Post by: Declaration Day on October 16, 2005, 12:38:11 PM
Today, I was made aware of a rule that I had never heard of.
We were meeting up in the parking lot of the kids' elementary school to go on a field trip. I had with me my two daughters, and our neighbor's daughter. I was told that I could not drive any girls, except my own, without the presence of one of the female scout leaders. This rule is applied to all men, no exceptions.
I was furious! So much so that I nearly took my girls and left. I said that the rule was not only a double standard, but that it was fundamentally wrong. In this country, we do not punish (or put on probation) people because we think there's a chance that they might commit a crime.
I put the wishes of my children first, and we went on the trip. As it turned out, I didn't even have to drive; we rode in someone else's van.
I am going to raise hell about this issue. I'd like to know what feminazi got her hands into Girl Scouting and declared all men to be pedophiles. As you might imagine, I was very insulted. But of course, by the same feminazi ideology, men's feelings don't matter.
Does anyone else think this is crazy? Should I pull my girls out of the organization? Your thoughts, please.
Post by: Guest on October 16, 2005, 12:44:06 PM
Post by: Declaration Day on October 16, 2005, 12:46:16 PM
Quote from: Barbara
The boy scouts rule is a little different: Men are acceptable but there must always be at least two adults present, of whatever gender. I would think the same rule would be appropriate for girl scouts.
But with girl scouts, it must be a woman.
Post by: telewinz on October 16, 2005, 12:50:00 PM
Post by: 280plus on October 16, 2005, 02:39:26 PM
Think of it this way. They are NOT trying to protect the child from you. They are trying to protect YOU from false allegations of impropriety by the child. That's the way I understood it. It wouldn't be the first time a kid was po'd at an adult and made false accusations for revenge. Those accusations even if proven to be false (hard without a witness) would haunt you for the rest of your days.
Sad but true.
I'll tell you another sad but true. Most of the adults involved were MOMS. Not a whole lot of Dads participating in what used to be a father / son thing. It's led to a general wussification of the Boy Scouts IMHO.
Post by: Declaration Day on October 16, 2005, 03:44:23 PM
I have a problem with the fact that, in our girl scout troop, there is a double standard for men. Women can be alone with the girls, but men must be accompanied by a woman.
Post by: Standing Wolf on October 16, 2005, 04:34:01 PM
Quote
I have a problem with the fact that, in our girl scout troop, there is a double standard for men. Women can be alone with the girls, but men must be accompanied by a woman.
How better to teach girls to distrust men?
Post by: 280plus on October 17, 2005, 01:11:00 AM
Quote
Women can be alone with the girls, but men must be accompanied by a woman.
Yea. I'd have a problem with that myself. That's pretty much "sexual discrimination". (CORRECTION: GENDER discrimination) I'd make it very clear to them what I think of their policies at one of their board meetings. I'd want to know why they are discriminating against men. I'd also make it very clear to them that I would be taking my child as well as whatever special talents I had to offer elsewhere in response to these policies. Given the kind of BS I had to put up with dealing with other people and their brats in the world of the Boy Scouts I suggest you won't be missing much. IMHO if the policy was "no ADULT may be alone with a child" that's one thing but when they proclaim that only MALE adults are not allowed to be alone with them they are stepping over the line. I guess the question is, how much of a fuss would you like to make of it and is it worth your time? Having a daughter of my own I would have had a big problem with these people had I ever run up against this "policy". Fortunately, she has never expressed any interest in them.After a few years of Boy Scout BS I figured out I really didn't need them to take my kids camping and hiking anyways and have had nothing to do with the organization since. I consider it their loss.
Honsetly, if a guy with no kids came off the street aand tried to involve himself in EITHER organization I'd be a little leary but the FATHER of one of the children? That's sending the wrong message. "All males are evil and can't be trusted" Is that what you want them to teach your kid?
Post by: gaston_45 on October 17, 2005, 06:54:26 AM
Women have it easy, it doesn't matter what sex the kids are, they go in with mom. Try taking two girls into a men's room sometime and see how fast you are reported! Can't go into a women's room with them for obvious reasons. You want to see some wierd looks? Wait for your daughters outside a restroom sometime. Mine are 4 and 6, the oldest is old enough to go to the restroom by herself, but if I turn the youngest loose she likes playing in the water in the sink and I have to find some strange woman to send in and get her out.
That's just one instance, you get the same looks a lot of other places too. Anymore it is just easier to avoid going to most places then to deal with being turned in to security everytime the kids have to use a restroom in public. It's time to take the feminist crap out of government and public institutions.
