population or culture? There are examples historically of seemingly very opposite populations, especially with the early matriarchal groups dominated by strong women who appear to have been the dicision makers. I tend to think that the basic ability for women to do most things is tempered only by their physical limitations, and that their mental capabilities will often overcome those challenges, either by actual effort to change certain genetic factors, or by creating aides to simply overcome those physical challenges. So it seems to me that girls will adjust, as will boys, given the opportunity and as little adult interference as possible. JMO of course, as am not an expert, only a longtime observer.

Back to my perception that balance and awareness must take place. And today, when puberty seems to begin earlier, especially for girls, your comment has room for adjustment perhaps? The part about girls being more apt to do the "boring" planning is true, but with that comes the indiction I observed that once confronted with that, the boys often step up and become involved, even at an earlier age. It still seems to me that the membership issue would improve with coed, especially if larger units were to have the girl patrols if necessary. Then the older youth would still be pretty much on the same level for more advanced leadership. But we are missing the boat with girls if we insist on separate groups.

Being wired differently is not an answer, simply an excuse. If the youth can function in school groups or church groups and so on, then they should be able to do so in Scouting. As noted more than once from my own experience as a sub teacher, which meant many variants in students, groups became balanced pretty much once stabilized. While middle school girls often took over a group initially, in many case the boy(s) came forward to challenge. And in many of those, the group output became far more viable and reflected both sides, so to speak. Sorry, the psychologists that claim the males are intimidated by females in that age group are not working with complete data. Too often, they construct their own slanted surveys and so on to arrive at their predetermined position. Again, I spent many years in a half dozen middle schools and below, and what I noted was almost universal. We might also note the best of the Ships and Crews in our own programs that are universally mixed in gender, yet function very well with the various points of view, based on gender perception, seeming to lead to a better balance and more success.

For me, it is past the time for evolving and time to make the logical change. How many more girls would already be in units if they made just that one adjustment? What do I know? I tend to look at thing with reality and logic.

The Lone Scout issue is interesting to me. I know that I have read on this forum, as well as a couple of other threads on Scouting about girls joining as Lone Scouts due to not having enough girls for a troop. So I know that it is allowed, or so it appears. We have struggled to start a girl unit; but we got the minimum briefly, but soon lost one, then another. I had suggested the Lone Scout direction anyway, but the local Executive says we do not meet criteria. Of course, what he really means is that he want another number for a unit, evenif he then approves three when we started it, now down to one. And since we no longer have the number we have one girl in limbo, and he still says no Lone Scout. To me, this is foolish, as if we get a few Lone Scouts to start, we might find enough others with time; and in the meantime, the young women get to do the program. The one we still have has a brother in the troop who is our SPL and bugler. Of course, I personally am still of the opinion that there should not need to be two untis separately. Simply have a girl patrol, just as we have girl dens. It is nuts to lose the small numbers due to that idiocy, in my view.

A bill being proposed to deal with private institutional youth schools and such. How much is this in some way similar to the abuse issue with BSA and others? https://www.aol.com/entertainment/revealing-sexual-abuse-allegations-paris-191112644.html

Well, I am going to have to do a better job proofing. Or just turn in my teaching credential. 🙃 Of course, since I am retired, I do not use it anyway.

Looking over that precipice, if only for a few moments, is terrifying. Fortunately, most do draw back and with luck they come to grips in other ways. For me, my losest points have often drawn words into a journal of verse and essay. And rereading things from years back frightens me on occasion, but also makes me realize that hope can still be nourished. I am fortunate to have somehow developed a personal spirituality and am grateful for having been guided to that place by some important people in my life when I was at the low point. And they in turn were able to help me reconnect with the lighter things from the past and come to understand a little better. That is just me, and I pray others might find that guidance in some manner aw well.

