Unclean Leader

[Trevorum 24]

In this situation, we have a registered male leader who would hypothetically resign from his unit (or maybe BSA, it's not clear) because a woman leader does not wear a bra. The CM doesn't say she is exposing herself in any way, but she is "large" and presumably is somewhat floppy inside her blouse. And we're assuming she has an odor problem from his statement about bathing.

 

Not an appealing picture, I admit, but I can't see how this is about "character", or "right and wrong". It's about hygiene and, perhaps more to the point, being oblivious to ones appearance. The poor woman needs a kind word, not a pursed-lips boycott.

[scoutldr 732]

If the woman is not indecently exposed (according to the law) then it's nobody's business. I'm presuming that she is not otherwise acting in a lewd or provocative manner. Do you propose to check everyone to make sure they're wearing appropriate undergarments? The boys will see more on TV or at the pool/beach, unless they live in a cocoon. Everyone has a right to be unattractive (thank God!). Is it any worse than those Commissioners with a 52 inch belly hanging unfettered over their 38 inch belts?

[packsaddle 753]

Rooster7, "Aah, I see. ..."

Well, yeah.

And yet you contradict yourself in the next paragraph. Tsk, tsk.

 

Now, as to the way we enforce the your new regulations resulting from 'Mammogate', we must find a way to distinguish between the good ole WASP 'fried eggs' and those earth-mother 'puppies'. What arbitrary cup size do you suggest? Or, to use the vulgar concept I was taught in industry, how many units?

Let's say, for example, one of the boys' mothers previously was a centerfold model and the enhancements are, ahem, way beyond normal methods of restraint, what then? Or, as the dirty limerick concludes, "...one was so small it was hardly at all but the other was big and won prizes?"

Should we be ashamed of the woman whose mastectomy prosthetic tends to be a little obvious? Should those with 'normal' breasts but prominent nipples be required to include Scotch tape or band aids in their toiletry kit to use in hiding the otherwise obvious parts? At some point you simply cannot deny the diversity of the human form and the best response is to celebrate that diversity, not to condemn it. If it was possible, I would rather create some mechanism to address those persons with small minds, not abnormal body parts.

 

Keep in mind that I agree that the naked human form is often rather unflattering (glancing around at my co-leaders). But it IS functional - resulting from millions of years of evolution. And many of those boys were hanging on those 'puppies' just a few years ago. I write this as I snack on cookies and mammary gland excretion.

 

There is nothing inherently moral OR immoral about the FACTS of our anatomy. There might be something immoral about the way we think about the body but that is not the objection here. The objection is that, in essence, the woman is allowing the fact to be known too easily.

I suspect that the boys already know about these facts and either don't care...or else they may be as disgusted with the female form as you are. Either way, it doesn't constitute much of a threat to humanity. Unless there's a BSA rule (and I'd just lo-o-o-ve to see them try this) or unless the CO wants get the courage to bring this up as an issue, you'll just have to fight the good fight (whatever).

 

Trevorum, the only part on which I don't agree is that part about the appealing picture. It's not so much I think it is appealing, or not, but rather - it really is a matter of individual opinion, isn't it? This is a just a tempest in a tea pot.

 

Edited part: Scoutldr, we were typing at the same time. Looks like we're thinking along similar lines. About those bellies, you know don't you, that some of them must be wearing thongs too?

And here's another thought: can you just imagine, given the discussion of the fit and feel of the uniform, how the discussions would go if there was a regulation BSA bra? Boggles the mind.

 

Finally, a long time ago Bob White made an exlamation saying "Aunt Gertie's Garters" and that has creeped me out just a little ever since. Today I found an old silent film called......

"Getting Gertie's Garters". Wow!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[FScouter 24]

Are we talking about "the diversity of the human form", or a fat, smelly, slovenly woman working with our Cub Scouts? One is acceptable, the other is not.

[Trevorum 24]

Well, I've seen a few "fat, smelly, slovenly" leaders in uniform. It was OK though, they were all male.

[scoutldr 732]

packsaddle, yes we are thinking the same, albeit you wax much more eloquent. Perhaps this thread illustrates why we now have to do a "Diversity" ticket for Wood Badge. Too bad she's not also gay...that would make things a lot "cleaner."

[Hunt 11]

Obviously, there is disagreement about whether this is a big deal or not. This is why I think it's best to talk to your COR about institutional standards. If your pack is sponsored by the Earth Mother Commune you'll probably get one answer, and a different one if it's sponsered by the Cotton Mather Puritan Church. In between, it's hard to say. There's really no point polling people here.

One practical point: would you rather have this leader as she is, or not have her (and her son) at all? That may well be the choice you make if you decide to say something to her about it.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Pack,

Nobody really complained. It just came up in several parking lot or tail-gate conversations. It was something like this thread, all to do about nothing. We have the unique ability to make mole-hills out of mountains.

FB

[scoutldr 732]

But isn't it fun?

[packsaddle 753]

Scoutldr, Yep!

Fuzzy Bear, that was a good one. But while everything topographic is good, all-in-all I prefer the 'mountains' to the 'mole hills'.

[Rooster7 11]

Judging by the most recent posts on this and other subjects, I'd say there are way too many Ostriches in this bunch for any mountains to be spotted, much less built. Its easy to be cavalier, especially when ones head is buried in the sand.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Rooster,

 

We are more like the British Regulars marching across the field and drawing direct aim/fire at each other. Strategy is generally lost on our intimate knowledge of our opponents. Sometimes it would be better to call a truce but we seldom do in spite of the good sense it would make. Generally, it is our pride speaking loudly for us and it is then that it may be said that we have stuck our head some place but I dare say it is not in the sand.

 

FB

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Au contrare, I must demur. I like 'cavalier' much better for a number of reasons. First, it's French. Second, THEY have those really nice big floppy hats with the fluffy feathers...

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

They also claim the Magnoit Line that the Germans simply drove around and flew over without ever even thinking about which will forever be the standard for the low tide in military intelligence, the overall breadth of a bad attitude turned in on itself and/or the height of a short-sighted, ill-conceived, high budget defense program turned sour.

 

I still haven't heard if it is now ok to eat French Fries and toast?

 

[packsaddle 753]

Hey, I gotta tell ya Fuzzy, glance around at the adult volunteers...take a close look (OK, not THAT close). I don't think anyone ever STOPPED eating them.

Your point about the military is well taken. But who cares...it's the chapeau, man! The hat!

In contrast think about China, the Great Wall! Do you have any idea what their hats were like back then? Do you care? Nope, and that's because they were simple, functional, and forgettable. OK, so the French are so-so soldiers, just don't forget their food...and then for the piez de resistance - all that beautiful plumage.

http://www.fjminc.com/accessories/plumes.php

Bon apetite