Post by: 280plus on October 17, 2005, 07:34:12 AM
Then there's the female psychologist. When I first met Rachel (step daughter) she had major mistrust of men because they would come, mess with mom for awhile, use the kid to get close to Mom and then disappear. So she basically didn't want me around. She wouldn't let me hug her and stuff with the idea that it would somehow make me go away. So she tells the female pshychologist that she doesn't like me touching her. It immediately turns into "Well, where and HOW is he touching you?" God forbid a guy should give a young girl a hug or any other form of innocent physical affection. It MUST be sexual in nature, can't be anything else. So I went for at LEAST a year where I was "forbidden" to touch her in any way and had to maintain my "space" from her. What a load of doo doo. I'd venture these psychologist's and their current trends are doing more to DAMAGE family relations than to normalize them. After she got used to the idea that I wasn't going to go away things did change and we have a much better relationship. She's still a teenage girl PITA but as she gets older she's doing much better.
Post by: Winston Smith on October 17, 2005, 02:10:55 PM
PS: Umm... yeah, guys haven't been allowed to be alone with girls they are not married to for pretty much all of civiliization. To blame it on "feminazis" is pretty ludicrous. The fact that now people of similar age and dissimilar genders can congregate freely is something relatively new. Maybe it'll take a little longer for dissimilar age and dissimilar gender people to be able to.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on October 17, 2005, 04:19:46 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on October 17, 2005, 04:38:21 PM
Are all or the majority of men pedophiles? Heck no! Are the majority of pedophiles men (or teenage boys), yeah, I think so. Even perfectly normal men (from a psychiatric standpoint) are a lot greater a danger to sexually developed but underage girls than the obverse I think. The same applies for homosexual men and boy scouts or similarly intimate scenarios's - if I had a son I wouldn't want him sharing a tent with a homosexual man - just as I wouldn't want my daughter sharing a tent with a straight man.
The psychologist business about pushing your daughter (I'm assuming biological daughter) away when she wants to hug or kiss you sounds like a load of crap to me. Maybe if you have a step-daughter that already has sexual issues. Definitely pushing away from everybody else's daughters is just good sense
... Dont stand, dont stand so
Dont stand so close to me
Loose talk in the classroom
To hurt they try and try
Strong words in the staffroom
The accusations fly...
Post by: 280plus on October 17, 2005, 04:45:38 PM
I just think the whole thing is a sad commentary on today's society.
I tell you something else, if belonging to and participating in an organization puts me at such a risk of false accusation and character assasination (sp?), I'd prefer to not belong to the organization. Which, incidentally, was one of the main reasons I left the BSA. I'd rather not put myself at such risk. The other reason(s) were only about 20% of the adults participated. The rest thought we were a babysitting service. Which was still ok, cause it was for the kids. The clincher though is neither the vast majority of the parents NOR THEIR CHILDREN appreciated your efforts. Some of those kids were miserable little bastards and their parents weren't too far behind. That's what sewed it up for me.
Sorry I'm venting a little. 10 or so years later and it STILL ticks me off!
Post by: Stand_watie on October 17, 2005, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: 280plus
None of this stuff started with the Boy Scouts until they started finding out it was becoming a haven for male on young boy pedophiles. So they may SAY that lawsuits and protecting your reputation is the reasoning but I'm guessing there's more to it than that. I have no ongoing history with the Girl Scouts so I can't tell you what the policies were 35 years ago or whether this policy is more recent. I'd be interested to hear from somebody who CAN tell me these things.
I just think the whole thing is a sad commentary on today's society.
I tell you something else, if belonging to and participating in an organization puts me at such a risk of false accusation and character assasination (sp?), I'd prefer to not belong to the organization. Which, incidentally, was one of the main reasons I left the BSA. I'd rather not put myself at such risk. The other reason(s) were only about 20% of the adults participated. The rest thought we were a babysitting service. Which was still ok, cause it was for the kids. The clincher though is neither the vast majority of the parents NOR THEIR CHILDREN appreciated your efforts. Some of those kids were miserable little bastards and their parents weren't too far behind. That's what sewed it up for me.
Sorry I'm venting a little. 10 or so years later and it STILL ticks me off!
I'll add something to my opinion on this. We live in a world where child sex abuse is so common that being alone with other people's kids period puts you at risk for false accusations, not just by parents but by abused (by other people) and neglected kids who are so desperate for attention they'll say and do anything to get it.
I just think the whole thing is a sad commentary on today's society.