How to say this without being "accused"? IF the time frame denoed for victims coming forward is valid, and every thing I have read indicates it likely is, or even off in that some "never" can bring it out, then how does that reflcect on the basic abuse event? Somewhere on here, one survivor noted that his father never knew. The studies indicate that male abuse victims are far less willing to even broach the abuse, but rather try to hide it. That is not giving any excuse for the abuser, only asking how, at the time, was it dealt with? If the parent(s) were not told, how might that have made the situation more difficult? Would not the survivor/victim have been left with little support when things did not follow as they should have? Again, we see evidence today with some studies that the emotional effects often manifest in ways most parents are not likely to understand without knowledge of the event, and some, of course unfortunately even then do not understand. Part of the updated YP is a discussion of flash points that might indicate some trauma, and what to watch for. That is a step in the right direction, but we need to continue to reinforce this concept and not hide our heads in the sand as was too often the case in the past. Please, I understand that trauma, whether abuse of this nature, or simply something that frightened a child severely can not just be forgotten; it is buried too often as part of the human response (?), or lack of emotional strength at the time. It has to be worse, perhaps for abuse, but it also can relate to night mares, or even painful injuries. I am trying to get perspective, not suggesting the survivor/victims are to blame. This is far too complex for most of us to completely understand, if even the "experts" still do not do so.

Why must everything always have "sides"? People are people, and in most cases they should be able to just live and do their own thing. What is the purpose of constantly finding fault and making inuendo? Certainly does not reflect well on the idea of Scout Spirit, or most religious doctrines, or even the the Constitution. Just asking.

I am putting this here, as I am unsure where it might be a point of discussion. This quote is from an opinion piece related to the current SCOTUS issue. But it seems to me that with a tweak or two, it might well reflect on the problems in BSA and really society in general. BSA or Scouting began as an effort to create better citizens at a time of great turmoil and change. It became very idealistic, even as it struggled to fit into the changing society. The repetitive use of its "goody-goody" image as out of sync grew, even possibly making some refuse to recognize that it still had elements of the greater society or culture in which it was living. Here is the quote; "What is clear is that the court has become a tragic anachronism in our age of rage: an institution that relied on the integrity and ethics of its members and staff at a time when such values are treated as naive. It relied on justices and clerks alike remaining bound to the institution and to each other by a constitutional faith." Moderators, please feel free to do what you choose and put it in the right place if you feel it does not fit.

You see the error in your statement. Lives were ruined by the perpetrator. Others that chose to cover up, or keep private, or simply ignore for whatever reasons are not the ones that did the damage, they are secondary. The focus should not be first on BSA, or local authorities that chose to say they had no proof, or not enough, or on famillies that felt the need to keep it quiet for some reason. IF the actual abuser had not done it, the others would not even be in the picture.

Where do I find the cobbler?

It seems apparent to me from the recent series of post on Bryan On Scouting that there is awareness of the ongoing concerns and need to keep the issue openly visible. Today's link is a great reminder and offers tools, again. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/04/29/five-takeaways-from-child-abuse-prevention-month/

Oh please, don not bring up actualities and what actually happens.

The idea that there is an "absolute" to keeping abuse out of the program is simply not real. That, to me, is where the train derails, as it simply not possible in the human environment. I take pause at the statements that suggest that those making bad decisions could have stopped ALL the abuse, especially in the time contnuem about which we are speaking. It still comes down to two things. NO ABUSE is acceptible, and it is impossible to take abuse out of the world unless you find a way to keep all human in separate, non interacting environments. And then we have nothing, as it is simply a utopian idea in this world and broader realities.

