The Girl Scouts, the Loyal Wife, and “Wisconsin Sickness”

Just what I want to see on my daughter's Girl Scout troop leader's husband's website! And you?

The Girl Scouts have been going through a strange period lately. There was the controversy over a transgender troop member, a boy who identified as a girl.  Then it was revealed that the organization’s literature was promoting Media Matters as a means of civic education.  This, however, takes the cake.

Stacy Hintz, a 28-year-old mother from West Bend, Wisconsin,was removed from her volunteer position as a Girl Scout troop leader because of her husband’s website. The site is called Wisconsin Sickness, is slick, professional, unique, and 100% batty. Here is its introduction:

“Whatever the reason, there is a deep and passionate psychosis that runs through the unstable synapses of those of us from Wisconsin, land of serial killers and cannibals. And we’re proud of it. Wisconsin Sickness, a Mental Shed project, is all about bringing the independent, underground Wisconsin scene together and spreading the sickness like a virus.”

And really, that’s nothing: wait until you see the site, which, among other things, celebrates Ed Gein, the serial killer/cannibal/necrophiliac whose horrific crimes and, uh, interior decorating style inspired “Psycho,” “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre,” and dozens of lesser horror films.

My rule is that it is unfair to punish or penalize one spouse for the other spouse’s occupation, conduct, opinions or transgressions, unless there is pro-active support and endorsement bordering on mutual participation, and the spouse is in a position where judgment and character matters. Still, there are limits: I’m not going to judge the Jewish Women’s Cotillion harshly for rejecting Eva Braun’s membership, are you? There is a point where the cognitive dissonance is too much, and it is expecting too much for normal people to get past it. We have experience. We know what legitimate warning signs look like.

The U.S. government is not going to give the highest security clearance to the wife of a convicted spy or a vocal advocate for the overthrow of our government no matter how squeaky clean her record is, and that makes perfect sense to me. And speaking of squeaky, if a Secret Service agent falls in love with and marries Squeaky Fromme, that agent is not getting assigned to the President, and I don’t care if he is Clint Eastwood, it’s not happening...and shouldn’t. Should Clint be fired because his wife tried to kill Gerald Ford? Absolutely not. But his odd choice of spouse creates legitimate doubts about how far he can be trusted.

If I have a daughter in the Girl Scouts, I am not going to be comfortable with her having a troop leader whose nearest and dearest spends his time and passion writing and thinking about serial killers, cannibals, mayhem, and the darkest reaches of the human soul. Maybe I watch too much “Criminal Minds”—okay, I DO watch too much “Criminal Minds”, but the fact remains that if something horrible happened, and it turned out that Mrs. Hintz was part of sick cult that entrapped young girls to be menu items for her husband’s mutant friends, I would never forgive myself. This is the Girl Scouts, and it is reasonable to want young girls as far away from the shadow of Ed Gein as possible. I’d want another troop leader for my daughter. She’s not a bus driver or a plumber, she’s a leader, a role model and a mentor, and the man she lives with celebrates mayhem.

This is an ethical conflict, where two ethical principles are in opposition. If one wins, the other loses. Hintz is a volunteer, not an employee, and that tips the scales for me. Responsibility and prudence, mine, trumps fairness to her.

I agree with the Girl Scouts.

[Thanks to Rick Jones–I think—for flagging this.]

138 thoughts on “The Girl Scouts, the Loyal Wife, and “Wisconsin Sickness”

  1. It is sad how far scouting has fallen. Several years ago, I had to vote to throw a Boy Scout troop out of our church. That may sound terrible, and it was. Members of the scout troop had set two fires in the church (and engaged in some other questionable activities) and then the Scoutmasters were accused of covering up the incidents. The deciding factors in the decision to ask them to leave were the obvious lack of supervision of the scouts by their leaders, the blatant lies the scoutmasters told the church committee, and the holier-than-thou and outrageously disrespectful attitude of said Scoutmasters. I later found out we were the third church to throw them out, but the Boy Scouts still refused to remove the Scoutmasters.

    I’m glad to see the Girl Scouts found the courage to do the right thing.

    • And yet—on the Huffington Post where I first saw the story, about 70% of its readers said the Scouts did the WRONG thing. 70%! I have concluded that I cannot begin to comprehend how people like this speak.

  2. Jack, I read about this last week, and perhaps you missed some of the background. The problem the GS had with the leader was not the website on its own, which, though creepy, wasn’t illegal, and wasn’t aimed at children. The issue they had with her, is that she was emailing GS-related materials to troop members, with an email signature containing a link to her site, which made it appear as if the Scouts were endorsing it. The troop committee asked her several times to remove the link from her email when sending official communications, but she refused, so they dropped her.

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong per se with a “goth” leader – and daughters of “goth” mommies should be able to have their moms join them in Scouting activities. But I think the committee made the right decision – “adult” oriented hobbies like this website should be kept separate from kids’ activities, and a leader should present herself in a way that is consistent with the stated mission of the group.

    • I did see that aspect of the story—my impression is that this is what brought the matter to their attention. That was only one mistake—water under the bridge—why would they kick her out for that error, if she said she wouldn’t make the same mistake again? My reading of both that account and others is that the reason for her dismissal was the nature of the website and her relationship to the web master. She included the links on an e-mail to a parent, just as my e-mails may include some of my websites. That wasn’t exposing the kids to the site. I think you’re reading something into the story that isn’t there. She was fired despite the fact that the site—she insisted—was never brought to any child’s attention. That means it was the existence of the site and her relationship to the creator of it that was deemed the problem.

      If it wasn’t, it should have been. That’s not a Goth site; that’s a sick site.The fact that it’s legal and wasn’t aimed at children is irrelevant. A goth mom can certainly care for a Goth scout. But she’s miscast as a troop leader.

      • The article on Jezebel has a quote from the GS representative:

        http://jezebel.com/5885990/did-a-moms-goth-website-get-her-booted-from-the-girl-scouts

        “Update: I just talked to Tracy Wayson, spokesperson for Girl Scouts of Wisconsin Southeast, who told me that the only reason Hintz was removed from her leadership position was because she included links to Wisconsin Sickness, a website that goes against Girl Scout values, in emails about official Girl Scouts business. She assured me that the decision was based on this alone, and not on prior conflicts or problems with Hintz.”

      • I think the key was that she refused to remove the link when asked to.

        Think of it like the naked teacher principle. Coming to the attention of the organization isn’t an issue (like one teacher knowing there are naked pictures of another teacher), but if it’s going to go out to the troop (or the students), then it’s a disqualification.

        In this case, the scout learder refused to divorce herself from that stuff in her communications with the organization, so they couldn’t believe she would divorce herself from it when dealing with the scouts. Basically, not only is the teacher naked, she’s advertising that she posed for the May 2007 issue of playboy with her daily homework assignments.

