Pants: dorky or uncomfortable?

[Hunt 11]

In the "saluting" thread, which became a more general uniform thread, some of the discussion turned to why some scouts are willing to wear the shirt, but resist wearing the pants. I personally don't like the pants because of the fabric, but I went and quizzed my son about it. To my surprise, he denied that the pants or shirt were "dorky," although in his view the pants are "dorkier" than the shirt. His objection to the pants--he says--is the cut. They are too tight in the legs, and ride up too high at the waist. He said what he'd really like is green denim pants cut like his everyday jeans. I asked him if he'd like high tech zip-off pants, and he said that would be OK, but only if the zip-off was low enough--he said if the shorts part was too short, nobody would want to wear them. It occurs to me that the current pants are cut like "dress pants," and many boys rarely, if ever, wear any other pants cut like that.

[hops_scout 9]

Scout here....

 

I just recently got a pair of Scout pants. So far, I have no complaints. Might be that I've only worn them for a few meetings, sitting in the car for a couple hours, and going to Scout Sunday, but they're good to go for me!

 

Common sense tells you to use what is best suited for the task. For meetings in uniform, these are the pants I wear. For outdoor work, I'll stick to my BDUs. If that means having multiple pairs of pants, so be it.

 

 

[Trevorum 24]

I don't mind the long pants. They are clearly designed more for "parlour Scouting" than for outdoor activities, but I actually wear them on campouts. It's the uniform shorts that are dorky. During warm weather, I tend to wear khaki shorts from Old Navy or zip-offs. My sons refuse to wear the shorts.

 

 

[anarchist 10]

We beat this horse every few months to no avail...

 

Almost never wear BSA pants to meetings or camps...have some nice BDUs and 'wife who makes all this possible' found some nice BDU shorts at a yard sale...it makes being outdoors comfortable and practical (pockets and room).

Have some 'O.D.' nylon Columbia zip-offs for canoe trips.

Sorta hate having money tied up in BSA 'pant' but CoH and district meetings makes it tolerable...

Hope one of these days we will get a good pant design out of Texas...but not holding my breath.

 

good griping with you.

anarchist

[SemperParatus 1]

I love my scout pants...

 

the fabric is not too heavy, not too light...

 

the construction is not too flimsy, not too

rugged...

 

the cut is not too dressy, not too casual...

 

the pockets are not too small, not too big...

 

the beltloops are not too wide, not too narrow...

 

the fit is not too loose, not too binding...

 

the snap is not too difficult, not too easy...

 

the color is not too...well, I suppose they are a little too green.

[Trevorum 24]

whoa! hold on there pardner! Don't blame those pants on Texas! They were designed by a fancy-pants New Yawk City designer.

 

Somebody, get a rope...

[seed 10]

I've only been involved in scouting around a year now. The reason was my grandson's troop needed help. If it wasn't for him....I wouldn't want to be caught dead wearing this awful shirt. I still can't bring my self to buy those pants. Doesn't anyone understand that women have to wear these clothes too?

 

The womens shirt is not cut for a woman, and the fabric is cheap. I'm embarresed to wear it.

 

Jean

[Hunt 11]

I was happier once I shelled out the extra bucks and got the cotton shirt. Has anybody bought the cotton pants? I really don't like the manmade fabric the regular pants are made of.

[seed 10]

Maybe I should order one of the cotton shirts. They didn't have any at the scout shop, so I bought the blend. Still, it's a guy's shirt. I just wish it was cut a little nicer.

[VAordeal 10]

A problem my troop has is the pants. None of us (the scouts) like them. They are very dressy and they are way to expensive. You can buy something that looks similar, costs less, and is more comfortable for about 20 dollars less in a lot of places. Its not that we are a poor troop with poor families but some, not me, but some feel like for something so unconfortable it is a waste of money.

[seed 10]

A lot of our families have to struggle with just buying the shirts. We are not worrying about the pants. Although I could buy my grandson his, I'm not because I'd rather he be like the rest. Soon he will go from Weblos to Scouts and then he'll have the right pants.

