Mr. Boyce

It would be interesting to correlate the scouting numbers with (a) the amazing rise in the divorce rate during this period, and subsequent single parenting, and (b) the rise in illegitimate births. Or simply female-headed households.

With respect to participation rates, it's important to keep in mind that we have an enormous plethora of recreation options in 2009. These just didn't exist years ago. The recreation industry is huge today. . . as well as the electronics industry! It's important to keep in mind that there's nothing inherently wrong in being male. We aren't being intolerant by virtue of our gender or by male behavior. I think recent politics tend to demonize men unduly.

There are many who would argue, with some compelling logic, that one big value of the boys-only policy is that it forces boys to act together on cooperative projects. This presents opportunities for leadership development, and all it entails, along with personal development. I'm leery of a joint-gender arrangement because I think there are just too, too few contexts in which males work together on shared tasks---and many, many activities in which males are just put into a competition paradigm. But the world is bigger than just competition; learning to cooperate counts for much. Psychologists repeatedly point out girls' superior social skills at this age; I think admitting girls would just block out the sun for the boys.

Kindly explain to me how women can be good role models for male behavior. Not generic "good behavior," but MALE behavior. I suppose I should offer myself as a good role model for young girls!

The above criticisms miss the point. One chief value of scouting is providing a context in which a boy can stand on his own two feet and relate to adult men. . . which is rather less easy for a boy to do that relate with adult women. There is a difference between the genders that even the most well-meaning should rightly acknowledge. There is a value to role modeling as well. This has been long established.

If the city is trying to steal the building, they should be rebuked.

. . I should point out that I once read a really wonderful editorial item by a woman who was admissions director for a prestigious girls school, and her reasoning for the gender discrimination at that age really was very sound. I think we too quickly generalize away from gender, when at times it's inappropriate to do so. And yes, while I know there are substantial and excellent female leaders; there are also pretty tepid and timid moms out there. I remember running into one troop that was a clique run by four women; the result was a pretty sanitized version of scouting.

Ok, I will jump in with what is an against the grain opinion. This is the "Boy Scouts of America" correct? If we allow women leaders, do we allow women members? I always thought that was a bit odd, why one but not the other? I am from the "older crowd" when there were no women in scouting. It was odd for me to see women as leaders, and even stranger women in OA. I'm not suggesting I am right, but those are my honest feelings. I see Boy Scouts as training boys to be men, and that should come from men leaders IMO. I agree with jsummerlin.

Wow! I'm excited for your son and I wish him all the best for his scouting experience!

THE DESIGN EFFORT SO FAR. . . Changes: ---I allow a collared shirt if okayed by troop vote ---A baseball cap is the preferred hat ---Not khaki, but not olive drab ---Drop the bag pockets on the pants ---Pants options: both zipper-off pants and regular pants Same stuff: ---Matching color to pants and shirt ---Collarless shirt with large neckerchief ---drop the pocket bags, go with a flat shirt pocket ---More muted color scheme ---Look into having fewer extraneous patches. Not everything earned needs to be a patch. ---High tech fabrics are a good thing ---Long socks I'm thinking more and more that boy buy-in is important, so permit some of these choices to go to the troop itself.

My take as a scout on the neckerchief was that I had a lot of options: I could choose to wear a pretty wide range of neckerchiefs. I had a nifty troop neckerchief, as well as a bunch of differently colored, differently designed neckerchiefs. I think having the options helped acceptance of the neckerchief, the question being "which do I want to wear" versus "I have to put this on." Epaulets just seem pretentious and officious and pointless. Of course, I do not frequently wear an OA sash, so the utility there is less for me. The BIG question for me, moving ahead, is figuring out what kind of hat to add to my uniform design. I cannot help but think the campaign hat just doesn't work out. Garrison caps also. Berets are so uncommon to see that they look a bit odd to passers-by. Baseball caps are the quintessential American hat---maybe the thing to do is just to make a lot of different baseball caps per activity: go to a camporee, you get a patch or cap; go to an event, get a patch, get a hat. People could then pick out whichever they liked best of their scout caps and just wear them, the same variety as there was with the neckerchief. And troops could pretty easily make their own baseball cap. Regarding shorts, I just do not like the big, long, baggy look. Same with shirts. Mid-length is nice; I do not like the the back edge of long shorts bumping into the back of my knee: irritates me.

