Comments on: Projection, anyone?

By: Oddserver

Oddserver — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:07:04 +0000

Just two quick points. Many of us here in Berkeley believe that Mr. Evans is not guilty of the charges, and may have been set up. The vitriol being thrown at him makes no sense — unless he is found guilty. As for the lawsuit — all Gene tried to do was maintain status quo, after the City made an example out of the group. The Berkeley Sea Scouts had been flying under the BSA’s radar for years as a loosely associated group under the Sea Scout umbrella…. In the pissing match between Berkeley and the Boy Scouts, Mr. Evans and his group were really just something to be peed on. I don’t argue the passion and instinct to protect that I see here — but I’m not convinced that this incident is an appropriate target for so much hostility.

By: Mnemosyne

Mnemosyne — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:56:29 +0000

When dealing with male survivors, especially male survivors of female offender sex crimes, appearances of feminist hatred of male survivors are more than crucial. There can be no understanding without first understanding the violence of the appearance.

I’m still trying to figure out why pointing out the loudest hypocrites are usually perpetrators (as this guy was) is bashing male survivors of sex crimes. Or are you trying to say that this abuse was no big deal compared to a boy being abused by a woman, which means you’re — you guessed it — saying these kids aren’t “real” victims and diminishing what happened to them.

By: PG

PG — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:04:44 +0000

OK, but could you explain where even this appearance of HATRED is coming from among feminists? I don’t feel an obligation to take people’s claims even about appearances as true when they state them as fact. If someone says, “I *feel* like feminists hate male survivors of female crimes,” I’d say, “Wow, I’m sorry you feel that way about feminists. Could you tell me what causes that feeling?” If someone says, “Feminists normally and typically hate male survivors,” I’m going to call bullshit.

By: jwwells

jwwells — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:05:12 +0000

PG et al: You may have heard the phrase “sometimes appearances are more important than facts.” There are such times, many of them.

When dealing with male survivors, especially male survivors of female offender sex crimes, appearances of feminist hatred of male survivors are more than crucial. There can be no understanding without first understanding the violence of the appearance.

No one here or anywhere in the blogosphere (or even the wider society) can wave a magic wand and take away the appearance of hatred of male survivors coming out of feminist political and social-action groups. Or from the media for that matter.

If people would simply LISTEN instead of TELLING there could be some communication and from that some healing. Yet, it so sadly seems that no one wearing the feminist label is willing to listen …

By: PG

PG — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:58:31 +0000

Jill, do you ever look at blog posts and wish they were subject to law journal standards? Then someone would make Toy Soldier actually find a source for his claims that feminists do such-and-such before he hit “publish.”

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:55:52 +0000

Oooh lookie – misogyinst MRA trackbacks. Always good for a laugh.

Ugh. I know I shouldn’t respond, but I just can’t help it.

By: Betty Boondoggle

Betty Boondoggle — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:17:58 +0000

Oooh lookie – misogyinst MRA trackbacks. Always good for a laugh.

By: A Dose of Stupid v.7 « Toy Soldiers

A Dose of Stupid v.7 « Toy Soldiers — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:09:32 +0000

[...] Over on Feministe Jill has an interesting thread concerning a boy scout leader who has been pounding his chest over allowing “them gays and atheists” into the ever-so-holy bastion that is the Boy Scouts. She writes: Projection, anyone? [...]

By: sarah

sarah — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:04:56 +0000

this is why I’m happy that I live in Philadelphia, where the Scouts got booted out of their $1-a-year public building because their anti-gay policy doesn’t mesh with the city’s anti-discrimination laws.

ok, it doesn’t stop them from existing or from hiring pedophiles, but still.

By: Kat

Kat — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:58:51 +0000

As a parent, the dilemma is finding safe activities for your child. Anywhere you find children, you will find child abusers. Its hard to keep your kids out of every activity, especially as they get older. You can opt out of scouting, but what about soccer, math club, after-school homework help, field trips? And so then the question becomes how do you protect them when they participate. And how do you empower them to protect themselves without freaking them out.

Most kid’s activities, including scouting, have rules for adults designed to create obstacles to any potential abuser. Someone who is trying to gain access to children will try to circumvent the rules. The duty of the leadership is to be vigilant that these rules are followed by all their leaders no matter how well-respected or liked.

I wonder in the case of the article how exactly the man gained access to the boys. Clearly, he was in violation of the organization’s own rules (being alone with any child for any reason is against the rules and grounds for expulsion from leadership–even if you just offer to give the kid a ride home, etc.). And I wonder, based on my own experiences, if the leadership knew that he was breaking the rules and just looked the other way? Were any parent complaints ignored because they didn’t want to cause trouble for the man?

Like many kid-centered organizations, scouting has a zero tolerance policy for abuse and rules in place to prevent abuse, but its means squat if its not enforced/followed.