 

I agree the prices are way too high. It just can't be justified. The same goes with buying pants for private school. The school wants you to buy them from their retailer at a higher cost. We buy them from Penny's or Kmart when on sale at half the price. Who knows the difference?

 

Seems to me the scouts scare away a lot of people because of the high cost of the uniform. These are the same kids who would really benefit from scouting too.

 

 

[Hunt 11]

At this point in the conversation, somebody will usually say that parents will spend money for expensive sneakers, sports equipment and uniforms, etc., etc., etc., and so why should they quibble about the cost of Scout pants? I think VAordeal puts his finger on it--it's not the cost per se, but the value for money that seems off. I mean, there is nothing special about these pants other than the fact that they are exclusively available from one source. They aren't very well tailored, and they're made from (in my opinion) an inferior fabric.

[resqman 108]

I vote both dorky and uncomfortable.

 

The military addressed this issue after WWI. They determined that military uniforms were designed primarily as dress uniforms perfect for parades and meetings but did not fair well in battle conditions.

 

Currently the US has two uniforms for each service. A field uniform (Battle Dress Uniform, BDU) and a dress uniform. They each serve very different functions. The Dress uniform has shinny brass buttons, bright colors, and are very form fitting. The BDU's are earth tones, subdued dark buttons, and are loose cut to allow easy movement. The uniforms are made of different materials, each to fit the role of the uniform.

 

The BSA uniform tries to perform both roles. A dress uniform for BORs and parades in front of the public. A field uniform to squat over open fires, hike peaks, and protect from weather.

 

In my opinion it does the dress part in a decent manner. It provides a way for the scout to display his achievements, show leadership responsibilities, and provides a tailored uniform for formal events.

 

As a field uniform, I believe it fails. The pockets are too small, placed in poor locations, and do not have secure closures. The legs and seat are cut too tight to allow for ease of movement.

 

If BSA went to 2 uniforms, a field uniform and a dress uniform, then people would complain about the double cost. Some families could only afford or would only purchase one uniform. Then we get into the debate of which uniform should you purchase if you can only purchase one?

 

I would like the uniform pants to be modified. I would like the pants to be cut fuller to allow ease of movement. I would like to see the pockets to be made more useful. The rear patch pockets need to be larger so I could actually put a wallet back there. I would like to see the front pockets made longer to allow them to be large enough to carry a knife, cell phone, compass, lighter, or other essential supplies I need while around town or in the back country.

 

Fashion is constantly changing. BSA uniforms pants are stuck with a poor design from the past. Remove the patch pockets and make them interior pockets like most pants. Make the pants a fuller cut to allow for the activities Boys Scouts do participate in. Offer a long pant, a short, and a zip off style.

 

[Trevorum 24]

resqman said, "The BSA uniform tries to perform both roles. A dress uniform for BORs and parades in front of the public. A field uniform to squat over open fires, hike peaks, and protect from weather."

 

You are absolutely right! And that is precisely why scouts have adopted the notion of a "Class B" to use as a field uniform. Our current "Class A" uniform is designed for what Baden-Powell disparagingly referred to as "Parlour Scouting". I know of very, very few units who actually hike, camp, and squat over campfires in the official uniform. I'm sure there are some units out there who do, but they are in a minority.

 

Years ago, before the current design, scouts DID wear the full uniform to hike and camp in. With todays outdoors fabrics, there is no reason to have all these informal Class B's. National could easily standardize the whole thing into a FUNCTIONAL uniform.

 

I am sure the gurus at National are aware of this, but my guess is that they have contracts with current uniform manufacturers and can not easily change. However, sooner or later, they WILL change. It's just a matter of enough of us in the trenches letting them know that we don't particularly care for the disfunctional uniform.

 

[DugNevius 10]

I was wearing the same pants at 25 that i was at 15. I just got a new pair, and what a difference it makes. I like the new pants much better.