I tell you something else, if belonging to and participating in an organization puts me at such a risk of false accusation and character assasination (sp?), I'd prefer to not belong to the organization. Which, incidentally, was one of the main reasons I left the BSA. I'd rather not put myself at such risk. The other reason(s) were only about 20% of the adults participated. The rest thought we were a babysitting service. Which was still ok, cause it was for the kids. The clincher though is neither the vast majority of the parents NOR THEIR CHILDREN appreciated your efforts. Some of those kids were miserable little bastards and their parents weren't too far behind. That's what sewed it up for me.
Sorry I'm venting a little. 10 or so years later and it STILL ticks me off!
Post by: 280plus on October 18, 2005, 01:13:27 AM
1. Being alone with and / or in charge of other people's kids.
2. Being alone with and / or in charge of other peoples cash registers.
Post by: Declaration Day on October 18, 2005, 01:44:06 AM
Quote from: Winston Smith
Declaration: Is this about you, or is it about your kids?
Well, it is about me and my desire to not be "watched" because of some statistic about pedophiles.I thought I made my point quite clear.
I don't need a lecture about what percentages of pedophiles are men.
I fully understand the reason for the "two adults present" policy.
My problem is that the rule is biased against men.
If you'd read my posts and understand them, you *might* not feel the need to reply with condescending remarks.
Besides, if parents are concerned about who is going to be driving / associating with their kids, then they should take the time to get to know the other parents in the scout troop. That is a parent's job anyway, right?
Post by: 280plus on October 18, 2005, 01:52:47 AM
Quote
Well, it is about me and my desire to not be "watched" because of some statistic about pedophiles.
There's enough stress to go with any position in these organizations. Noone needs the added stress of worrying about being confronted with any false accusations or the misinterpretation of an innocent act if they are not walking on eggs every moment.Quote
The psychologist business about pushing your daughter (I'm assuming biological daughter) away when she wants to hug or kiss you sounds like a load of crap to me
Just for the record, as I have stated earlier she is NOT my biological daughter, but I don't recognize the difference. Mr psychologist WAS however talking to other men in reference to their biological daughters. Actually, I felt like he had a few problems of his own. I also feel the female psychologist has her own issues with men. They say they have no choice, they need to be "careful". I say at the risk of damaging an already tenuous family relationship? She set the development of a normalized relationship with my step daughter back a year or so with her input. Is that her job? The kid was playing her like a piano. She (the kid) was looking for a way to drive a wedge between myself and mommy and she used that woman like an old sock. Even when I pointed this out to the supposedly educated child "expert" she refused to accept it. I don't want to drift any father away from the original topic now and I apologize for doing so in the first place.
Post by: SalukiFan on October 18, 2005, 08:46:07 AM
"Yeah, men are about 300% more likely to molest children than women but that doesn't mean men should be treated any differently than women around children! We are being discriminated against!!!"
You guys, with the exception of Stand_watie, sound so, well, P.C.!
Its just funny because I picture many of you as people who would be outraged if the TSA pulled a little old lady out of line at an airport for an extra security check and let young Arab guys through.
But before everyone flames me, let me say that I agree with you that it is not the best policy for the Girl Scouts to be following. The Girls Scouts do eliminate a lot of risk through this policy and I havent ever heard anything about any molestation scandals with them, but this policy has too great of a negative impact. I agree that if they are going to have such a policy, the policy should be "two adults" at all times, not just when it comes to men.
Girls need to be taught to be discriminating about men, not to fear all men as potential rapists, murderers and child molesters. Are males more likely than females to molest children? Yes, about 80-90% of child molesters are male. Are all men just looking for an opportunity to molest children? Of course not!
We need to teach children practical skills to tell the wolves from the sheepdogs and to identify threats. Unfortunately, more and more children are growing up without fathers or other male role models and too many women are quick to instill fear and distrust of men in their children. Girls that are raised this way often wind up either dating/marrying a succession of creeps and then complain that all men are scum or, if they miraculously identify and marry a nice guy and then spend their lives making that guy miserable.
Instilling indiscriminate fear of all men could screw up these girls for life. Its much better to limit childrens risk through having more supervision and structuring activities in such a way that children cant be isolated and preyed upon. I sympathize with you guys who have to worry about the suspicions of others when all you want to do is help some kids. Nobody wants to have to walk on eggshells and worry about sexual abuse accusations. I hope that the Girl Scouts would consider changing their policy. Maybe then the girls in scouting would have the opportunity to interact with decent men and learn who the good guys are!
Post by: Declaration Day on October 18, 2005, 12:04:50 PM
I was afraid that I might sound too "PC". I assure you that it was not my intention. I am not calling the ACLU over this issue, nor are you going to see my face on the news leading a crusade.
Great post, by the way.