        • Yeah….so the Girl Scouts say! How do you know she was asked to remove it??? Has anyone spoken to Mrs. Hintz??? No, I didn’t think so! Of course the GS are going to say whatever they can so save their own skins, but the truth of the matter is, they are nothing but a bunch of two faced, back stabbing, unfair PRISSES who are teaching those girls what?? That if someone is different….STAY AWAY??? I’d rather have Mrs. Hintz leading my kids than a woman who sits around all day gossiping and spending their HUSBANDS money!

          • A completely off topic and hysterical comment, Jessica, that adds nothing to the discussion except static. One can be as different as they wish, but some choices preclude others. Celebrate people who killed women, and the Girl Scouts are out. Try volunteering as a docent instead.

          • That’s the knowledge that was supplied. If there’s a different set of facts, the ethical analysis changes.

            The rest doesn’t seem to be relevant to anything.

    • Girl Scouts never asked for the link to be removed, the e-mail about troop things was sent to the parents and yes the auto signature was left on by mistake. The whole thing spiraled out of hand and not one person looked at the 4 years run spotless record held with GS in all this.

  3. “but the fact remains that if something horrible happened, and it turned out that Mrs. Hintz was part of sick cult that entrapped young girls to be menu items for her husband’s mutant friends, I would never forgive myself.”

    Any other incredibly wild, improbable, scenarios you’d like to concoct in-order to justify discrimination against someone who, according to all sources I’ve read, only ever did her job extremely well? Fail.

    • Yes, and that’s a wild, improbable website, and its wild and improbable that someone connected with such a site would be a troop leader. Sorry, you’re just wrong. Rather than be sarcastic, distinguish the security and Secret service examples—they are far-fetched too. Most of the things responsible parents take precautions against are long-shots. Bottom line: do I want my daughter being cared for by someone whose closest companion worships Ed Gein, or someone more trustworthy? It’s an easy call. Fail yourself, or explain why any responsible parent should be asked to ignore something like that. Would you say that a responsible parent should check out the site? Why, if it’s so irrelevant? Is it irrelevant if its a snuff site, or kiddy porn? Why not? The Mom is doing her job “extremely well”! FAIL is any parent ignoring the fact that the family of troop leader proudly displays photos of women being terrorized in the woods.

      Obviously.

      • What’s improbable about the website? Because it has a black background, a section about Ed Gein, and some photographs of girls with visable cleavage in horror film scenarios? Maybe we run in different circles, but I don’t see whats improbable about that.

        Why not kick someone out because they listen to Black Sabbath? Or have all the “Living Dead” films on blue-ray? Where’s the line? And you comparing this website to snuff or kiddie porn is irrelevant hyperbole. The fact is, nothing on Wisconsin Sickness is illegal. She never displayed or mentioned the site to children, as far as I have read.

        I’ve yet to have anyone prove to me what she did that wrong, other than she forgot to remove a link to the site off of an e-mail. Should she have be reprimanded. Yes, because she made a mistake. Removed? Never and no. I stand by my proclamation of fail, kind sir. Fail with a capital FAIL.

        • I’m not arguing with you; you’re just completely off the reservation. If you can’t see the difference between a spouse obsessed with sadism and cannibalism and choice in music or obsession with cleavage, you’re beyond logic and reason Fine—you can’t see it. Some people are color blind too. That’s your problem, not mine. And you did not undertake the analytical task of explaining why being married to Squeaky should matter to the Secret Service. Or is that a “fail” too?

          By the way, leaving the link on the e-mail was fine…it doesn’t matter whether she linked to a death site or a pottery barn. The girls didn’t see it. The problem is that she is part of a sick obsession that is inconsistent with entrusting young girls in her care.

          • The pure fact-of-the-matter is that website’s as harmless as a PG-13 horror film. It has loud music, somewhat-scantily-clad females, fake blood and not much else. I also can’t help but notice no one has mentioned the various interviews with authors, entertainers, and artists and the like. Not sensational enough I suppose. I just can’t help but laugh whenever a bunch of out-of-touch, fear-mongering alarmists freak out over nothing. Once upon a time people said Buddy Holly and that wild rock and/or roll music would be the downfall of western civilization. Now a’days its the Internet and some guy’s website.

          • Yet NO ONE had a problem with entrusting her with their children until GS made it public…now EVERYONE has a problem with it?? You’re JUST as shallow as the GS “leaders” that made the decision!!! Don’t act like you’re “squeaky” I bet you’ve got skeletons in your closet that if they got out, none of your opinions would matter because PEOPLE LIKE YOU would throw you under the bus even if they supported you for years!!! Just like what’s happening to Mrs. Hintz!!!!

            • You’d lose that bet, my dear. Nobody is squeaky clean, including me, but some skeletons have natural consequences, and the ones in Mr. Hintz’s closet are real skeletons. “Nobody cared until they knew her husband loved serial killers and a guy who made lampshades out of human skin” is a hilarious statement.

            • Repeated exclamation points and random capitalization doesn’t help people consider your point. That writing style is associated with idiotic arguments. If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to cut it out.

              As for the actual arguments:
              * Previously, did people not know about the situation, or actually know and not care?
              * The actions Jack (or anyone else) may have done in the past or are currently engaged in do not change the ethical calculus of the situation.
              * If you consider these skeletons, then you’ve undermined your own point.

              • what are you Jacks little buddy? So sorry that my writing style isn’t acceptable to you! But I should expect such things from idotic morons such as yourself. When did this become about me and not about the issue at hand??

                • Jack’s little buddy? I can assume you haven’t read the comments elsewhere on this site, but I’m actively disagreeing with Jack elsewhere in the comments of this post.

                  I didn’t come close to calling you an idiotic moron. I politely noted that your style was getting the way with your substance, which I then proceeded to go after directly.

                • You’re accountable for the effectiveness and style of your arguments, Jessica, like everyone else. And “idiotic morons” is off limits–if there is any personal denigrating to be done here, I’ll do it: “Shouting” in typeface is no substitute for argument.

                  And tgt made a terrific point: the website isn’t about disreputable conduct at all. I never said anyone connected with the site has done a thing wrong.There’s nothing to be ashamed of, just strong indications of preferences, interests, priorities and values that can reasonable make the parents of little girls dubious.

                  OK, actually, I’m HIS little buddy. Call me “Gilligan.”

              • Let me set the record with this if I may,
                Yes the parents knew. I never hid anything to do with any of my other businesses or involvements from the parents. The kids, hell no! They did not need to know anything “Miss. Stacy” did outside of GS. I had a 4 years running spotless record with the troop, the parents, the community and Girl Scouts overall. I was by all accounts a star leader. I left my auto signature by mistake and things got out of hand from there. It was tragic that it blew up as big as it did. The only ones who suffered were the girls of the troop (My child included- and hit the hardest by all this) The girls were never in harms way at any point. Since all this, I have left my husband and moved on with my life taking our two kids with me. Life for us however will never be the same. We had to change schools for my daughter. She was picked on, told by other children on the playground that they could not play with her b/c her and her family where soaked in sin. The community that I once did so much with and for shunned us. Before opening my eyes to the reality of my situation at home and with my ex-husband I defended my situation with Girl Scouts. While I still hold strong to the unjust my daughter and I suffered for my ex-husband ways. I do see how people would be upset by the issue. However it never should have become international news. This will fallow my daughter and I locally long after everyone else has forgotten it.

