depressing campout

[Lisabob]

Heck, I'm a liberal in scouting. I'm routinely outnumbered, but that's ok. There are a few folks in the troop who love to talk politics and we do this sometimes in a fairly spirited fashion. But you have to know your conversation partners and you have to know when to draw a line. Much as I disagree with some of my fellow scouters' political views, at the end of the day we're all in scouting for the same reason and it isn't a political one.

 

THat said, I've had two experiences like you are describing. One was within my son's troop and the other was at Wood Badge. For about a year we had a parent/ASM in the troop who had all kinds of disparaging remarks to make about people from the Middle East (or really, anybody who wasn't native-born in the USA, or whose parents weren't native-born, or who looked like maybe they weren't "from here.") He was really obnoxious and he did this in front of the boys too. One time I lost my patience when he started on about some poor lady who was (gasp) daring to speak another language on her cell phone and how all those (insert nasty name) immigrants were ruining the country. I called him on it in front of all of the other adults and a few scouts. He stammered, attempted to defend himself (badly), and stomped off. Now that's not a tack I would generally take but it was just that bad, what he was saying. I think he was surprised that nobody else took up for him. He left the troop a little while later, not for that reason, but for others (he was angry about lots of things).

 

The other experience I had was in my second WB weekend, where a bunch of folks sitting around the camp fire started in on ethnic and religious slurs. They really, deeply, offended some of the Catholic scouters present. They were asked, nicely and not so nicely, to cut it out but they would not listen. Several folks ended up leaving the camp fire in disgust and unfortunately, it really colored the end of the WB experience for many of us. It certainly shined a spotlight on which scouters I would, or wouldn't, be hanging around with after WB was over with.

 

I think that you have a right to speak up. If you can do it quietly over a friendly cup of coffee the first time, that's great and maybe it will work. If there's a critical mass of jerks though, you may be in for a tougher haul. Then you need to decide if you want to subject yourself - and your son - to that sort of atmosphere every month. For me, this would be one of the relatively few issues I'd take to the CO, if the SM and committee chair were unresponsive. And if the CO took a hands-off approach, we'd be looking for a different troop.

 

 

[BrentAllen]

There is no way I would let that type of conversation go on at one of our functions. Guns and ammo, no problem, I may even be leading that one. But the other things mentioned, no way.

 

When we started our Troop, there were some people who didn't want us to succeed (take boys away from their Troop). They were telling parents that our Baptist Church wouldn't allow Jewish Scouts and families to join the Troop. This was patently false, and I took great offense (I am a member of the church). In our small Troop of 25, we have a couple of Jewish families and a couple of Hindu. Respecting each other's religions is a major lesson in Scouting. I would not allow any type of conversation or actions that made our Scouts or their families feel unwelcome.

 

We are probably 50% conservative, 25% moderate, 25% liberal. I don't discourage political discussion, but I also don't encourage it much, either. We usually have plenty of other things to talk about.

[boomerscout]

"this would be one of the relatively few issues I'd take to the CO, if the SM and committee chair were unresponsive. And if the CO took a hands-off approach"

 

this is the soccer-mom approach, and rarely works with adult men. running to your "Daddy" is apt to get you blamed as well, if not more so, for making even more trouble, stirring up things that had died down, etc.

 

the time to speak up is the instant it happens. if you feel a need to put the happy-face onto your rebuke you might consider a few classes at Toastmasters. The art of deflecting conversations to subjects more in line with Scouting is well worth learning.

[NJCubScouter]

I remember back in the last century (which it was, just barely) sitting at a pack committee meeting and hearing one of the other leaders make a remark something along the lines of the new DE being "hard to see at night." We all knew what he meant, and I couldn't believe my ears. (And this is in New Jersey, a supposed "blue" state; this sort of thing is not limited to one part of the country.) As I recall, nobody made a "scene", but several of us kind-of quietly made it clear that this kind of remark wasn't welcome -- along the lines of "come on" or "now now", "let's not have that", that sort of thing. Maybe we were too gentle. I am sure the guy would not have changed his attitude no matter what we did, but at least I do not recall any later remarks of that sort from him.