Post by: 280plus on October 18, 2005, 12:24:54 PM
Quote
"Yeah, men are about 300% more likely to molest children than women but that doesn't mean men should be treated any differently than women around children! We are being discriminated against!!!"
To me it's no more PC than saying some people do bad things with guns so ALL people with guns are bad. Again we see the vast majority of innocent taken to task over the actions of a few criminals. Anyhoo, I wasn't intending to sound PC but if I did I'll file it under , "OOPS, MY BAD!!" 
Post by: Guest on October 18, 2005, 02:52:56 PM
Post by: Guest on October 18, 2005, 03:41:55 PM
Why not bring it up to your scout leader or with the Council?
Post by: Guest on October 18, 2005, 04:09:10 PM
Post by: Strings on October 18, 2005, 05:55:13 PM
Ummm... just a small thing, really. Those percentages are based on the cases THAT ARE REPORTED. You have two factors working there: the reluctance most kids feel twords reporting in the first place (especially if the abuse is contrary to their sexual orientation). The second is societal: the difference between boys and girls...
An adolescent boy, seduced by an older woman, would be seen as "just getting lucky" in many areas of the country, whereas switching the genders results in a "dirty old man". This dichotomy essentially says: "young girls are less capable than young boys, not as mature, more easily manipulated". Even if the system wouldn't see it that way, their PEERS would (and would probably give unholy hell to the boy who complained)...
I've heard rumors of girls deciding to drop Scouts, without EVER giving reasons. MANY girls. And, were *I* a female pedophile, Girl Scouts would be prime hunting grounds... ESPECIALLY with the above mentioned rule. Remember: we call pedophiles "predators" for a reason. And ANY predator goes where it has easiest access to it's chosen prey...
Post by: SalukiFan on October 18, 2005, 06:06:12 PM
Quote from: Declaration Day
Salukifan:
I was afraid that I might sound too "PC". I assure you that it was not my intention. I am not calling the ACLU over this issue, nor are you going to see my face on the news leading a crusade.
Totally understood. I threw the PC comment in mostly as a joke. I was afraid that I might sound too "PC". I assure you that it was not my intention. I am not calling the ACLU over this issue, nor are you going to see my face on the news leading a crusade.
Quote from: Declaration Day
Great post, by the way.
Thank you. I feel strongly that girls need to be taught to be able to discriminate between the creeps of the world and real men. The Girl Scouts are trying to protect girls in their way but sheltering them isn't going to help them as much as they hope it will.I was a Girl Scout years ago, my mother was an assistant troop leader and I've volunteered with them in the past as an adult. Some Girl Scout leaders and staff are reasonable people, some are a little loopy but well-meaning and a few are nuts. Overall though, I think if you make an argument that having a two adult rule will make the girls even safer, they would be persuaded by that logic. Good luck!
Post by: 280plus on October 19, 2005, 01:29:37 AM
Post by: Guest on October 19, 2005, 02:35:48 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Does anyone else miss the days when the only sexual misconduct to worry about was that the Boy Scouts stayed on their side of the lake and the Girl Scouts stayed on theirs?
Those days never actually happened, people just pretended that bad things didnt happen and swept any abberant behavior under the rug. Ignoring the problem did not make it better.
Post by: 280plus on October 19, 2005, 03:06:54 AM
While I agree with you that it WAS happening I contend the incidents have increased and it's not that we are "more aware" now. I understand the need for such policies, although I do believe it's about lawsuits against the organization more than anything.
I just think it's a shame that such policies need to be in place. It detracts from the whole experience.
My apologies for longing for a simpler time.
Gee, I've been awfully apologetic in this thread! SORRY!!
Post by: Guest on October 19, 2005, 03:32:12 AM
Quote from: 280plus
No adult I spent time alone with regarding Boy Scouts in the late 60's to early 70's ever approached me inappropriately.
Most boyscouts today would say the exact same thing about their scouting experience, it has never been a common occurance.The fact is that during the past weird sex crimes were simply not reported, either to police or in the press. Today that are the *favorite* material of the media, and there is no longer any taboo regarding involvment of the authorites. I have yet to see any actual evidence to indicate that this problem has actually gotten worse in any way.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 19, 2005, 06:14:41 AM
Quote from: c_yeager
Quote from: 280plus
No adult I spent time alone with regarding Boy Scouts in the late 60's to early 70's ever approached me inappropriately.
Most boyscouts today would say the exact same thing about their scouting experience, it has never been a common occurance.The fact is that during the past weird sex crimes were simply not reported, either to police or in the press. Today that are the *favorite* material of the media, and there is no longer any taboo regarding involvment of the authorites. I have yet to see any actual evidence to indicate that this problem has actually gotten worse in any way.