                • Thank you, Stacy. I agree, and said in the post, that what occurred was unfair to you, and your daughter, but that I also understood the reaction of the troop leaders, and to some extend believe it was justified. Unfortunately, anything that involves the web is automatically a universal issue. That’s why we have to be careful what we put on the web. I don’t think this should follow you too far or too long, and I hope you are able to make a fresh start. This was not your fault, and you did nothing wrong.

    • Wisconsin sickness is NOT a cult! I dont know where u r getting ur info from… so because someone has taken an intrest in wisconsin history and some of our famous Physo killers, thats wrong?! NO its not wrong, its life! Many of these Metal shed’s have been around for a long time and hidden underground, grow up and understand that not 2 ppl are alike. Self expression!! I think if this wasnt all over the news and u ran into these 2, u wouldnt even know what they do in their OWN personal time! All ppl r different, STOP seeing through u narrow minds! 4 yrs. She lead the GS and kids were not hurt or harmed, where they, ahh NO! Art is a form of expression! Its 2012 everyone has a right to express themselves………..

      • 1.Who said it was a cult?
        2.Who said it was wrong?
        3.Who said anyone who chose to participate was wrong?
        4.Who said those participating had every right to?
        5.Who said it isn’t 2012?
        6.Who said Stacy hadn’t been a good troop leader?

        Not me. Everything you say is true…and beside the points, which is that self-expression has natural and predictable consequences, organizations entrusted with children have an obligation to err on the side of sensitivity and caution, and given a choice, parents will want troop leaders who don’t come households obsessed with necrophilia, murder, butchery and sadism over those who do. She may be great; I’m sure she is. It doesn’t matter. She’s a volunteer, and the organization has to take into consideration how it looks to people and parents of scouts who don’t know her, and what having a steward of young women whose husband likes photos and stories of young women being harmed suggests about the organization’s standards.

  4. And then there’s this: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Girl-Scout-Troops-Banned-from-Church-137815843.html. Seriously? Utterly ridiculous. Not only was it ridiculous to ban the scouts because the church THINKS that the parent organization is aligned with Planned Parenthood (it is not, but it shouldn’t matter), but the fact that they mis-identified the parent organization and then refused to acknowledge their mistake and reinstate the troop is, in my opinion, unethical.

      • What if you had some ham? They could have some ham sandwiches. You could play “what if” until your keyboard melts. Wisconsin Sickness, based on everything I’ve seen and read, isn’t a “Satanic cult.” It’s about as serious as those Ozzy Osbourne albums parents flipped out about 30 years ago.

            • Why couldn’t these couple of concerned parents just move their kids to a new troop though? If they were so “nervous” I mean. There’s no reason she should have been removed.

              I can already imagine your response… “they’re into sadism and cannibalism…” so’s half the world if the popularity of “The Walking Dead” is any indication. Having that site up is no different than having a horror movie collection at home.

              • You keep saying there’s no difference. There is a difference. Turning on a TV is entertainment; that website is obsession. It’s also incoherent and deranged. Tell me, would you show that to an employer? Do you think a school would employ a teacher who had such a site? You can’t appreciate significant distinctions, so your position is not just absurd, but impossible to reason with. Argue that the spouse shouldn’t be held accountable for the husband—that’s at least a defensible position.

                • Last I checked websites are a form of entertainment, just like a television set. I think you’re more uncomfortable with the Internet as a technology than anything. I read that site, some of it anyways, and I was entertained. This site on the other hand, the only entertainment I’ve gotten is this discussion. The rest of the site has left me feeling rather flat.

                  BTW, I’m not arguing that she shouldn’t be held accountable for her husband because I don’t think he’s done anything wrong either.

  5. This makes me LMFAO!!! I am one of the girls on the site. First of all, its not goth, its metal. We are not satanic or evil or anything. Yes, Ed Gein is creepy and disgusting. That’s the point. And yes, he inspired Psycho and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but I’m also guessing, you have all seen those movies. We are not bad people. Do we like Halloween a little too much, maybe. But coming from one of the first few cannibelles, we would NEVER do anything to hurt anyone or anything. I have a 3 yr old daughter and I myself can’t even watch movies where kids get hurt in any way. So being scared for your kids safety when it comes to us is ridiculous. We all have families and most of us have kids. We just like the horror part that no one likes to talk about for this reason… You automatically assume we are evil and are eating kids. Well as one of the webmaster’s mutant friends, I laugh at your over active brain for reading so far into this to the point where we get to make fun of you publicly.

    • 1. If you read the post, you know what you just wrote is completely untrue. Should I assume that you and your friends are just liars, then?
      2. We are talking about judgment, responsibility, and trustworthiness. Dark obsessions are markers for something troubling. There’s a difference between enjoying horror, and wanting to live it. The first: normal. The second—suspicious. Also juvenile. Halloween is for kids.

      • If halloween is just for children, please explain to me why the halloween industry has boomed as much as it has in the last few years? It may not be for you, fine. Don’t talk down to people who enjoy things that you do not. I am a devote Lutheran, have grown up as one my whole life, and will continue to be one, as will my children. The section on Ed Gein is educational, not obsessed over, so get your facts straight. You can find worse in your local library. I am proud to be a part of this site. There is nothing evil about it. We do not ask you to sacrifice your first born to satan or anything ridiculous like that. What it comes down to, it is art, and although it is more than obviously not your form of art, it is the still the same. I’m sure that Picasso was viewed as mentally disturbed or evil in his day as well because his form of art was different from “the norm” and look at it now.
        As far as Stacy and the girlscouts go, she made a mistake by leaving the link on the email, she did not refuse to remove it, so get your facts straight on that one as well. I’m sure you’ve made mistakes, as we all do being human and sinners.
        These are good people who enjoy a different form of art than you do. They are not pedophiles, rapists, terrorists, satanists, or whatever your closed mind seems to think they are. If I were you, I would be more concerned about the poor abused children that are being found in Wisconsin lately, that is the real evil, people who abuse CHILDREN, who are innocent, not people who live a different lifestyle than yours.

        • Your rant is not responsive to the post. It also makes a run at the record for rationalizations in a single comment. Go read the list in the Rationalizations section, then see if you can construct an argument without “Everybody does it,” “There are worse things” and “it’s just a mistake.”

          Meanwhile: Halloween is for kids. Adults who obsess over it are in arrested development. And the issue is trustworthiness. Rich Iott ran for Congress: he liked to dress up as an SS officer. Is that irrelevant? Should people have voted for Rich? Should his wife be a scout leader? Just a different form of art? Ed Gein, cannibals, Nazis…I don’t see the difference. “It’s history.” Tell me another.

          No, I don’t trust adults who think and act like kids to supervise kids. I don’t trust kids–or adults— who are unhealthily obsessed with death and perversion to supervise kids. And I don’t trust people who trust either of them, because their judgment is suspect.