 

This is not a question of liberal vs. conservative. I am sure a lot of the guys who were "clucking" along with me were pretty conservative. It was a matter of idiocy vs. non-idiocy.

[Oak Tree]

"this is the soccer-mom approach"

 

Ok, my turn to practice speaking up. I know Lisa is completely able to defend herself, but I don't think she should have to. This type of stereotyping of other forum members is not ideal.

 

The attitude that you're referring to is certainly not limited to "soccer moms". It was a dad in my troop. Lisa even qualified the statement pretty appropriately, saying that it was one of a relatively few issues she'd take to the CO. Presumably there are some issues that you yourself might go to the CO about, aren't there?

 

the time to speak up is the instant it happens.

 

Lisa also said she would go to the CO only "if the SM and CC were unresponsive." So I'm presuming that she was indeed thinking of speaking up the instant it happened.

 

running to your "Daddy" is apt to get you blamed as well

 

Yeah, not coming across as sexist at all here... :-)

 

stirring up things that had died down

 

Again, her assumption appeared to be that it was a continuing issue that had not "died down."

 

if you feel a need to put the happy-face onto your rebuke you might consider a few classes at Toastmasters.

 

This too comes across as a little bit condescending. You may not have meant it this way at all, but the whole posting comes across as a bit sexist.

 

Can I ask you to re-read your post from a woman's point of view and see how you might view it?

[packsaddle]

So I had just finished a manuscript and was about to send it out when a new email notification popped into view...and there it was. NJCubScouter! Wow, welcome back! Where the heck have you and your sense of humor been?

 

OK, got that out of my system.

Oak Tree, give it up. On the basis of a completely unreliable, single observation (n=1) that I am completely unable to see anything from the viewpoint of a woman, I am concluding that ALL men are similarly incapable.

[kcs_hiker]

wow thanks for all the responses guys. And of course you are all right to say that I should have said something... which is at least partially why I was depressed, that I didn't have the courage to speak out. We are new to the town, and new to the troop. I'm a very active scouter and have slowly been building relationships at the district and council level through Wood Badge and district training events. However, I was told in no uncertain terms by the SM last summer at camp that our troop had no use for Wood Badge training because the last WB guy turned out to be useless. They were in the process of running him and his boy off.

 

Letting it ride is kind of the norm around here.

[Lisabob]

Wow boomer, that is *really* offensive.

 

Or anyway, it would be if it hadn't made me laugh so hard. One thing I've never been accused of is needing to "run to Daddy" when I have a problem with something. Actually I don't think I've ever been accused of attempting to hide behind a smiley face on anything, either. In fact I am pretty sure that whatever criticisms and aspersions are cast upon me usually lean in the opposite direction.

 

Sheesh. Please boomer, pause between typing and hitting submit to imagine how your message is likely going to come across.

 

 

[GernBlansten]

As a very well seasoned liberal scouter, I can tell you that it is much more fun being a liberal at these campfires than a sycophant, FoxNews quoting neanderthal. Remember, the average conservative scouter is really an easy foil.

 

Sure, there are some well reasoned conservatives and its easy to filter them out. Those are worthy of debate. For the rest, I suggest just quietly allowing them to make fools of themselves. Let them demonstrate their ignorance. Lead them into saying whats really in their hearts. Let it sink in to the rest of the flock. They do more harm to their cause by just letting them be the fools they really are.

 

If things get quiet, say something like "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." relate that to the scout law and oath. That should be worth at least another hour of postulating. One of my favorite campfire topics.

 

[Oak Tree]

packsaddle, you've got me laughing pretty good here. Touch.

