New Dress Regs 🤣

[btrudy]

Did you know 99.7% of Canadians are CIS?

If you're suggesting that the fact that trans people are relatively rare means that it's acceptable to design a set of dress instructions which is inherently discriminatory against them, then I would really prefer if you and your bigotry would kindly remove itself from the CAF and this conversation.

If you're not suggesting that... then I'm not sure what the hell your point is?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'd like to point out that in the RN/RCN it wasn't even a hundred years ago that seamen wore their hair long and in a ponytail. The ponytails disappeared shortly before WWII, but hair could be worn long (touching the shoulders) until unification, when Army hair styles took over.

And in the RCAF, if you didn't have long hair flowing in the wind while flying your Sopwith Camel, then you had a nice long white silk scarf doing it.

Ahhh yes, unification. When the Army threw up all over everything.

 

[TacticalTea]

Not too many long-haired men, to be honest...

At any rate, this new policy doesn't resolve the number one issue that ruins my hair: having to wear a god damn hat everywhere! Who even wears hats anymore in Canadian society!?

 

[Furniture]

Maybe. But appeals to authority can be tricky sometimes.

View attachment 71928

I was kind of driving at the futility/silliness of his mention of Cyprus, and Medak... The CAF has, and will continue to have people who have done dangerous things in the face of an enemy. The Cyprus and Medak generations got things done, the Afghanistan generation got/get things done.

 

[btrudy]

Not too many long-haired men, to be honest...

At any rate, this new policy doesn't resolve the number one issue that ruins my hair: having to wear a god damn hat everywhere! Who even wears hats anymore in Canadian society!?

Now this is the type of no-nonsense policy change I can really get behind.

Plus it'll fix the issue of plenty of people having terrible hat-hair as they start growing out their do's.

 

[mariomike]

There's a guy playing with the captain's ( ? ) ear.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If you're suggesting that the fact that trans people are relatively rare means that it's acceptable to design a set of dress instructions which is inherently discriminatory against them, then I would really prefer if you and your bigotry would kindly remove itself from the CAF and this conversation.

If you're not suggesting that... then I'm not sure what the hell your point is?

But you haven't even demanded to see my manager yet btrudy.

I think it was absolutely acceptable at the time. Now I think it makes sense to take a neutral approach, even if it's for a miniscule percentage of service members. Some women are built differently and just prefer it too. If a woman or transman wants to wear a male DEU tunic then do it.

What I also think thought, is people like you are bigots towards "white cis heterosexual males" as a demographic. In our drive for inclusion “CIS" can and does get used in a negative way.

 

[Remius]

There's a guy playing with the captain's ( ? ) ear.

Covering his piercing so no one melts down about how ineffective it might make him.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If you're suggesting that the fact that trans people are relatively rare means that it's acceptable to design a set of dress instructions which is inherently discriminatory against them, then I would really prefer if you and your bigotry would kindly remove itself from the CAF and this conversation.

If you're not suggesting that... then I'm not sure what the hell your point is?

The only people discriminated against by uniform design were women, the 1980's skirts and bowler hats were quite bad. I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.

 

[ArmyRick]

Welcoming people who want to wear their hair brightly coloured (along with the other changes) will simply mean that the range of people who will not feel excluded or alienated due to the personal appearance regulations is broadened. Inherent inclusivity is a good thing; you know, part of that whole "Respect the Dignity of All Peoples" thing which is literally the most important part of the CAF ethos should include respecting the choices that people want to make with regards to their own personal appearance.



Frankly, it's disappointing that we need to repeat this point since a lot of people here don't seem to get it, but there's literally nothing about wanting to have bright purple hair that has any effect on any of these things.



First off, this isn't a "liberal government" change. It's a bottom-up initiative which was prompted by a briefing note drafted up by the Defence Women's Advisory Organization.

2ndly, yeah, no duh we wear the uniform for those reasons. Which is why we're not getting rid of the uniform.



I fail to see how there this can be construed as "weak". As for integrity, my view is the opposite. Making these changes is simply the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. Removing regulations that infringed upon people's Charter right to freedom of expression is a good thing.



Well, for operations, completely. Nothing in these orders impact the ability to ensure that personal appearance choices don't impact operational capability.