  6. Funny how a certain person is replying to this in defense and acting like he just knows about the site instead of being an active participant and contributor. Ashamed?

  7. It isn’t a “gothic” website. It isn’t a satanic website. It’s not evil, or manipulative or misinformative.
    It’s ARTISTIC. I pity you people that can’t have the good graces to pardon us “sick twisted individuals”. Pull your heads out of your rear ends long enough to accept the fact that SOME people are DIFFERENT THAN YOU ARE. The whole purpose of the site is to inform, entertain, promote, or at the very least provide people like Charlie and myself the creative outlet we need to maintain OUR OWN sanity.
    Just because Stacy helps her husband with something HE loves to do doesn’t mean it affects her parenting or scout leading skills. Or his, for that matter. Their kids are both VERY intelligent, and most of the rest of us associated with Wisconsin Sickness have families too.
    Should we all have our children taken from us?
    Because we don’t attend church services every week or participate in “socially acceptable activities”?
    There is no rule of guilty by association in this instance, and the whole situation is ridiculous.

    • This is, Nikki, the one decently argued, legitimate, serious response Ive gotten from the “Wisconsin Sickness” site so far. Nice going. I think you’re wrong and misguided, but this contributes to the dialogue more than sneers and silliness. Thank you.

    • These days, the most deranged and depraved concepts and images known to Man are routinely proclaimed by their adherents as “art”. Art is supposed to be something ultimately inspiring and uplifting. I submit that you (along with the bulk of the “intelligentia” and entertainment industry) have no clue as to what art is… and couldn’t care less.

      • To judge art one must consider the intent of the artist. If the artist wants to depict something dark, to draw attention to some tragedy, injustice, or what have you, and the art is as dark as it’s subject matter, that art succeeded.

        Explain to me how all those wonderful, immaculately done medieval paintings depicting plague, Apocalypse, and lynchings are ultimately uplifting and inspiring?

          • I think Jeffy was just noting that art doesn’t have to be uplifting. Look at Poe. Is The Bells uplifting? How about A Telltale Heart or The Raven?

            Art tugs on our heartstrings, and can do so in any direction and with any subject matter. Is Murders in the Rue Morgue not art because it deals with death by great ape?

            Different subject matters call to different people, but any of them can be art. There’s a lot of crappy, cheap slasher movies, but there’s a reason pretty much the entire academy backs Evil Dead as art.

              • Jeffy was responding directly to SMP, who said “Art is supposed to be something ultimately inspiring and uplifting.” It appears that you misinterpretted his response, so I was trying to clarify what I saw as Jeffy’s point.

                I think “The Bells” is great stuff, but I can understand that it’s not for everyone. It’s harmony and discord at the same time. Since a head injury a couple years ago, I have difficulty dealing with readings of it, but I still appreciate the composure and the evocative feelings it induces in me.

        • Did I say they were, Jeffy? Those ones you reference (and which liberal “documentarians” love to plaster all over their anti-Christian diatribes were (fortunately) just a small example of the images from that time. And they were hardly all done under church auspices. Far more were true (and inspirational) art. True art. Now how do we in modern times stack up? Very poorly, I’d say.

          • You have no idea what you’re talking about. Huge volumes of art featuring horrific and disturbing imagery were incorporated into medieval churches and cathedrals. The Bible itself is full of graphic, disturbing imagery of horrific violence.

            If your idea of “inspirational” is a blue-eyed Nordic Jesus cradling a lamb, that doesn’t mean that no one can find inspiration in the horrific tableaux of Hieronymous Bosch.

            • Boy, I thought Tiggy was biased! You’re just foaming at the mouth with your hatred for all things Christian, aren’t you? That attempt to introduce an element of racism into the proceedings did not go unnoticed.

              BTW: A lot of ugly, violent events are recorded in the Bible. That’s because they happened and because good, Godly people faced up to them. This is a matter of history and faith, which is the Bible’s function to record for our benefit. The ultimate message is as positive as it gets. How does this relate to anti-art? That “art” you continually refer to does not represent the Christian ideal anymore than does the writings of Chaucer!

              • Boy, I thought Tiggy was biased! You’re just foaming at the mouth with your hatred for all things Christian, aren’t you? That attempt to introduce an element of racism into the proceedings did not go unnoticed.

                Seriously? He’s not hating on christianity or christian art, he’s just pointing out that you’re whitewashing what the art actually is to fit your belief of what art should be. The nordic jesus comment wasn’t racist, it was a parallel to what you’re doing with christian art.

                • To expand on a small aspect of tgt’s response, saying that “Huge volumes of art featuring horrific and disturbing imagery were incorporated into medieval churches and cathedrals” is in no way hating on religious art; hell, the dude even clarifies that plenty of people (I wouldn’t be surprised if he included himself in that category) find those types of things to be pretty beautiful in their own way.

                • I’m not “whitewashing”, Tiggy. Lurid and/or pornographic images are hardly unique to our age and times! Wherever people go, they carry their baser instincts with them… and there will be those who pander to that. It doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make it “art”. What’s changed is the volume and unprecedented venues and opportunities for anti-art that exists today. The “nordic Jesus” remark speaks for itself.

                  • We’re not talking about lurid or pornographic images. We were talking about art with violent and depressing subjects.

                    Yes, the nordic Jesus remark speaks for itself, but I’m not sure how you see it as racist. Can you explain that?

                    • Isn’t this the same thing? Pornography and gross senseless violence all derive from the worst of humanity’s baser insticts.

                      The “nordic Jesus” remark is aimed at European religious art which tends to portray the Savior in a European mold and, according to secularists, thus conveys white racism. Yet, in all races and nations- from China to Ethiopia- the Holy Family is often depicted in the aspect of the people of that country. European art dominates merely because Europe was the center of the Christian Faith. There’s no racism implied in any of those cases. It merely represents the universality of the Christian message to all nations. Jesus’ image doesn’t matter. The message does.

                    • Isn’t this the same thing?

                      No.

                      Pornography and gross senseless violence all derive from the worst of humanity’s baser insticts.

                      Ugh.

                      The “nordic Jesus” remark is aimed at European religious art which tends to portray the Savior in a European mold and, according to secularists, thus conveys white racism. Yet, in all races and nations- from China to Ethiopia- the Holy Family is often depicted in the aspect of the people of that country.

                      And all those countries are also white washing the story.

                      European art dominates merely because Europe was the center of the Christian Faith. There’s no racism implied in any of those cases. It merely represents the universality of the Christian message to all nations. Jesus’ image doesn’t matter. The message does.

                      If it doesn’t matter, then why do white churches have white Jesuses?

  8. Is it fitting to use absurdity to mock any possible absurdity in the Girl-Scouts-and-Wisconsin Sickness case?

    I was thinking, perhaps this sets up a tailor-made, Willie-Horton-and-Michael Dukakis-like question for the major party nominees in an upcoming presidential candidates’ debate. Perhaps Ms. Hintz and all her allies should take their discrimination issues straight to the top, right away.