 

Maybe instead I should say, "Think of some time when you were in a group where you felt like you were a new guy and there was an old boys' network, and how it might make you feel to have them speak dismissively of your group."

[packsaddle]

Oak Tree, I'm glad you understood that with the spirit that I intended it.

 

Now, I would like for all sycophant, Fox News-quoting neanderthals to identify yourselves. I dare ya.

 

Edited part: Oh heck, why not go for the brass ring? If there are any arrogant jerks, miserable slimeballs, nattering nabobs of negativity, pusillanimous pussyfooters, hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history, or effete impudent snobs out there, go ahead and identify yourselves too.

You know, after recent years I'm almost nostalgic.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[lrsap]

"....our troop had no use for Wood Badge training because the last WB guy turned out to be useless. They were in the process of running him and his boy off. "

 

Enough said. Time to leave. If there isn't another troop in the area, I'm sure there are plenty of available scouts that don;t want anything to do with these people. At least enough to start a new one.

[boomerscout]

"but the whole posting comes across as a bit sexist."

OakTree: Are you also female? When guys have a problem, they eventually work it out amongst themselves, even if it means getting in each others face a time again. I've noticed at work that women, on the other hand, seem to want to complain to the Boss. It's not sexist to say that male and female brains are wired differently.

The suggestion for Toastmaasters was serious, and Toastmasters is not sexist. There are easier ways to change a campfire conversation than the PC approach. If you hear a conversation you don't like, and you try the PC approach, likely as not you'll be told if you don't like it just leave. A little skill, on the other hand, can get any conversation headed in better directions.

Pulled from a psychology journal: "Men and women approach problems with similar goals but with different considerations. While men and women can solve problems equally well, their approach and their process are often quit different. For most women, sharing and discussing a problem presents an opportunity to explore, deepen or strengthen the relationship with the person they are talking with. Woman are usually more concerned about how problems are solved than merely solving the problem itself. For women, solving a problem can profoundly impact whether they feel closer and less alone or whether they feel distant and less connected. The process of solving a problem can strengthen or weaken a relationship. Most men are less concerned and do not feel the same as women when solving a problem.

 

Men approach problems in a very different manner than women. For most men, solving a problem presents an opportunity to demonstrate their competence, their strength of resolve, and their commitment to a relationship. How the problem is solved is not nearly as important as solving it effectively and in the best possible manner. Men have a tendency to dominate and to assume authority in a problem solving process. They set aside their feelings provided the dominance hierarchy was agreed upon in advance and respected. They are often distracted and do not attend well to the quality of the relationship while solving problems.

 

Some of the more important differences can be illustrated by observing groups of young teenage boys and groups of young teenage girls when they attempt to find their way out of a maze. A group of boys generally establish a hierarchy or chain of command with a leader who emerges on his own or through demonstrations of ability and power. Boys explore the maze using scouts while remaining in distant proximity to each other. Groups of girls tend to explore the maze together as a group without establishing a clear or dominant leader. Relationships tends to be co-equal. Girls tend to elicit discussion and employ "collective intelligence" to the task of discovering a way out. Girls tend to work their way through the maze as a group. Boys tend to search and explore using structured links and a chain of command."

What I gleaned from the original post is that this is a guy having problems with other guys. I therefore attempted to tailor my advice to guy methods of problem solving. Your hostility in that I stated the female approach to problem-solving wouldn't be the best here shows a complete lack of empathy with the problem itself just so you could be politically-correct.

No, neither I nor anyone else ever complains to our CO. I can't even imagine it happening.

 

 

[boomerscout]

"but the whole posting comes across as a bit sexist."

OakTree: Are you also female? When guys have a problem, they eventually work it out amongst themselves, even if it means getting in each others face a time again. I've noticed at work that women, on the other hand, seem to want to complain to the Boss. It's not sexist to say that male and female brains are wired differently.

