The Importance of Uniforming

[Lisabob 13]

This is not about being a "socialist" or not. That sort of over-simplified and polarizing rhetoric is actually very unhelpful if the goal is to have a real conversation and understand other perspectives.

 

While I am sure your method gets you desired results - a pack of boys in uniform - I also think there are several other ways to reach a similar end that might turn off fewer people.

 

I took your response to sasha's post where she articulated a different reality to be unhelpful and abrasive. Six kids in scouting has to be expensive; not just the uniforming, but all the other activities, too. And the family might want to use their disposable income on non-scouting things from time to time, as well. That they are committed to scouting with six kids is something we ought to be praising, not attacking them for. Rather than try to understand Sasha's perspective and experience (even if you don't agree, which is fine), you got in her face and made assumptions about her spending patterns and thriftiness. Your assumptions carried an implication about her dedication to her kids' well-being and parenting style that probably would turn off an awful lot of parents who are doing the best they can.

 

If I came to your pack and saw you do to another person what you wrote to Sasha here, I'd have walked out the door. Not because I can't afford uniforms, but because that's not an example of how to treat people that I agree with or want modeled for my child. And because, in my experience, people who behave that way are setting their organization up for all sorts of unnecessary drama. Even if we joined your unit, you'd never get me as a volunteer because of that abrasiveness. I would make an assumption, perhaps incorrect, that you are probably hard to work with on other issues too, not just on uniforming.

 

In an all-volunteer organization, having an approach that causes others not to want to work with you is a real problem.

 

[by the way, selling donuts on the street corner without a vender license in my area would get you in trouble. Or are you advocating that scouts should ignore the law when it is inconvenient to follow it?]

 

 

[Scoutfish 16]

n our pack, we lost a handfull of kids due to the economy.Lots of jobs dissappeard overnight. Unemployment is as high as I have ever seen it right now.

 

My company went from 30 full time employees to having about 17. 2 are part time at that.

 

I myself have seen my pay drop by 30% - which is better than watching it drop by 100%

 

7 years ago, the ads section of the paper was 8 pages long, 4 pages of which were help wanted ads.

 

Those same help wanted ads are now limited to 2 pages. Almost 75 % of the ads require degress or higher requirements. Great if you happen to have that degree, but worthless if you do not.

 

In our pack, we lost ane scout because mom needs a kidney and dad lost his job due to "restructuring". Two more dad's jobs were eliminated due to loss of customer demand.

 

Sure, all they have to do is get another job right? Thing is, how many construction workers have a degree in a specific field as a safety net.

 

So let's see....Dad looses job due to economy, mom's hours are cut back. They are barely scraping by without figuring not only uniforms, but gas to and from meetings, and any and all other expenses associated with scouting.

 

And it's peoples choice?

 

At the same time, you require them to wear a uniform, but it doesn't matter if a Tiger cub wear a CM award knot or Eagle patch as long as he's having fun? Adults can wear OA Lodge patches or "trained" strips even if they do not have the right"

 

WOW!

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

"arrogant, sanctimonious, racist and bigotted person"

"anyone defending you is putting themselves in the same bracket"

 

Indeed... the winning formula for PC mob "justice" enforcement. One yells "heretic!" and anyone who disagrees is implicitly also a heretic. Anyone who deviates from the Stepford-Wives-esque code of nice-thought is holding themselves up to be similarly branded a heretic. No habeas corpus, no jury, and any right to a defense comes with the proviso that the defender is also guilty.

 

Let's review the charges again:

"you truly are an arrogant, sanctimonious, racist and bigotted person"

It's telling that falsehood or error is not among those charges. The problem apparently isn't that BSA-24 is wrong, it's that what he says makes us sad.

 

The only support for the charges is a reference to BSA-24's "self serving condemnation of [the poor]." The condemnation must be well disguised between the lines somewhere in BSA-24s posts. I can't find it. And it's mysterious how this condemnation is self-serving. It seems to have gotten BSA-24 nothing but abuse.