    President Obama has young daughters. So, why shouldn’t everyone be OK with the Secret Service’s hiring of the wife of the man who kidnapped Jaycee Lee Dugard, for working shifts in the White House? Would it make any difference if, at the time of her application to work with the Secret Service, Phillip Garrido’s wife was factually unaware of (or unassociated with) her husband’s private conduct – or if she was aware, but emotionally attached, to persons related to her husband’s victim? Does it matter if Mr. Garrido’s victim’s skin color (or possibly, ethnic lineage) appears to differ from that of the President’s daughters?
    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8468178

    It’s fascinating to observe how people can be so discriminating about discrimination.

      • Yes, really, in this case, where fair inferences and judgments about trustworthiness of the operator, and of persons closely associated with the operator, can reasonably be made from website content.

        • On what rational basis? Do you have statistics showing that operating a website featuring heavy metal music, scantily-clad women, and horror, correlates with decreased trustworthiness, or an increased propensity to harm children?

            • Are you suggesting Stephen King should be considered untrustworthy, and a potential serial killer?

              Simply being obsessed with horrific material is not the sole determining factor in making someone untrustworthy, or dangerous. Should we consider devoted readers of the Bible less trustworthy, or more prone to violence? It is, after all, a book full of murder, rape, incest, genital mutilation, and various other horrors.

              As one of the “canibelles” here wrote, horrific imagery can also be a way of dealing with internal stresses and dangerous ideation – I’ve heard from many artists that they create art to relieve obsessive imagery by committing it to a work of art. Somehow, exposing the fantasy to light by describing it in music, words, or visual art, allows it to “escape” the mind of the artist, and lessens its compulsive power. Repressing the fantasy simply makes it more persistent, and makes it harder to resist.

              I don’t think any of us here know the whole story. I happened to read the Ed Gein article from the site, and found it to be a very well-written journalistic piece.

              My opinion is that you’re making far too much out of the actual site’s content – it really is rather tame, and it’s quite a stretch to say that its contributors are de facto less worthy of our trust.

            • You don’t KNOW Charlie OR Stacy! How do you know that their “obsession” (as you so love to call it) could lead to violence?? It’s a passion….not an obsession. And who cares if what they do is out of the “norm” If a person is passionate about the naked body, does that mean they have tendencies to go rape or assault another?? I think not. I think that this entire situation is unethical and completely ridiculous!!!! Get a life, Jack. Incase you haven’t noticed, YOU ARE the only one blogging about how “wrong” the Hintz’s and their website are!!

              • Since I didn’t say most of the things your comment puts in my mouth, it is hard to respond to. I didn’t say that Stacy was obsessed with anything at all. I didn’t say the website was “wrong”, either, so I don’t know what the quotes are for. I don’t know what the comparison with someone being passionate about the naked body has to do with the price of beans either. I have an idea; why don’t you actually read what I wrote and respond to that, if it’s not too much trouble?

                Also:
                1. “Get a Life” will get you banned here; read the Comments policy. Ethics is my job—don’t tell me what to do with my life.
                2. I couldn’t care less how many other bloggers write about this, or what they write.

                • and I didn’t say that you said Stacy was obsessed. I believe I was referring to her and her husband. I think you are the one that needs to read these better. Okay, I said “passionate” instead of “obsessed” about the human body. I am so sorry, Sir! Point I was trying to make is, keep your thoughts to yourself about things you are clearly biast about. I don’t think that a website constitutes being labeled “obsessed” with underlying violent tendencies. If ethics is your job, then perhaps it’s time for you to find other employment.

                  • I am definitely not biased about the contents of “Wisconsin Sickness” in the least. Now you’re crying bias, because your arguments are incoherent. Of COURSE the website is obsessive. It’s complex and took a lot of work; it is a work of obsession. It’s obvious. People don’t erect high-quality online shrines to something they don’t care about. A website that is substantially about cannibalism and serial killers, with photos of women being abused, is obviously obsessed with violence. What do you think it’s about, marzipan?

                    You know, as tgt suggested, I can often gauge whether there is a legitimate counter argument by the quality of discourse displayed by those who disagree with me. You’re making me feel more confident every time–and you just called your best ally a “moron.” Keep it up!

                    • No, it’s the value the obsessed person puts on it. I’ll stipulate: a website as elaborate as Wisconsin Sickness shows obsession, whether it is about peeps, Arthur Miller, the Tampa Bay Rays, Obama, or Ed Gein.

                    • Those are two competing standards. The first is about the value they place on it… with no way of delineating, while your stipulation decides it’s not based on what the value they put on it, but in how much time they put into it and/or how polished their product is. I’m not obsessed with writing java code, but I like to think my java code looks like I put a whole lot of time and effort into it.

  9. ‘please explain to me why the halloween industry has boomed as much as it has in the last few years? ‘

    I’d say a lot of people are having trouble growing up.

        • It certainly was… as I can personally attest to from my own (long ago) childhood. It didn’t start that way, certainly. Saint Patrick’s Day didn’t start out as a boozefest, either. Nor did Mardi Gras. But Halloween evolved into a child-friendly function that likewise served to knit neighborhoods together in a mutual consideration for their children. As American society has degenerated and secularized, that ideal has diminished.

          • You’re not really familiar with any history prior to your own life, or cultures outside of your own experience, are you?

            Children’s Halloween celebrations, which became popular in the 1950s, are not the same as Halloween itself, which has always been about exploring the boundaries of life and death, good and evil. The remainder of your statement is meaningless non-sequitur hogwash.

            • All Hallows Eve was commercialized, just like St Patrick’s Day, Valentine’s Day, and a host of other days that were originally created and celebrated with religious, patriotic or some other intent.

              It just so happens that Halloween was commercialized as a kids holiday before it was commercialized as a grown up holiday, so people who aren’t thinking critically call them overgrown children.

              It might also have to do with general worship of the great age of culture that was the 50s…

              • Marketing aside, it was a children’s holiday for over a century, and however it is marketed, it’s juvenile. So are St. Patrick’s Day and New Year’s Eve, by the way. But those who enjoy that latter two don’t make a life out of it. The word for anyone who does is “drunk.” I wouldn’t want them as Girls Scout leaders either.

                • Dressing up in costumes and going to a party or enjoying being scared and scaring is juvenile to you. You know what I find juvenile? Wearing suits. It’s just big kids playing dressup in their parents clothes at this point.

                  We can play the juvenile game with anything we don’t like. Would you like it if I called baseball juvenile? I don’t see any less support for that then what you’re doing. Hell, baseball’s even a game.

                  • DINGDINGDINGDING!!!!! Baseball is a great comparison, and I was wondering if anyone would raise it, since it appears often here. But 1) it does continue year round 2) it does have dramatic substance and life lessons, not to mention philosophical and scientific applications, and 3) it doesn’t revolve around death. The point of All Hallow’s Eve is that it was one night. Being Halloween obsessed all year really has nothing to do with Halloween.

