Cub uniform pants - why does no one wear them?

[jnclement 10]

Wow. I check to back in to find my whole scouting career reduced to my pushy parents, and popularity. Oh well. I did tell a small lie, I did take official scout shorts to the Jamboree. But I did perform an appalling number of duties and achievements not wearing official scout pants, and I don't think it left any scars. My whole point is......there should be so much to scouting, that nit-picking of the rule book should be so far down the list, it never comes up. It's all about the boys, and quality programs. So is Boy Scouting growing? Hmmmm....wonder why. When there are more uniform questions on the forum than camping questions, do you think that shows we're relevant to todays boys? I don't.

[FScouter 24]

"Uniform" is one of the eight methods of Boy Scouting. "Outdoor" is another one of the eight methods. I think its hardly fair to describe uniform as "nit-picking the rule book". Both methods are "for the boys".

[Torveaux 10]

Excellent point.

 

Using your analogy, since Camping is a method, only BSA equipment should be allowed on BSA campouts.

 

We have already concluded (in another thread) that while the BSA rules say that the uniform cannot be combined with civilian clothing, they didn't really mean what they said. (footwear, outerwear, underwear, etc.)

 

Remember, the Cub Scout Motto? Do Your Best! I take that approach with the uniform. The cub uniform pants are better than the BS/Leader pants, but for one thing: Cubs grow weekly. If you want pants that fit them, you need to buy 2-4 pair per year. That becomes a significant obstacle to parental buy-in.

 

The point is not about whether people want a uniform, the point is about what makes up the uniform.

 

Your comparison suggests that any deviation from the prescribed uniform would be tantamount to eschewing the uniform method. That is simply not the case. Requiring solid navy blue pants or shorts for the Cub uniform would not detract in any tangible way to the uniform method.

 

The crux of jnclement's post is very valid. If the details of the uniform are an obstacle to providing a solid program to as many boys as possible, we should make the modification to the requirements. jnclement did not say anything about tossing the uniform completely.

[FScouter 24]

Boys, parents, adult leaders, and units that want to wear the uniform will do so. Those that don't want to, will find reasons to justify their decision.

[Rip Van Scouter 10]

jnclement wrote:

"Wow. I check to back in to find my whole scouting career reduced to my pushy parents, and popularity."

 

Reply: I never said that. I was referring to myself and my own troop if you check what I actually wrote. If you were self-motivated enough as a teen to complete Eagle all on your own without parental urging, kudos to you, sir! Most teens, including myself at that age, are not that self-motivated. That is why parental involvement is so important.

 

 

"When there are more uniform questions on the forum than camping questions, do you think that shows we're relevant to todays boys? I don't."

 

Reply: While I haven't checked your comparison, even if it were true, the conclusion you draw is a logical fallacy. It could also mean that there are far fewer problems with (and therefore, fewer questions on) camping than there are with uniforming, which is a completely opposite conclusion to the one you are drawing. However, I am not saying that either conclusion is true. There is just not enough evidence to support either conclusion.