 

Sanctimonious moral exhibitionism is more obviously self serving than this supposed condemnation of the poor. Preening one's holier than thou care for the poor is self serving.

 

BSA-24 can correct this if it's wrong, but what he has said in this thread essentially amounts to this: The poor are equal to the rich in terms of moral agency.

If this is true, it might be a bit upsetting to folks who like to congratulate themselves for how much they care about the poor. How can one pose as a protector of the less fortunate when folks realize that in many cases, what is portrayed as misfortune, is actually the result of choices?

 

And... "racist" ? Really? How?

 

[johnponz 14]

The issue that I have is over generalizations. Sure some people make what we consider to be poor decisions which create endless problems for themselves. They then call themselves victims. That is in some cases.

 

Then there are other cases where people get caught up in a whirlwind of situations they can't control and it is a down ward spiral. This situation is usually temporary but in the current economy is becoming

more structural.

 

It is plain wrong to paint everyone with the same brush.

 

Finally, BSAs approach to uniform issues baffles me as much as it does Scoufish. Why would you require official socks but allow Scouts to wear whatever insignia is fun. It is really incongruous logic.

[johnponz 14]

As far as racism. I believe it is true that BSA 24s comments are not overtly racist. However, it is exactly the type of stereotyping thought processes that leads to racism. When you can stereotype a group such as the poor it becomes easier to stereotype other groups as well. This is known as a slippery slope, and is well established in Sociology.

 

(This message has been edited by Johnponz)

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

"This is known as a slippery slope, and is well established in Sociology."

 

I didn't know that it was well established in Sociology.

But any person familiar with logic is familiar with it as the "slippery slope fallacy" to such an extent that you can hardly say the first two words without them thinking of the third.

 

If it is now well establish in Sociology, that may help explain the field's slide in disrepute. Perhaps that slide is along a slippery slope.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

[BadenP 93]

"The poor choose to be poor"- BSA24

 

Since the poor in this country for the most part are minorities as US Dept. of Labor reports it, and are additionally people of all races who have lost nearly everything in this long term recession(depression) BSA24's remark is truly RACIST and BIGOTTED. Callay you can throw in all your sociological theory you wish but BSA24's statement speaks for itself. He has made other comments in this and other threads that have made the hair on my neck stand on end. As a long time counselor and therapist it is pretty easy for me to see where people are in their thought processes. The sad part is BSA24 makes no apologies for his racist remarks but rather flaunts them quite often. IMO he is truly a poor role model for an adult scout leader who works with kids, and the LAST thing he needs is defending by others.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

The argument that being critical of the poor is racist because the poor are mostly minorities is essentially the same as all the other "disparate impact" arguments floating around. We could use the same illogic to claim the income tax code is racist and targets whites for unfair discrimination since they pay more taxes than other groups - but let's not seriously make that argument; it's silly.

 

The Baden P statement that "the poor in this country for the most part are minorities as US Dept. of Labor reports it" is false; the poor in this country are not mostly minorities and the US Dept of Labor does not report that. Minorities experience poverty at higher rates than non-minorities, but that does not mean that most poor people are minorities. There are more poor non-minorities because there are more non-minorities.

 

My "sociological theory?" This is deliberately obtuse right?

Or is someone trying to get my goat by accusing me of something as scurrilous as sociology?

Wow! BSA-24 gets off easy - he's just accused of racism.

But I put in a few words of half-hearted defense... and get accused of sociology.

How low can the ad hominem arguments go?

 

BTW - SeattleP's probably right about the exaggeration in posts in this thread... some of that exaggeration looks like it's purposely employed for the rhetorical effect of hyperbole. And some of it looks like it's a way of projecting racism onto unpleasant truths so as to avoid dealing with them - or maybe I'm exaggerating a little.

 

When I was a scout, I got used uniforms. I don't recall feeling at all bad about it.

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

[BadenP 93]

Callay & SP

 

Whether you want to look at US Labor statistics as to who is living below the poverty line or USDA stats as to who is collecting food stamps, or states who is collecting welfare stats, available on the agencies own websites you might be surprised as to the accuracy of what I have said here. If anyone is being too "general" it is indeed you Callay. What I have said about BSA24 is indeed accurate and true, and especially because he has NOT refuted anything I have stated. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must indeed be a duck!