Interesting to how the boys' take on the neckerchief. When I wore mine in the day, I considered it kind of like a junior necktie. And since they were given out at various events, you felt you had earned them. And I always liked the slides and made a bunch of different ones.

re: neckerchiefs. As a scout I liked them. You got them when you went to events just as you might get patches. After a while plenty to chose from. I think this made them more acceptable than just the basic issue neckerchief. And yes, on a hot, hot summer day at scout camp, the collarless shirts were nice to have: no neck chafing with sweat and grime.

Good input Hal. I doubt the Smokey Bear hat's going to ever pull back and recover to being something most folks would consider wearing: it's on the long decline out.

Key parts of everyday clothing came originally from uniform use: trench coats, of course, wristwatches and a lot of other outer gear. I think the current use of the epaulets doesn't add up to it being a very credible way to identify people, as has been pointed above, so they seem superfluos. If you keep the epaulets, you might as well drop the position patch on the shoulder, since both strive to do the same thing. I'm now a bit hesitant about the cargo pant style---I'm wondering just how often I really USE the pockets. . . versus the constant weight that's added the pants. And there's a lot to be said for a more tailored, less baggy look. I don't like any pants with elastic in the back. Reminds me of Geranimals.

I would hazard that epaulets are vestigial bits of medieval shoulder armor, on the evolutionary downslide. It's interesting that Oscar de la Renta put them on the Girl Scout uniform he designed. . . making me imagine him being just a jetsetter whose only contact with uniforms were chauffeurs and airline workers. I think a good argument can be made for collared shirts for adults, but at the same time, the neckerchief is such a distinctive element of the public notion of "scout" that it's tough to drop. The implication that the neckerchief is there to be used in the case of imminent emergency---and the use of First Aid---adds to the argument for its retention. At this point, I'm mixed up about what good colors would be for the thing. And it's extremely tough to come up with a good scout hat---something that doesn't look silly. God knows, the baseball cap is so ubiquitous that that in itself gets to be a reason for using it. I like the historical associations with the campaign hat---but all I ever hear about it is difficulty with its upkeep, and its expense. The garrison cap is for show, and it's tough to wear a beret in 21st century America. Hats generally are hard for men to wear well, but to tell the truth, given the situation, a hat seems necessary: something that puts off the sun and heat; something utilitarian.

He's a short kid. Look at that pack on him! I'd drop the skill award stuff, too, make the uniform less olive green, maybe dark green (someone above made some good sounds on that) and drop the garters. Long socks actually are pretty good in the outdoors.

. . . I'll get knocks for this sure, but bolo ties just remind me of retired guys.

With respect to the military origins of the epaulet, I would submit that just as many youth are turned OFF by the military aspects as are turned ON. But both groups would be up for a general outdoorsman look. I know there are ex-military here, but I do need to point that out. I'd be wary of publicly billing the Boy Scouts of America as just another kind of Junior ROTC of some sort. That wouldn't be good for anybody.

It's kind of interesting that there seems to be a constant interest in having a kind of class B uniform---something plain, cheap and field-worthy.

Dances, I REALLY REALLY like that D-ring suggestion. When I was a small boy I had a couple pair of khaki shorts that had a kind of chain swivel ring attached to the belt loop in front. I found it very useful. . . didn't the old brass belt have a similar brass slide plus brass clip on it? Yeah, the epaulet things make no sense. They're redundant and make you look like the Orkin man. . . just too over the top for me. I mean, I'm a grown man. I understand the rationale for keeping the shirt green rather than khaki. Let's do it.

I am very impressed with the Hornaday Award and view it on a par with Eagle Scout status.

Here's how I'd redesign the uniform. First, I'd wipe away everything having to do with Oscar de la Renta, who took his design cues from male airline stewards and bellhops. Second, I'd recognize that the Boy Scout Brand is deeply, deeply tied to the images of scouting made popular---and put in the popular mind---by Norman Rockwell. Third, I also think some of the concerns about the uniform being too glaring in public are valid. So here's the result: ---a collarless shirt ---the Return of the Serious neckerchief ---drop the olive drab; too military. Keep it lighter, khaki's okay ---no funny loops on the shoulders ---very flat shirt pockets, with an internal button ---subdued and unified patch design is a good idea ---the material, at the end of the day, really has to be camp functional. Meetings are just meetings. ---fewer patches generally; drop the world scout thing; the trained patch; some of these other public markers that are secondary. ---the pants and shirts match in color ---the pants have modest cargo pockets on the side, since they have a real utilitarian function.

In some other post there was mention that the new shirts aren't long enough in the torso. Is this true?

I agree with the OP on the older uniform style. THAT was much more toned down that the dramatic ODL version!