Parent Behavior

[Vicki]

"you just don't touch women you don't know really well. How 'bout we just say you don't touch people you 'don't' know really well?"

 

Missed a "don't" in there, too late to edit...

 

Vicki

[boomerscout]

Jack has done his penance, and deserves to return. He might be shown the posts in this forum while talking to him over coffee. A "front rub" is sexual harassment, for sure, but a back rub? You've never had a salesman or a minister put a friendly arm around your shoulder while talking to you? Most women I know can do a two step twirl out of the embrace while saying "No". They don't go off the deep end over it. Or, was more than a backrub involved?

The rafting "incident" was obviously water-fight horseplay. I'm surprised it was even mentioned.

[evmori]

OK. Jack has served his time. He does deserve a 2nd chance but should be on a short leash! What I mean is one more time, and Bang Pow Zowie he's gone.

[sandspur]

Well, I guess I was the poster who used the term backrubs, which admittedly has a connotation of a specific type of touching. To be clear, the OP wrote rubbing their backs while licking his lips, lingering over a bra clasp while rubbing a parent's back, lingering a bit too long with a "hello" hug, etc.

Sure, there may be a lot of excuses. He is an affectionate guy, he may not have a sense of personal space etc. etc.

Still, I have limited tolerance for these excuses. Jack is not a 22-year old. If he has a son in second year scouts it is fair to assume he is at least in his thirties. No fewer that four women in the troop found his behavior objectionable. So, either he acts this way in scouts but nowhere else (unlikely) or he has had plenty of opportunity to learn what the boundaries are. So, I find it hard to believe that he was truly surprised by the reaction to his behavior. One woman, sure, it could be a misunderstanding. Four? Never heard it before in the 13 or more years since he has been an adult?

But we all seem agreed. The committee ruled on a one year suspension. It was served. Jack should be back. If the committee goes back on its word, they are acting in bad faith and not supporting scout ideals. Jacks son suffers because his dad is not there for him when he wants to be. Dont let this happen. As for Mike, he should do what is best for the scouts, which is to let Jack back in.

 

[kcs_hiker]

and of course, what Jack did may have got turned into something sinister by one person and spread throughout the rest of the adults via gossip and the fact that Jack is unpopular/undesirable. The suspension was passed down in hopes that he would go away. It hasn't worked... now what?

[NancyB]

A woman's point of view: there are backrubs and then there are backrubs. Us women can tell by body language which is innocent and which is not. But describing it in writing is kinda tough. By reading the original post I can visualize exactly what this guy was doing. and it wasn't right. this day and age, any man with a job has learned what types of backrubs and touching are innappropriate.

 

As far as some of the women not saying anything - well, scouting is still a guy's world and women who are "intruding" have learned not to rock the boat or canoe. If we say anything, we're a whiny woman who doesn't belong. Sorry guys, for those of us who work in a male dominated field, we have learned that sometimes speaking up makes it tougher on us. Sometimes we are so surprised or caught off guard that by such an unexpected action that we don't react quickly enough. Sometimes we second guess our reactions to what was done - as in, did he really do that or did I imagine it? etc. so it does make it tougher for women to report something like this. I used to investigate sexual harassment complaints for a large company (male dominated work force), so I can understand the reluctance of a lot of women to make an issue of something. Also, once one woman does make a complaint, a lot of others will usually come forward b/c if they see that if it is handled appropriately, they feel safer in speaking up. It isn't a case of jumping on the bandwagon, but a lot of women are still afraid to speak up b/c they don't want any backlash on them.

 

My feeling is that he served his time. but before he comes back, have whatever group do a sit down with him and explain that he is on a one strike deal. I would also have a meeting of all the parents to explain why he is coming back so that they are all on the same page as to why etc. or else you are going to have to deal with the gossip and speculations. they might think that such behavior is allowed in your group and you might have even more upset parents. If you leave it unsaid, you might lose others who go quietly away, which would be a bigger loss than just Mike.

 

as far as the boat issue - handled and done. All adults have moments of stupidity. The parents need to move on unless he has a similar moment of stupidity. If that is the case, then it's a parent who doesn't understand the difference between horseplay and dangerous behavior.

 

Mike needs to make his own decision as to whether he can live with the group decision. It's not about his need to follow the scout oath. The scout oath does not require we forgive and forget things like this. If he put his hand on a woman and the touch was unwanted - it's not just harassment, it's an assault. We were not there to observe the entire situation to see just how far he crossed the line. We don't know how Mike's wife felt when she was put into this situation. Does she feel safe in going to a scout function with him around? we don't know the answers to these questions, but I would bet that Mike does. So kudos to Mike for protecting his wife's honor. But it is still his decision as to what he feels is best for him and his family and his decision needs to be respected.

[sandspur]

KCS hiker wrote: The suspension was passed down in hopes that he would go away. It hasn't worked... now what?

 

Now, you take him back.

 

If the committee intended a permanent ban, they should have said so. They said one year, so thats what it is.

 

We are told there have been no further incidents to date.

If the committee now does not allow Jack to return, it goes back on its word with no further incidents or evidence to justify it. That is not trustworthy.

And I still maintain the focus should be on the scouts, not the adults. Jacks son is still in the troop and is a second year scout. If his dad is not allowed to participate when he clearly wants to, what will he tell his son is the reason? If he is always busy at work his son will soon detect the lie. The son will probably conclude dad doesnt want to participate with his son. How can this not hurt the son? Will you force the son out because of what his dad did? He may have to go to another troop to be with his dad so that is in effect forcing the innocent son out of the troop.

 

NancyB: I agree with what you said but not the meeting of all parents to discuss this. We dont know how widespread this knowledge is in the troop, especially among new parents. A public meeting will be impossible to keep quiet. The scouts will almost certainly find out. Rumors will be fueled, not spiked. Others will not think such behavior is allowed (as you fear) because, if they know about it at all, they also know he was suspended for a year.

 

[JoeBob]

1- You MUST allow Jack back, or you've broken your word. Let him know he's on probation, and he'll probably avoid all the women so as not be accidentally bumped into one.

2- Teach the ladies to shoot.

[Vicki]

Thanks JoeBob - succinct and bang on (so to speak)!

 

Vicki

 

(This message has been edited by Vicki)

[prairie]

Was looking up something else and found this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frotteurism

Not gonna say thats his proablem but if it's something like this

he will have to learn whole new levals of self control to

fit in again. The boat incident could be unrelated.

Hope the fallout from what ever happens is minor.

[Vicki]

Oh, for crying out loud Prairie! I'm not even sure how to respond - this is so far over the top.

 

Vicki

[NancyB]

maybe just a meeting of those parents who had the complaints about the rubbing etc to let them know that it was addressed (don't need to go into any details) and is taken seriously and to tell them to report it if it happens again? I was just thinking that maybe if they don't know what happened, they may think it is not taken seriously and leave the troop. Hate for families to leave due to miscommunication.

 

As for the "definition" --- he wouldn't be touching and rubbing if he didn't get something out of it!!!! Maybe not a disorder or something like that, but I'm sure he has a reason to touch......

[ScoutNut]

There is no need for a meeting with any of the "back-rubbed" individuals at this point. It has been over a year since any of this happened.

 

The man has bent over backwards to accomodate all this Troop has asked of him. He has appoligised to everyone involved, and has stayed out of his son's Scout life for one entire year. Now, why I don't know, but he says he "likes" this Troop, and he wishes to stay and get involved with his son.

 

Personally, if they continue their ban, I think he should find a different Troop for his family ASAP and not look back. His family will be better off away.