While there are a number of caveats in the Warren Report as to the applications and interpretations, it is fairly clear that the magnitude of things is hard to judge, as there are too many missing pieces. On the other hand, there is little other currently that delves into the subject at the level needed, and the few other bits and pieces are vague and prone to serious bias. On the other hand, the report goes into a l great deal of detail and suggests other areas of study beyond it. It is likely that any study of this difficult problem, in Scouting or outside, will encounter many inconsistencies and will be prone to the bias of the investigators to some extent. Still, the sensational approach with that infamous broad brush that often did not even get its drips stopped before application to the wall is not likely the best approach for serious consideration. And like the mess that type of painting usually leaves, there is a great amount of touching up and outright do overs. Just like the long term affects of the McMartin fiasco, once it goes to a certain point of blind panic and drama, it becomes an unfortunate overly zealous attempt to prove something beyond the actual evidence and prone to that unbalanced and narrow, partially blind crusade. Few on here would suggest that "nothing" bad happened or really write off the verifiable cases or even the likelihood that much was missed or handled badly. That is a given at this point. And the overlaps with a few other of the more blatant societal CA stories uncovered cannot be simply ignored. BSA, from my perspective, is doing and has attempted to do more than most in our fallible society and within the bounds of being human. True perfectionism is generally limited to that vague utopian concept of the misunderstood spiritual level. We will never reach that plateau, at least not in this world. Lets simply continue to use all the tools we have to lessen the probability that the abuses will recur. YP and paying attention to it is the only real way, and that goes beyond BSA and into the broader society.

Here is the link to the Warren Report: https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/youthprotection/pdf/WarrenReportSummary.pdf IF you have read it, it is not a smoking gun destroying the BSA, and it was reported to the federal government. The summary states " Taken as a whole, these data underscore the threat posed to youth by individuals who have or develop a sexual interest in children or adolescents. This is a problem that has been present throughout history yet one that has been addressed more consistently and thoughtfully throughout society over the past twenty-five years. As reflected by these data, prior to this time, Scouting involvement served a significant protective function for youth and BSA’s use of a community vetting system and a national registration system succeeded in offering youth an overwhelmingly safe environment in which to grow and develop according to the values espoused by the organization. " You can of course actually spend the time to review the entire report, and it consistently does not put the type of info that you continue to suggest, rather, it in a number of instances notes the BSA was and is a better protective youth organization. There are also data fields that indicate parents choosing to not persue things, the percentage of files that were given to authorities, and so on. I have not tracked down a recently shred study on camps that show the preponderance of abuse in various types. I posted it on this Forum, but have not found the post again yet. It also indicates that BSA is generally safer than types of camps listed in the data. So, say what you like, and make your own claims. I have offered data and links. None of my statements have EVER suggested the abuse was or is okay, nor that the Survivors or Victims should not be given some type of justice. My only claim is that the problem is one of our larger society, and indicators are that it is less of an issue with BSA, even in the past as compared to others, especially. With the enhanced YP guidelines, it should be even safer. It will NEVER be absolutely safe, just as we are never totally safe in the larger community, even as adults. I do continue to be amazed how many people simply will not look beyond their own biases in even a slightly balanced or unanced way, and choose to instead try to skew the larger picture, no matter what it is.

Once again you ignore the details. The IV files were not normal for the time, and they did take notice and began the YP efforts that were used as a model by others. But, this is a useless effort, as you know perfectly well that their less than wonderful efforts were more than was common at the time. And more recently, we have seen the stats that indicate they were not the only ones not doing their best, shown by other studies of camps ans such. Believe and say whatever makes you feel better. 🤫

Or, because they made more effort than the broader community, there were fewer fires, especially in comparison to the community overall.

Not an accurate comparison. BSA actually did more than many, though they failed in too many cases, for whatever reasons. The proverbial fire was not simply ignored, though in too many instances the efforts to not only combat, but make it less likely for another fire, were not made as they might have been, and surely still should be. That does not take away the fact they often did do the right thing and went beyond the community standards of the time in many cases.

Your pain and struggle can never be erased, even you have noted that. But, that does not remove the reality that the instigator of that pain wa one person, a predator that preyed on you, and he was part of the larger community and others, besides the BSA failed you. That is my point. That cannot be changed; but it should be part of the picture presented, to be accurate. I suspect you, and others actually understand that. This is a time when that broader brush likely should be used.