                    Maintaining a fanatic baseball website is consistent with many occupations, like theater, fitness, statistics, law, drug control, coaching, and ethics. If, however, I was President of the NFL, it would be inappropriate and go to trust. If the NFL fired me for thinking about baseball all the time, I couldn’t blame them.

                    • DINGDINGDINGDING!!!!! Baseball is a great comparison, and I was wondering if anyone would raise it, since it appears often here. But […]

                      uh oh.

                      […]1) it does continue year round […]

                      Why is that relevant? Also, these people do continue year round.

                      […] it does have dramatic substance and life lessons, not to mention philosophical and scientific applications, […]

                      The life lessons are simply based on what people do…just like in anything else, the philosophical applications are only because it is well followed so it’s an easy analogy, the scientific applications are news to me, and I can’t believe you’re putting drama as a distinguishing factor.

                      […] and 3) it doesn’t revolve around death. […]

                      No, it revolves around big kids running around in circles.

                      The point of All Hallow’s Eve is that it was one night. Being Halloween obsessed all year really has nothing to do with Halloween.

                      Therefore, we should not think about veteran’s except on veteran’s day. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the point. This also goes directly against your point 1. Without internal consistency, your argument isn’t going to go well. It looks like you’re just throwing whatever you can against the wall to see what’ll stick.

                      Maintaining a fanatic baseball website is consistent with many occupations, like theater, fitness, statistics, law, drug control, coaching, and ethics.

                      All things that can be paired with this website.

                      If, however, I was President of the NFL, it would be inappropriate and go to trust. If the NFL fired me for thinking about baseball all the time, I couldn’t blame them.

                      So, you’re saying that the girl scouts are directly competing with Wisconsin sickness? Otherwise, that analogy is irrelevant.

                    • 1. “No, it revolves around big kids running around in circles.” That comment bespeaks of so much ignorance and/or bias that it disqualifies you from the rest of the analysis. So does the drama comment. This is America, man! You’ve gotta understand baseball better that THAT!
                      2. I also could have mentioned cultural influence—Jackie Robinson, to start with. If you can name anything vaguely substantive and with cultural value that has come out of Halloween since Washington Irving, I’ll be surprised.
                      3. “So, you’re saying that the Girl Scouts are directly competing with Wisconsin sickness? Otherwise, that analogy is irrelevant”. You do get overly literal sometimes. The issue, for the 110082nd time, is reasonable trust. The NFL has reason not to trust an exec obsessed with a competing sport, and the Girl Scouts have a reason to distrust a family obsessed with incompatible values, like killing people and abusing women. In baseball, players and owners can’t have gambling interests…maybe that’s easier for you.

                    • 1) I know my baseball. From McGraw to Mack to Franco, from Ty Cobb to Manny. Honestly, I have more books about baseball stadiums from the turn of the 20th century sitting on my bookshelves than should rightfully exist in a sane world.

                      That was an intentional parallel to the shallowness of your comment, and your response, while missing my point, displayed it well.

                      I don’t see how you missed the drama comment. Wisconsin sickness is all about the drama. You know what else I guess doesn’t have drama? Theatre.

                      2) That something has cultural significance does not mean that it is currently good or that something else is bad. Much of that significance is also due to the popularity of baseball. Just because it’s America’s sport does not make it non juvenile. You’re actually implying here that popularity implies importance. By that token, you’re quickly losing on Halloween, but I digress.

                      3) I resent that. You’re analogy was bad. You might as well have pitted Microsoft and Apple. The gambling analogy also fails, as gambling directly goes to the fairness of the game.

                      I get what you’re saying about trust, but it’s mistaken. Wisconsin sickness does not celebrate and support killing and abuse of women. That’s as accurate as saying Baseball celebrates concrete bunkers. There is no values clash. This is ick factor, pure and simple. It’s icky and stupid on it’s face, so make it go away.

                      The best I can do is compare this to BSA and gay scout leaders, and that’s a bit of a stretch already. In that case, the BSA is true to their values to get rid of gay scout leaders, but horribly wrong anyway.

                    • I was, if I recall, originally talking about Halloween, and Halloween obsessions only. Serial killers are a perfectly legitimate obsession, if off-putting and weird. My fault for going back to THAT obsession for the baseball/football comparison. (I was kidding about the America’s sport bit. Yes, clearly irrelevant.) I’m sorry. I misrepresented my train of thought, and so misunderstood yours.

                      The gay bias in the Boy Scouts is just ignorant bigotry—gays are not child molesters, and only the bigoted and ignorant think they are. (Jerry Sandusky’s not gay) Now, if a Scout Leader has an elaborate website celebrating famous child molesters because he is interested in them, would that be enough to tell him to take a hike? You don’t think so? I do.

                      I agree with you—it’s 99.9% ick, which is why the Girl Scouts would be wrong to fire an employee over the website. But ick can be sufficient to make a group justifiably uncomfortable, making the rejection of a volunteer reasonable, and even resposnible

                      Eva Braun is ick, too, right? Do you think the Jewish Lady’s Cotillion has to take her on?

                    • We’re mostly in agreement, though I don’t think the ick factor should overpower this situation. The ick factor is in dislike of the other and cultural misrepresentation. The ick factor of Eva Braun for a Jewish Cotillion is a very different situation.

                    • I agree,except that I won’t say what the Scouts did is wrong. It’s justifiable. I honestly don’t know if I would actually vote to kick Stacy out. From her viewpoint, it is undoubtedly unfair.

                      You do realize that one reason I wanted to comment on the web site issue is that it’s extreme, and thus makes me abandon my usual position, that a spouse shouldn’t be penalized by what the other spouse does. Yes, Eva’s even more off the charts

                    • To be slightly off-topic, Jack, part of the reason I love the conversations between you and tgt because he can get you to phrase your thoughts in ways that I think are an improvement over your original posts. I do still wonder where exactly the line should be drawn though; for example, I probably shouldn’t be part of a Republican advocacy group if I spend my spare time writing tributes to Marx and Engels. On the other hand, would I be disqualified from, say, an anti-gang violence group if I’m an admin for a Grand Theft Auto (I mean the video game) website?

                    • That’s how debates are supposed to work, you either focus your ideas, or lose them. In this case, I went into it backing Jack, but halfway through reading the thread, I’d switched sides. Not so much because the other arguments were good as that Jack’s arguments were weak, and I couldn’t bolster them.

                    • By the way, the baseball/gambling analogy is better than you give it credit for. When Willy mays and Mickey Mantle were suspended from MLB activities for taking jobs a greeters at casinos, it was pure “ick,” bearing on trust. Casinos were legal; the Mick and Willie were retired. But it affected trust.

                    • And when I learned about that incident (circa 2nd grade), I remember arguing with my father about it.

                      If you want to call that a parallel, we’re in squint-and-I-can-see-why-they-thought-that-was-a-good-idea-but-they’re-wrong territory.

                    • I agree that Bowie was wrong. But 1) It’s not a bad analogy and 2) Willie and Mickey weren’t actively involved in baseball at the time, making it an easier call than the website/Scout leader—except that it wasn’t Willie and Mickey’s spouses who were working for the casinos. Rats.