No offense to the step-dad's and moms on the boards. I'm sure you love your stepkids like they were your biological own, but your doing so is despite nature rather than because of it (and in fact it takes a lot better a person to do so than it does to love your own biological flesh and blood).
While people are certainly more capable of overiding their own natural urges than lions, watch the discovery channel and see what a new daddy does when he takes over the pride..he kills the young males and copulates with the young females as soon as they're old enough - which the bio-dad didn't do.
Most child abuse takes place in the home. Genuine incest and physical abuse against your kids is the ultimate taboo against the concience, incest with a step-child is another link down the chain. Sex with a girlfriend's daughter is another step away, sex with the neighborhood ho's daughter is another step away, and sex with the kids of the folks you buy crack from and occasionally crash on their couch is yet another step away.
A child sex crimes investigator said to me (and I'm sure he was overstating the case for emphasis, but there can be truth in hyperbole), "it's always the f***** boyfriend, the newspapers always say 'father', but it's always some guy the woman's sleeping with, not really the kid's dad".
Post by: roo_ster on October 19, 2005, 07:04:04 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
And, were *I* a female pedophile, Girl Scouts would be prime hunting grounds... ESPECIALLY with the above mentioned rule. Remember: we call pedophiles "predators" for a reason. And ANY predator goes where it has easiest access to it's chosen prey...
The GSA is infested with lesbians up & down the organization. Yes, they do prey on some of the girls in their care. No girl of mine will be alone with any single adult, whatever sex, in the GSA.
Post by: SalukiFan on October 19, 2005, 07:59:58 AM
Quote from: jfruser
The GSA is infested with lesbians up & down the organization. Yes, they do prey on some of the girls in their care. No girl of mine will be alone with any single adult, whatever sex, in the GSA.
OMG! Lesbians! I thought I sprayed for those! 
Here I thought we were having a nice little conversation about how it's wrong to assume adults who are attracted to adult women are likely to be interested in sexually abusing children. The two adults policy just makes sense but let's not cast aspersions on others.
Edit - Added emoticon and explanation
Post by: Declaration Day on October 19, 2005, 10:14:09 AM
If a girl scout were alone with one woman, as the rules allow, certainly that woman could hit or swear at the child, or atleast be accused of it.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 19, 2005, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: Declaration Day
I would like to make another point about this topic. So far, we've only spoken about sexual abuse. But a child could also claim that and adult hit her, or used foul language in front of her, both of which could be grounds for a lawsuit these days.
If a girl scout were alone with one woman, as the rules allow, certainly that woman could hit or swear at the child, or atleast be accused of it.
Or a lot worse. I'll be politically incorrect for the other side now. Women as a general trait (sweeping generalities here, perhaps lantern jawed lebians lean more toward the masculine traits than I do myself, and Christopher Lowell more feminine than my wife), are a lot more trusting than men - especially with intimate partners. A woman (who genuinely cares about right/wrong) alone with a girl is a lot more likely I think than a man (with the same amount of concern for child welfare) to trust her boyfriend/dad/son/brother to "just watch the girls for a minute while I put the dog out" than a man is with his buddy/son/dad/etc.If a girl scout were alone with one woman, as the rules allow, certainly that woman could hit or swear at the child, or atleast be accused of it.
The two adult rule would make better sense all around.
After rereading I'd like to add another edit. "Lantern jawed lesbians" is probably offensive to some people, but it was the best descripor I could think at the time for women (and definitely not neccesarily lesbians) who are born with physical traits that hollywood has taught us belong exclusively to men. Also a lot of women (a number in my family) are what I'd call 'intellectually masculine', meaning they brook no bull***, use 'east' and 'west' when giving directions, are assertive, can buy a car and get a good deal with no help from a man etc. Two of my aunts (who are definitely straight) are "spinsters" because societal mores wouldn't let them be that way and still land a masculine man (also didn't help that they didn't attempt to hide that they were highly intelligent and not willing to settle for losers).
My point to the edit meaning that when I said above "sweeping generalities" I meant very generalized traits rather than the sex of a person neccessarily determining their psyche.
Post by: 280plus on October 19, 2005, 11:52:04 AM
Quote
So far, we've only spoken about sexual abuse. But a child could also claim that an adult hit her, or used foul language in front of her, both of which could be grounds for a lawsuit these days.
Yes that IS a good point. I had experience with one violently abusive scoutmaster in the younger scout days, he was quickly relieved when word got around. As a matter of fact he was the ONLY adult with the troop on the campout where the most serious of his actions took place. That could never take place today as there must be at least 2 adults or there will be no campout, hike etc...Quite the mixed bag of issues I'd say.