Mr. Boyce

. . . is this Kilt Interest a metrosexual thing?

Good luck! It sounds like you've been doing your homework. And yank some buckthorn for me!

I was once a pollwatcher and also an election judge. The chief thing to remember is that election judges are not given, as a rule, very much training in anything other than running the gear. . . meaning that they are suspicious of anything seeming to be political. And also, frankly, many election judges are older people, retired, who dislike disruption of any kind. So anything unusual is more likely to set them off than it would younger people. As a result, election judges sometimes commit egregious offenses against individual political rights. The Virginia thing sounds queer: why can not a voter, say a McCain supporter, come in to vote wearing a McCain t-shirt? This rule would, to me, seem a violation of the First Amendment. It would be an entirely different matter if the person was an election judge. I would hope we could remember the First Amendment in America. Given hyper-PCism, I'm afraid for it.

This is a great idea. It's such a great idea, I am surprised National hasn't already done this. Why not contact National?

Much of the new legal pressures against Boy Scouts just seem like vindictiveness and a desire to punish the Boy Scouts of America for having a moral code as part of its member requirements. The organizations fighting the Boy Scouts are simply fighting another battle in the broader culture war. . . they really don't care about the Boy Scouts itself as an entity. They're willing to burn down the village in order to "save" it.

I would think it is a statement of one's sincerity. The candidate really IS trying to come up with principled ideas. Either party's candidate can invoke this hope for divine meaningfulness. Of course, elements in each party will be more or less responsive to it. It is one of the great blunders of the Democratic Party that they shun religious values (other than bland "tolerance") and head to the high hills whenever someone proposes that personal behaviors (especially having to do with sex) be restricted. But whenever a candidate makes this assertion without actually meaning it, this is a disgrace.

Of course, in these times, since there is a lack of general social consensus on public values, "tolerance" really is only defined as: "let me do what I want to do." So it lacks depth, to me, as a political principle. It has no content.

This is a humorous thread. I'm now looking forward to Boy Scout lederhosen and hula skirts.

As a scout, we never had a bugler and only heard bugles at summer camp. I have to say, they really ADD TO THE EXPERIENCE a great deal. It's a very distinctive thing.

Excellent points by NancyB! I concur in toto.

You've got many good responses. All I would add is that you're fortunate to be living in an area in which you can pick and choose a unit. If you lived on a farm, you wouldn't have such options. You know yourself how intense your situation is. But I would not rule out moving to a more pacific unit.

Scout Mom: we may just be quibbling over different shades of gray, or we may have genuine disagreement. I am leery of the word "nurturing", having been "nurtered" as a boy. . . in the end, it was all rather directionless, a boat without a guide or rudder. One day you're a great painter, the next a world-class poet, then a major league scientist. What does it add up to? Oh, I'm being a bit rhetorical here. But I'm apprehensive of just generally "being there" for young Johnny. The secret part about being an adult is that. . . you KNOW BETTER! As a parent, I make it a rule never to substitute my son's judgment for my own. Here's a case in point. My younger sister felt ambiguous about going out for a sport when she was a high school freshman. I strongly encouraged her. Strongly. Years later, she told me it was one of her best HS experiences. So I'm apprehensive of just letting things happen. For me, I see a moral imperative to make things better if I can, and avoid bad things happening. This may even take the form of dissuading my son from doing something he loves because it doesn't fit well with the world he's entering or the people around him. He may "do what he loves" but the money and so forth don't necessarily follow. But some experimentation, stumbling about and checking out things really SHOULD be encouraged. I suppose the word "nurturing" sets off bells in my head, especially when applied to a boy or girl of scout age. They need more hands-off, in my book.

Just two cents here. I look at my youth scouting as having had a FAR MORE VALUABLE impact on me, in terms of developing skills, working with people, picking up on important social skills and values. I was active in many sports. None really taught me much of this stuff, other than, perhaps, trying to pick yourself up once you're down. You know, in recent years I've been working on developing "followership" skills. Everybody and Sam wants to be THE BIG LEADER in things. This is perhaps one of the sources of conflicts in your unit. But I think good followers, good Indians and not chiefs, can just constantly do subtle improvement inputs that help out, smooth things out, make things run better. Perhaps this is a kind of slow, subterranean leadership, although I'm not trying to be a good follower in order to be a leader.

