Is the uniform a hinderance to retaining boys?

[scoutldr]

My main issue is with quality, not the look. When I am forced to pay premium prices, I expect goods that fit well and are made of quality fabrics and construction methods. The suggestion that BSA adopt zip-off trousers and Thor-lo socks makes me shudder at what the BSA catalog price would be for such goods. The red wool jac-shirt is now pushing $200 and is out of reach of the average volunteer or youth.

 

I just want pants that fit (44x29) without the crotch ending up down around my knees somewhere because they are all cut unhemmed and I guess the mfr figures that the average 44 waist will have a 34 inch inseam, so the rise is cut accordingly. The shirt fabric is like a limp rag after a few washings and pills around the neckline. I also expect a shirt that doesn't come unbuttoned at the stomach every time I sit down. My dress shirts don't do that, and they cost me half as much.

[Torveaux]

FScouter,

 

You nailed it. It isn't the uniform, but perhaps it should be. Most of us want to be in uniform and/or have our kids in uniform. If a simple solution like allowing olive dockers for indoor events or some other reasonable accomodation can be made, why not make it part of the uniform code? While it may not "be" the uniform, perhaps it should be. Easy solution to a thorny problem. Glad you thought of it.

 

It seems that some people think that any change to the uniform is tantamount to heresy. I have daughter that is a Brownie and yes, the GS uniform has become a joke, but so has the whole program. I wish we could have a Cub Scouts for Girls program (not girls in Cubs, but their own program), but we don't so we manage as we can. I have no desire whatsoever for the Cub/Boy Scout uniforms to go the way of the Girl Scouts. That does not mean that change is bad, it just means that we must make measured, rational decisions on the uniform itself.

 

This is a minor problem with a rational solution. It does not take a major overhaul of the uniform to simply have national set slightly broader boundaries. If the vendors had to compete for the contract, it would help the price issue. If there are options to purchase within a spectrum for the pants, rather than one cut fits all, it would allow the free-market (now there's an American concept) to function.

 

We want to teach our boys to be leaders, part of leadership is understanding how to embrace change. I see a great deal of resistance to even minor modifications. That seems odd given the much larger changes made over the past 95 years of Scouting.

[FScouter]

"When I am forced to pay premium prices, I expect ..."

 

When I buy a BSA product I expect to get what is. I don't expect BSA to meet my personal standard.

 

"It seems that some people think that any change to the uniform is tantamount to heresy."

 

I suppose some people may think that, but the uniform has not changed. I will happily embrace any uniform change BSA implements. Heresey is when individuals or units make their own custom changes because they don't like what is, or don't like being told what is.

 

There's stuff about BSA that I don't like. But I don't skip that part or change it because I don't like it.

[Torveaux]

FScouter: "the uniform has not changed"

 

Um, yes it has changed. The uniform that is worn now is not exactly the same as the uniform of 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, or 70s.

 

It has not changed appreciably recently, and that is a travesty.

 

I am not talking about dropping uniform requirements or making t-shirts and blue jeans the 'uniform'.

 

I am talking about measured changes within parameters to better serve the Scouts and their families. This isn't about some form of protest wherein we discard the uniform. This is a discussion about what would be better for the BSA, to make the minor changes and retain and recruit more boys, or to retain an impractical uniform element because it is what some of the 'old-timers' are used to? I am certainly no radical extremist on this issue or many others, but if you cannot see the need for a modification, you are likely not really evaluating the problem intelletually, but are acting on emotion.

 

What exactly is the Scouting purpose for these particular pants? Not the idea of a uniform pant, but these 80s-designed monstrosities. There is no valid reason to cling to these pants as an item. I highly value the idea of a uniform pant. But I also see there is a problem and I would be doing Scouting and my children a disservice if I did not do what I can to change a minor flaw. What you are suggesting "I don't change it because I don't like it" does not hold water at all. If boys are being abused, but that is the way it has always been done, should we do nothing, because "I don't change it because I don't like it." How many Scouts do we have to lose or alienate because of these pants before it rises above petty vanity to you? Are the boys who leave do to the pants not worthy of the program? I would argue that they need the program more than those who can afford them.

[FScouter]

I am talking about measured changes within parameters to better serve the Scouts and their families.

 

Sounds OK to me. I have no objection to BSA making changes to the uniform. If and when BSA makes a change to the uniform, the responsibility of us adult leaders will be to embrace the changes and implement them in our units. Until that happens, our responsibility is to embrace and implement the current uniform in our units.

 

I strongly object to any suggestion that custom changes may be made at the unit level. It is irresponsible and detrimental to our organization for individual members and individual units to ignore the uniform, make substitutions, or to otherwise tweak it to satisfy personal likes and dislikes.

[Torveaux]

What if BSA's change was to broaden the definition slightly on what constitutes uniform pants?

 

I have not been advocating 'civil disobedience' in terms of the uniform. I think any changes should be made at the National level.

 

Do the Boy Scouts still allow each Troop to have their own headgear choice?

 

I seem to remember that some Troops wore the red beret, others had an overseas cap, some have a ballcap style, etc. Is this approved uniform wear? Are the neckerchiefs not a Troop-level decision?

 

I guess what I am getting at is that at least within certain guidelines it is not without precedent to have some leeway from one unit to the next.

 

I think that outside of the Scouting community, most people identify Scouts by the shirt, not the pants or the socks. I would agree that a complete uniform looks better. I guess that is why I am so adamant that the BSA make such changes. The alternative is fewer boys or fewer uniformed boys or a tendency as we see now for boys and leaders alike to simply ignore the requirement altogether.

[FScouter]

Headwear, neckerchief, and belt options are discussed in the Insignia Guide. Beyond that, BSA has not given options to units. If any pants options come down the pike, BSA will let us know.

[Torveaux]

Who is BSA? Are we not all part of the BSA? Is it not incumbent upon us to voice our concerns to the BSA leadership? I was always taught that you don't complain unless you have a better solution. I think I have provided quite a few options that improve the situation without detracting or diminishing from the uniform method.

 

I guess I do not view the leadership as a veritable Moses that is divinely inspired to bring the BSA commandments down from on high. I think the leadership needs the input of all of us who live the values everyday to express our concerns and to make reasoned and rational decisions without the encumberance of emotional attachment to a 20+ year old pant design.

[FScouter]

I sure BSA would be happy to get your input. Maybe you could ask to be a part of the uniform design committee. Meanwhile ...