New Dress Regs 🤣

[Navy_Pete]

Beards, weed and boots have a expiry date on keeping people happy and / or distracted?

Next step, GIFs in emails!

I'm stuck contentedly watching this one now.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Nope. RCAF fleeces (there are two; one is standard anti-static dissipating, the other for aircrew is FR with FR stitching and FR hook&loop system) have all the required spots for name tapes, flags, patches, slip-ons, etc. RCAF members, at least in this case, are treated like adults and allowed to wear fleece as an outer garment.

It an ‘Army doing it to itself’ issue….

Huh. Didn’t know there’s 2. Is the second one on the TH SOI? Never even heard of it (not that i need another jacket…).

 

[Good2Golf]

Huh. Didn’t know there’s 2. Is the second one on the TH SOI? Never even heard of it (not that i need another jacket…).

Yup.

 

[markppcli]

All I wanted in that FAQ was to see “ ECU pants are to be secure at the ankle as they are designed, not bloused above the boot.” To be followed by instructions that every one wo be in ECU by the end of the year.

 

[NavyShooter]

So...can I trim my beard into a Goatee yet...?

 

[Remius]

So...can I trim my beard into a Goatee yet...?

Sept i believe

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think the navy equivalent on the engineering side usually happened in the MCR during quiet hours or in one of the engineering spaces on an alongside party (heavy workshop on the 280s, AAMR on the CPFs). The party bit has gone out of style, but we also occasionally did sunday morning coffees in the MCR at sea. Was a lot more informal, but could be enlightening.

I think town halls fall apart when you reach a certain critical mass (and similarly think the critical mass for a WG to be useless is 8 people); just gets to a point where most people won't actually speak their mind, and a lot of people who do speak their mind don't actually represent the masses and have their own axes to grind.

A townhall that is publicised as been about X issues can be good and focused. You can leave 5-10 minutes for any question to be asked with no promise of an answer and no consequences so you get a barometer of what they are feeling or is there an issue that you have missed.

 

[Kilted]

All I wanted in that FAQ was to see “ ECU pants are to be secure at the ankle as they are designed, not bloused above the boot.” To be followed by instructions that every one wo be in ECU by the end of the year.

I'm pretty sure that I saw a PowerPoint that said that in about 2012 or 2013.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm super excited that these new dress regs will postpone the release of 2 or 3 entire people, so we can drive them into the ground with op tempo ...

 

[markppcli]

I'm pretty sure that I saw a PowerPoint that said that in about 2012 or 2013.

Hahahahha had the same comment to a friend the other day.

 

[btrudy]

I'm super excited that these new dress regs will postpone the release of 2 or 3 entire people, so we can drive them into the ground with op tempo ...

If it does help recruitment or retention, that's a great thing, but that's a side benefit. The initiative was done primarily to be more inherently inclusive. You're supposed to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because it would benefit you.

 

[Kilted]

Hahahahha had the same comment to a friend the other day.

I only got my first and so far only set of the new uniform in 2018, I still wear the old uniform sometimes because I haven't been able to exchange them.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm super excited that these new dress regs will postpone the release of 2 or 3 entire people, so we can drive them into the ground with op tempo ...

 

[lenaitch]

If it does help recruitment or retention, that's a great thing, but that's a side benefit. The initiative was done primarily to be more inherently inclusive. You're supposed to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because it would benefit you.

I get the need to remove items or practices that may be a roadblock to genders or cultures, but I don't see how most of the itemized changes have anything to do with 'inclusion'. Attempts to be more attractive or contemporary to the recruit-level demographic - sure; but is there marginalized group out there that is being excluded because they walk with their hands in their pockets, have facial tattoos or lime green hair?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I get the need to remove items or practices that may be a roadblock to genders or cultures, but I don't see how most of the itemized changes have anything to do with 'inclusion'. Attempts to be more attractive or contemporary to the recruit-level demographic - sure; but is there marginalized group out there that is being excluded because they walk with their hands in their pockets, have facial tattoos or lime green hair?

I think its both.

We saw the whole thing start with ponytailforgen and beardforgen. Rules for some, not for others. Canadian society is borderline Communist when it comes to egalitarianism (well....perceived egalitarianism).

Any change in the Dress Regs solely in order to accommodate Trans or Non-binary folks would have been met with the "well what about me?" Card being played by every Cpl/Pte in the CAF.

This policy, while it does let pretty much everyone off the chain to do whatever they want, is easier to enforce because the need for accommodation will be limited. No more religious exemptions, beard chits, having to disclose your gender preference to your CoC, etc.

Do I think it's a Bridge Too Far? Possibly. But ultimately, it won't affect my appearance in the slightest; for those it will have a net positive benefit for? I'm super happy for them. As for the ass hats looking to "stick it to the dinosaurs," I hope they know what they're getting into and will watch for 2, 3 months afterward how many of them are still willing to put up with the hassle in exchange for the shock value.

 

[btrudy]

I get the need to remove items or practices that may be a roadblock to genders or cultures, but I don't see how most of the itemized changes have anything to do with 'inclusion'. Attempts to be more attractive or contemporary to the recruit-level demographic - sure; but is there marginalized group out there that is being excluded because they walk with their hands in their pockets, have facial tattoos or lime green hair?

I mean, literally anyone who would prefer to have their appearance in a manner that is currently banned but will now be allowed will now feel more welcome as part of the institution. You don't need to be targeting certain specific demographic groups. Making everyone feel welcome is good. You don't need to micromanage the dress instructions to try and target stuff associated with marginalized groups; just make it sufficiently open that everyone can do what they want, whether that desire be based upon traditional cultural practices, new cultural practices, religious obligations, or personal preference, and then everyone feels more at home in the institution.

While we have a bit more of an obligation to make accomodations for religious practices and the like, there's really no particular reason not to also open it up to just personal preferences. Lime green hair doesn't negatively affect our operational capability any more than pony tails did, any more than hands in pockets will, any more than facial tattoos will or DEU skirts on men, etc. Infringing on people's Charter rights to freedom of expression by banning lime green hair (or any of the other of myriad of changes that are being implemented) is IMHO only justifiable when there's a really damned good reason; the notion that you can be ordered to wear a scarf to cover it is reasonable.

But while we're at it to also address your specific question, yes there are marginalized groups that would be excluded due to facial tattoos; Inuit, Maori, etc.

 

[TacticalTea]

@rmc_wannabe is right on.

The whole, entire point of this is avoiding liability. CAF is actually pretty strong on the rule of law. Even looking at Op Honour type stuff, one might think it's female-biased, but actually it'd be worst in corporate, I tell ya what.

This organization has actually been pretty good during my time in at demonstrating that it wants to uphold the same standards no matter what ''group'' you belong to.

In reality, this ''new'' policy is already in effect. Go take a walk on a naval base and you'll see all the stuff that's listed on there already. This reality is a sort of frankenstein monster made up of a thousand exemptions. This opens up the CAF to adverse administrative or legal action on the basis that the majority is now the minority, and it has become unfair to apply the rules so unevenly.

Thus... HAIRFORGEN. Level the playing field. Everybody now plays by the same rules.

Are we going to look like a goofy band of misfits? Oh ya. Is this going to do anything for recruitment, retention, morale, and unity? Hell nah. But at least the CAF avoids liability.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

 

[btrudy]

I'm quite pleased that this meme, unlike my actual RSM, actually knows the proper pluralization of Sergeant-Major.

 

[Ostrozac]

The initiative was done primarily to be more inherently inclusive.

Is that true, though? It was my understanding that the new dress initiatives were driven by legal advice that the current standard wouldn’t survive a supreme court challenge.