You know, I have a general kind of concern, and it's not motivated by my politics, although certainly one can say it has political import: but I AM concerned about allowing boys to be boys and allowing boys to do boy things. I AM concerned about the possible over-neutering of boys (and girls) at the behest of a neutralist approach to children, one based on a feminist or liberal perspective. I say this as someone who is fairly moderate. I don't like seeing liberal ideologues running things, nor conservative ideologues. But perhaps in the end, it's all just overworry and overparenting. Perhaps if people had more children in their families, that would smooth out some of these agitations and concerns.

skeptic: True! Recalling arm punching, the times I did it, it was mainly a lot of posturing, not much real pain. Maybe an arm sore for 10 minutes or so. The posturing and talk were the main things.

(Another sigh!). In no fashion did I intend one to infer that women were solely responsible. This wouldn't be a reasonable thing to suggest. I do believe it's reasonable to say that if you load a navy submarine filled with young men and women, and put them under the polar cap for six months, you may well have created a situation in which there is "fraternization" It's reasonable to assume the same thing for scouting. If you take a Girl Scout troop and start adding male leaders, you'd find similar results. If you had no male leaders, you would not be as likely to find heterosexual "fraternization." People are not 100% rational, nor do they follow the rules 100% of the time. The BSA, by encouraging female leaders, gets some new problems in addition to other gains and positives.

I believe typical guys should be allowed to do typical guy things, and the nannies should let them alone.

Kick me for saying this all you like, but there's a strong part of me that wants to say, "this kind of stuff is what you get when you start bringing more women into the program." OK, kick away. Interesting to recall, was in 79?, the number of pregnancies that happened on board a Navy ship on a long Mediterranean tour a few years back. Not that many pregnancies in WW II duty, I'll bet!

You know, I don't feel like I'm being "conservative" saying the above. I'm just not convinced of the laissez-faire approach to sexual relationships. I don't think this approach has conclusively "won" in the social arena, and I doubt whether it's the better approach for everybody in the long run.

In my opinion, scouting doesn't need any of these whack arrangements or stunts. People running the show need to eliminate them. . . (a) for the good of the overall program, (b) for those immediately involved, and © for those DOING the whack stuff---why on Earth is sex so important that someone's getting into things on scouting's time? Suggests bad scouter judgment for many reasons.

I've thought about this a bit more. Garter tabs and shoulder loops are in the same category: unnecessary frizzle. The tabs are no more; would be nice to see the Orkin Man-inspired shoulder loop epaulets go. These just look goofy.

The DE showed very bad form, and scouters should not do this either.

It is interesting that enough time has passed by---and the rationale for change has been so disseminated---that now the idea of an OA tapout is automatically assumed to be hazing. 'T'weren't so in my precincts. I was tapped out, and like others, it wasn't hazing. I can "see" where abuse could take place, BUT (quiet here!) it's still possible to haze in scouting, in OA, in the Elk Club, in Little League, and so forth. My earlier consideration of the general social influence of women, I believe, isn't total malarky. The campus at my alma mater has been extensively reworked for female safety---after generations and generations of female students. Perhaps this is just a sign of social affluence: we have enough money, and we want to put it into safety. I like GoldWing's suggestion that we ourselves, as parents are responsible: overindulgence, helicoptering, etc. I was surprised this summer to find that a few high school student age kids of my friends weren't even looking for summer jobs. Their parents just give them cash. Probably a bad thing all around, there.

I like the garters; served a purpose and added some pizazz. Dislike the pointless and useless epaulets.

DeanRx, you make a lot of good points and I agree largely with what you say. I'll just add. . . there are too many lawyers! On top of this, perhaps the weight of women is being felt in these things. Years ago, postmen would carry heavy leather bags of mail. Now post people carry lightweight bags. I mean by this that women are changing our views of personal safety, adjusting standards along the way in many areas. Or at least, it could be a factor. Something to chew on.