            • More than you, apparently. Halloween is the corruption of the term “All Hallows Eve”- the day prior to All Saint’s Day. Over time, it became more than a religious observance inasmuch as it involved children’s games. The lesson to them, however, was still based on the triumph of good over evil. It also came to involve children interacting in this concept with friends and family. Christmas observances followed a similar vein. It reflects the Christian concept as to the importance of family, neighbors and the moral education of children. In both cases- but particularly with Halloween- that concept has been downgraded by secular elements.

  10. TGT:

    I’m NOT worshipping the 1950’s! I grew up in that time and am well aware of its ups and downs. I DO tend to react to those (like yourself) who try to mischaracterize it as an excuse for their own failed social agenda.

    Of course, Halloween was commercialized. What holiday isn’t? Merchants exist to fill a public demand, whether it be Halloween costumes, Easter egg coloring kits or Christmas trees. What matters is how they commercialize and to what extend, within the bounds of propriety, Especially where children are concerned.

    • I’m NOT worshipping the 1950′s! I grew up in that time and am well aware of its ups and downs. I DO tend to react to those (like yourself) who try to mischaracterize it as an excuse for their own failed social agenda.

      Ugh. So, you’re saying that you’re just not a thinker then? Or did I miss a reason that could cause you to be wrong?

      Of course, Halloween was commercialized. What holiday isn’t? Merchants exist to fill a public demand, whether it be Halloween costumes, Easter egg coloring kits or Christmas trees. What matters is how they commercialize and to what extend, within the bounds of propriety, Especially where children are concerned.

      And you think the commercialization aimed at kids was good, but the commercialization aimed at adults was bad. What is your reasoning behind this? Your original comment implied that it was because the children’s version of the holiday was the original holiday. Since that’s false, what’s your reason? Also, what’s your reason for being against the dark imagry that predates any changes?

  11. Love how this discussion has become about the people commenting about it, and grew further and further from the topic at hand. Unreal. Everybody has to be better than everybody, and that’s exactly why Stacy is where she is! Way to go you snobs! Kudos to the supporters of Charlie and Stacy, and especially you, Cannibelles!!

    • Actually, it’s become about the lame and irrational arguments put forth by those commenting about it. You, for example, have nothing to offer but name calling.

      By the way, I support the right of Charlie and Stacy to groove on Gein, Dahmer, Manson, Jack the Ripper, whoever turns them on. They just can’t complain if that makes them unattractive as Scout volunteers. Nothing snobbish about it at all. Hey, outside of all the murder stuff, Ed gave us some great scary movies! Not sure his victims agree that it’s a good trade, but hey! Live and let…uh, no, that doesn’t really work here.

    • Of course, you do realize that both tgt and necrotizingfascism are actually more on your side than Jack’s, right? I’d also like to note that they’ve both made much better arguments for retaining Stacy than you have, and are much more civil about it as well.

  12. This is ridiculess. Just because someone has a husband who has articles about Ed gein on his website doesn’t make them a bad person. If your going to go that route then I guess Wikipedia is like the most despicable site ever created because you can pretty much find everything bad about everything and everyone. This woman has a private life just as we all do and made a mistake by attaching that link to the email. I have a daughter in girl scouts and I would have no problem with mrs.hintz being around her as a girl scout leader. Also the big thing seems to be ” omg! The children.” to that I say this If the children see this the reason is most likely because of the overreaction of the gs and some people such as some on this site.

    • That’s “ridiculous”, CRT. Just how much are you prepared to overlook in the character of someone who has charge over little girls… your own included? Adults with that kind of power and influence must also possess the highest personal qualities. These women are, in essence, acting mothers in an extended family. Thus, their “personal lives” are in play. Your attitude toward this is, I maintain, the reason that corruptive influences have overtaken the Girl Scouts and allowed them to sink to their present state.

    • I can respect someone who believes that a person’s taste in spouses, lovers, significant others and friends is 100% irrelevant, and there is an admirable broad-mindedness fairness in that. At the same time, I believe that this is a bleive born of stubborn principle rather than reality and common sense. I think something was wrong with Eva Braun. I think the spouse of a porno film maker has self-esteem problems. And given a choice between entrusting my daughter to the influence of a woman who lives, loves and sleeps with a man who publishes pictures of women being tortured and killed on his website for fun, and who glorifies serial, cannibalistic killers, and having someone who finds this as repulsive as it is as Girl Scout leader, I’ll pick the non sadistic, misogynist image-lover, thanks. It may be unfair, but it certainly isn’t ridiculous. And when one of these Odd Couples turns out to be a re-birth of Britain’s “Monsters of the Moors,” and a couple of Scouts end up as meat pies—I know its a long-shot—I’ll try not to say “I told you so.”

      • Therefore, no men should be scout leaders, as men are more likely to sexually abuse kids than women are. Hey, it makes as much sense as your logic.

        • Not even close to being a fair comparison, tgt. I’m sure you can do better–the options are there.

          And I didn’t say no women married to anti-women sadists should be Girl Scout leaders; I said it’s not unreasonable to prefer someone else. Men married to women who fundraiser for the Man-Boy Love Association might be great scout leaders. I’ll pass, however.

          • I stand by my comment. You’re saying that anyone who is not your definition of perfect is unfit. It’s worst first thinking that doesn’t account for actual likelihood of a problem. Your logic is the reason that people get harrassed for taking photographs in parks, why adult males are kept out of the children’s section in some Barnes and Nobles, why gays are considered unfit to be be boy scouts leaders.

            You’re saying that this scout leader is more likely to be a danger than another scout leader, but that doesn’t matter. The real question is if this scout leader is too dangerous to be a scout leader. If you go from .0003% chance of a problem to .01%, it’s a 30 fold increase, but it doesn’t mean the latter is unfit.

            • 1) You’re arguing against an army of straw men.
              2) I didn’t say, anywhere, that the woman “wasn’t fit.” I have no idea whether she’s fit or not.
              3) Nor does fitness imply perfection. Quite the opposite. The person who meets the bare minimum requirement for the job is “fit,” just as about 1000X the entering class of Harvard is “fit” to go there. Based on prior experience and history, Sarah Palin is fit to be President. So is Obama
              4) The Boy Scout master comparison is bad because it involves membership in a group, and rejecting an individual because of group characteristics is bigotry. The Wisconsin Sickness story has to do with cognitive dissonance, and our presumption that it operates in normal people. A woman who loves and lives with a man who embraces harming girls appears to lack the expected cognitive dissonance response to an attitude antithetical to the care of girls. Making that connection and having a reduction in trust as a result is NOT bigotry. It is common sense, and based on experience. (Do you NOT think there was something wrong with Eva Braun? Would she be a trustworthy Girl Scout leader?)
              5) If someone is willing to accept that rock-bottom qualification of “fitness” for their daughter’s welfare, that’s fine with me. The woman with the weird husband is demonstrably fit. I said that it is not ridiculous for a parent to find her not fit enough for their
              child.
              6. The fact that the woman included the link to her husband’s site also suggests that she is insufficiently sensitive and not normally repelled by his “hobby.” That’s legitimate data too.