The suggestion for Toastmaasters was serious, and Toastmasters is not sexist. There are easier ways to change a campfire conversation than the PC approach. If you hear a conversation you don't like, and you try the PC approach, likely as not you'll be told if you don't like it just leave. A little skill, on the other hand, can get any conversation headed in better directions.

Pulled from a psychology journal: "Men and women approach problems with similar goals but with different considerations. While men and women can solve problems equally well, their approach and their process are often quit different. For most women, sharing and discussing a problem presents an opportunity to explore, deepen or strengthen the relationship with the person they are talking with. Woman are usually more concerned about how problems are solved than merely solving the problem itself. For women, solving a problem can profoundly impact whether they feel closer and less alone or whether they feel distant and less connected. The process of solving a problem can strengthen or weaken a relationship. Most men are less concerned and do not feel the same as women when solving a problem.

 

Men approach problems in a very different manner than women. For most men, solving a problem presents an opportunity to demonstrate their competence, their strength of resolve, and their commitment to a relationship. How the problem is solved is not nearly as important as solving it effectively and in the best possible manner. Men have a tendency to dominate and to assume authority in a problem solving process. They set aside their feelings provided the dominance hierarchy was agreed upon in advance and respected. They are often distracted and do not attend well to the quality of the relationship while solving problems.

 

Some of the more important differences can be illustrated by observing groups of young teenage boys and groups of young teenage girls when they attempt to find their way out of a maze. A group of boys generally establish a hierarchy or chain of command with a leader who emerges on his own or through demonstrations of ability and power. Boys explore the maze using scouts while remaining in distant proximity to each other. Groups of girls tend to explore the maze together as a group without establishing a clear or dominant leader. Relationships tends to be co-equal. Girls tend to elicit discussion and employ "collective intelligence" to the task of discovering a way out. Girls tend to work their way through the maze as a group. Boys tend to search and explore using structured links and a chain of command."

What I gleaned from the original post is that this is a guy having problems with other guys. I therefore attempted to tailor my advice to guy methods of problem solving. Your hostility in that I stated the female approach to problem-solving wouldn't be the best here shows a complete lack of empathy with the problem itself just so you could be politically-correct.

No, neither I nor anyone else ever complains to our CO. I can't even imagine it happening.

 

 

[Oak Tree]

No, the last time I checked, I was definitely not female.

 

Toastmasters is a fine suggestion. It was the wording before it that struck me as a bit condescending.

 

And there is absolutely no doubt that men's and women's brains are wired differently.

 

I was enjoying the self-referential nature of the problem, in that you appeared to be dismissively stereotyping a group of people during a discussion of how to stop people from dismissively stereotyping a group of people.

 

I'm not trying to come across as hostile. I think, though, that you might again be participating in an interesting case of demonstrating the issue while discussing the issue. It is apparently quite difficult to get people not to be defensive when it is suggested that their comments are inappropriate.

 

Your alternative of talking directly about it rather than going to the CO is certainly a potential direction, and I have no issue with a discussion of that. I don't even have an issue with a discussion of how men and women might approach solving problems differently, although I'll point out that it's hard to go from an average for some group of people to predicting a specific response by a given individual.

 

So here I sit, bemused by the whole thing. We're all anonymous individuals on the internet. How might I best get you to at least give some thought to how your previous posting came across? How might I get you to attend to the quality of the relationships here while still trying to solve the problem? Is there any way I can get you not to try to dominate and assume authority, and not to be defensive when that authority is questioned?

 

Since you're a man, maybe not. :-)

 

Anyway, here I am, in your words, trying to "work it out amongst themselves, even if it means getting in each others face a time again." Is the problem that I'm not getting in your face aggressively enough? Somehow I doubt that would help much.

 

So, let me ask the two parallel questions, then:

How could I get you to consider that your comments (perceived as sexist) were possibly inappropriate?

How could a guy get another guy to consider that his comments (perceived as racist/homophobic) were possibly inappropriate?