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

Failure to distinguish between rates and totals can confuse one's perception - particularly on issues on which we're always hearing about the rate and not the total.

 

 

[johnponz 14]

For the record when raw numbers are looked at and no rates, Calloh! is correct. When you look at national raw numbers there are many more Whites below the poverty level than any other race.

 

However raw numbers have very little meaning. The truth is any given African American or other minority is much more likely to be "poor" than any given White (this is the rate). The rate is much more important number.

 

I will also concede that the "slippery slope" is included as a logical fallacy. However in the realm of human behavior many have argued that the slope is a valid occurance exactly as I described above, and I adhere to this viewpoint.

 

[johnponz 14]

By the way here are the numbers courtesy of the US Census.

 

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104525.html

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

"The truth is any given African American or other minority is much more likely to be "poor" than any given White" Yes - this fact I noted previously. However I don't agree that "the rate is much more important number" for the purposes of this discussion.

 

Reasonable parties concede that some people are poor more because of choices they make and others are poor more because of misfortune - still others for some combination of the two.

But if, as has been posited, the rate (higher rate poverty among blacks, that is) is the much more important number.... Why is it so important? Is it supposed to guide how we think of blacks or how we think of poverty? It is that we can't hold blacks and whites equally responsible for their own choices? Or is it that when white people are poor it's more likely to be their own fault than it is for blacks? ... There isn't much daylight between either of those assertions and I suggest we simply scrap the idea of treating the black poor differently than we treat the white poor. Let us be equal under the law and in how we think of each other's moral agency, regardless of race.

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

[johnponz 14]

Callooh, you and I are in agreement. We have argued into the same position.

 

My basic issue with BSA 24 was that he was stating that all poor people are poor due to bad decisions only, and that is not true nor fair. People are not all poor because of bad decisions alone. That was my entire premise with which you agree.

 

I still say BSA 24s logic with regard to socks and insignia placement is incongruous and defies logic.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[BSA24 10]

> Finally, BSAs approach to uniform issues

> baffles me ... Why would you require official socks

> but allow Scouts to wear whatever

> insignia is fun.

 

Hmmm. Well, I didn't go into every little detail because I wasn't expecting this lovely stake, those nice logs, the smell of kerosene, and that nice man wearing the black hood holding the torch.

 

We require the pants, socks, and shirt because those are the equivalent of a baseball uniform. It's what the community expects to be required of them. And, they can't screw it up.

 

But sometimes they do screw up the patches. One dad was a very low income Russian fellow, and he used that awful badge magic glue to put his son's bobcat badge on the wrong pocket. And it was upside down. That kid wore that upside down bobcat, and no other patches, for three years before getting a khaki shirt when he went up to the Webelos.

 

I pointed it out one time, and I let it be. What do you want me to do to them? Have someone rattle a snare drum and have the boy ring the bell and walk down Washout Way?

 

I don't believe it is my job to "let" people do anything with their badges. They are told how to do it right, given a uniform inspection sheet both by us and by the scout shop. But some people do things that they just don't care about or are determined to do - like the guy who replaced his trained badge with a "potty trained" badge. I saw it. I laughed.

 

I think that explains it pretty well. We require the pants, socks, and shirt. We explain how to properly wear the uniform. I don't pick fights with parents about their son's badges being sewn perfectly. I don't pick fights with leaders who sew the purple world crest even with the pocket seam and then put a knot on to the left so it will fit.

 

What's the big deal?

 

Shame on some of you for the way you express yourselves. Take a look in the mirror before you make assumptions about my poor character, please.

 

> you truly are an arrogant, sanctimonious, racist and bigotted person.

> you are unfit to be a scout leader

> he is truly a poor role model

> poisoning the minds of young boys with your brand of vile contempt, bigotry, and hatred.

 

Which points of the Scout Law are you demonstrating here, BadenP?

 

Quote anything that I wrote that you think tops any of that.