              • 1) No strawmen. I’m arguing against things that are inherent in your argument as I’ll describe below.

                2) You’re saying this woman shouldn’t be the scoutmaster. That concerns about her and removing her from her position were proper. That sure sounds like unfit to me.

                3) I actually agree with this, but your comment appears to assume the opposite.

                4) Rationalization. The Boy Scouts would say that a man that’s gay lacks proper faith and as such is unfit to lead. It is similarly common sense, and based on experience. It’s a crap argument, but it’s equivalent to your crap argument that people who enjoy a fantasy (or are married to people who enjoy a fantasy) are necessarily dangerous. You might as well be claiming that this woman shouldn’t be a scout leader because her husband listens to heavy metal music.

                5) I deny this. By your logic, it’s reasonable for a parent to decide that men in general are not fit enough to be scout masters of their daughters. Is there a real risk from this person? You don’t bother to actually find out. A part of her life is icky to you, so you find it reasonable to get rid of her.

                6) Pretend the husband’s site was about heavy metal music. Would you feel the same way? You are repelled by this website, just like people have been repelled by heavy metal music for years.

                —–

                Your argument against this woman is not based on any actual danger that she poses. It’s based on you thinking her husband’s hobby is icky. You haven’t bothered to see if the icky hobby actually correlates to a significant chance of a problem, and that’s a step that’s required. Otherwise, you might as well be saying you have a problem because her husband is black, listens to heavy metal, belongs to the democratic party, is an atheist, or owns cats instead of dogs. History has taught us that are common sense on ick factor is a horrible way to judge risk (or pretty much anything), yet you continue to rely on it here. Why?

                • 1) Kudos for being consistent. I put this in the same category as your adamant belief that realtors shouldn’t have to tell buyers that their house was the site of a triple homicide. As a supreme rationalist (I’m not being sarcastic), you refuse to draw dots from A to B, even when experience suggests the dots are there. I believe that someone obsessed with torture, cannibalism and harming girls to the extent than he spends money and time creating an elaborate website has serious problems. I believe that psychiatrists and FBI profilers would agree. I believe that the spouses and lovers of people with violent sexual fantasies have problems themselves.
                  2) Come on. You know there’s a difference between “I don’t want her to be my kid’s scoutmaster, and sympathize with anyone who feels similarly,” and “she’s not fit to be scoutmaster.”
                  4) I know you don’t like common sense, but if it IS common sense, it is a valid criteria. That “faith” argument is neither common nor sensible, no matter what adherents say. Cognitive dissonance is an accepted, universal, powerful psychological force, in contrast.
                  5) How can you deny it? You counter it with a genuinely absurd bias. Havung concerns about families who think sadism and cannibalism is “neat” is hardly a bias.
                  6) Music is art. Lyrics are poetry. Cannibalism and torture are crimes. I don’t see the analogy. I’d be more worried about a guy who still reads Rod McKuen.

                  Collecting slugs is an icky hobby. Cannibalism is a sick hobby. I don’t think the woman is dangerous. I just don’t trust her. Now, that’s from a distance; if I knew her, knew more about her than the fact that her husband is twisted, then her marriage could easily become a non-factor, and should. Something the story doesn’t tell us is why this one factor wasn’t over-ridden by the woman’s other sterling characters. My guess, and it’s just that, is that the website made other mothers think back that she always seemed a bit off, and this new info helped explain why.

                  • 1) I stipulate to everything in your statement. None of that, though, is reasonable reason to believe that someone shouldn’t be a girl scout leader.

                    2) What’s the difference? If she’s fit, why don’t you want her?

                    4) Define the difference between valid common sense and invalid common sense. You might also want to look at your cognitive dissonance argument again. I’m pretty sure I can use that to disqualify pretty much anyone religious from holding any position of authority.

                    5) Is belonging to this group a predictor of behavior, and a strong enough predictor to affect how you treat this group. You keep assuming it’s true, but you have no evidence for it. I used absurd bias intentionally, as there is no more support for your position than there is for shunning all males. You don’t seem to care. You think what you think. The point is that that is not reasonable.

                    6) Heavy metal does a fair amount of celebration of satan and crimes. What if I used rap music instead? The point was that enjoying some disturbing topics is not enough reason to think the enjoyer is going to be worse than a random other person.

                    —- bottom —-

                    No one’s committing cannibalism. If they were, this would be a much different question. Instead, they’re play acting cannibalism, which is art at least as much as Megadeath is art. If singing about murdering people is art, then why isn’t play acting it? That you call play acting sick is all about the ick factor.

                    You are now rationalizing that the mothers must have relied not only on Wisconsin sickness, but on other events as well. There are 2 problems with this: (1) there is no evidence to support this statement, and (2) it completely undermines your point that the existence of her husband’s hobby alone is reason enough to not want the wife as a scout leader. Have you changed your mind on the original point, or are you begging the question? That is, are you saying the woman must have acted off in other ways because nobody could be normal and have a husband like this?

                  • Sorry, but I came across this as I was running a search for my name tying to find out what my soon to be ex husband still has yet to take down or for that matter put out on the internet after I left him.

                    I can not believe that this conversation has continued this long!

                    I would like to say that the only thing I ever did “wrong” that lead to me being removed was ONLY the e-mail tag to the parents.

                    I was involved in a few photo shoots yes with the site. Please hear me out loud and clear when I say I am NOTHING like my ex. NONE of the children where ever in harms way nor would they have ever been in my care.

                    I come from a long line of Girl Scouting in my family and I was so proud the day I gave birth to my first daughter b/c it meant I got to be a GS leader like my mom was.

                    Sadly, a mentally manipulative, verbally / sexually abusive deviant for a husband took that and so much more away from me. Had this GS thing not happened I may not have ever opened my eyes to the reality of my marriage.

                    However b/c it happened so publicly as is my divorce with Charlie right now life has by no means become “normal” for the children and I.

                    AT WHAT POINT DO WE STOP PAYING FOR HIS SINS AND SICK WAYS. I was a 16 when we got together (he’s 3 years older then me) and fell into a marriage that never should have been. All I want is to move on and make a better life for my babies and I.

                    With every post about what a “bad” person I must have been on the GS issue and every photo I was manipulated and intimidated into taking that Charlie is posting on the internet or posting lies about me now all over and on his many websites is more abusive humiliation. I am forced to relive all of this over and over again. I CAN’T GET OUT FROM UNDERNEATH HIM / the GS issue / or the abuse and humiliation.

                    I woke up, open my eyes, got the hell out, am still fighting for my children since the courts see no reason not to allow him to have weekend long visitation with my kids. AT WHAT POINT AM I DONE SERVING MY TIME!!

                    • I don’t know. You do know that my post about your situation never suggested that you did do anything wrong, but merely that the Girl Scouts were not wrong, or unreasonable, to have concerns. The posts your reacting to are old, and you will recall that you did write in about this once before. What can I do to help you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.