And for traditions and culture: we'll put out foot down and say they're important when it's recognized that they're bringing more benefit than harm. I mean, my dude, we created an entirely new L1 organization headed by a full-ass Lieutenant-General devoted to culture change. You know why that's the case? Because we've recognized that many aspects of our military culture are broken and toxic and need to be fixed.



The people who serve the CAF should be expected to make sacrifices, when there's a good reason for those sacrifices. Adhering to some white cis straight Christian male 1950s aesthetic ideal is not a good reason to expect someone to sacrifice. It's not that they can't give up some minor issue like hair colour, it's that there's no damned good reason to ask them to do it in the first place.

Nope. Big Nope.

Why does someone have to wear purple hair and have nose rings or wear long finger nails?


When I joined in 1990, lots of people wore long hair (heavy metal music was still popular), people cut their damn hair if they wanted to join the CAF. SImple concept.


Show me WHY someone has to have their pretty hair colour or some other silly nonsense. Go for it. You, @btrudy , sell it to me.

Did you get the part about the "me, me, me" mentality? Nope you blew right over it. Thats the ultimate failure in your reasoning and I assume your an officer? Us former NCO and WO types pay attention to our soldiers mind sets. What is their ultimate aim, etc.

What the hell makes YOU think that someone who wants uniform standards that have nothing to do with 1950s christian standards and for F sakes, knock it off with "cis" male terminology. Its a BS made up word.

 

[btrudy]

But you haven't even demanded to see my manager yet btrudy.

I think it was absolutely acceptable at the time. Now I think it makes sense to take a neutral approach, even if it's for a miniscule percentage of service members. Some women are built differently and just prefer it too. If a woman or transman wants to wear a male DEU tunic then do it.

What I also think thought, is people like you are bigots towards "white cis heterosexual males" as a demographic. In our drive for inclusion “CIS" can and does get used in a negative way.

I'm not bigoted against white cishet men; I am one myself after all.

What I dislike is the notion that everyone should be expected to be continually expected to cater to what that group deems as acceptable or ideal. It's not the being cis that's the problem; it's the only considering cis viewpoints when drafting policy that's the problem. Also of course applied to various other aspects.

I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.

I'll also be blunt: I think this viewpoint is a clear indication that you're just a terrible person.

 

[Quirky]

I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.

Given the low fraction of them in the population already, I find it really hard to believe trans people are flocking to the recruiting centers.

This will end up being a non issue. A dozen or so (CAF wide) people will likely color their hair some bright color to get a rise out of "dinosaurs", but will go back to their natural hair color after people at the mall start looking at them funny. Expressing your individuality has it's consequences, more so out in public than inside the pillow walls of the CAF.

What I dislike is the notion that everyone should be expected to be continually expected to cater to what that group deems as acceptable or ideal.

That group you speak of is society. The people who are pushing all these new regs for "inclusivity" are the noisy minority.

 

[Remius]

None of this is going to make things worse. Nor is it going to make things better and address our current operational issues.

The end.

 

[btrudy]

Nope. Big Nope.

Why does someone have to wear purple hair and have nose rings or wear long finger nails?

Because they can and they want to. What business is it of yours when it doesn't affect operational perfomance?

When I joined in 1990, lots of people wore long hair (heavy metal music was still popular), people cut their damn hair if they wanted to join the CAF. SImple concept.

Sure; and that was unreasonable at the time, and would continue to be unreasonable now. Because long hair doesn't make someone worse at the job. Especially if the "long hair" would only be considered too long if it's attached to a man instead of a woman.

Show me WHY someone has to have their pretty hair colour or some other silly nonsense. Go for it. You, @btrudy , sell it to me.

Because they want to, and it's none of our damned business otherwise if it doesn't affect operational performance.

Did you get the part about the "me, me, me" mentality? Nope you blew right over it. Thats the ultimate failure in your reasoning and I assume your an officer? Us former NCO and WO types pay attention to our soldiers mind sets. What is their ultimate aim, etc.

If the ultimate aim is to serve Canada in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, then all other choices they make with regards to personal appearance are irrelevant, to the extent that they don't negative impact operational capability, which of course these dress instruction updates still take care of.

What the hell makes YOU think that someone who wants uniform standards that have nothing to do with 1950s christian standards and for F sakes, knock it off with "cis" male terminology. Its a BS made up word.

... the dress standards were drafted back then, to suit contemporary (at the time) aesthetic ideals of what a "proper" Eurocentric Christian male-focused ideal was. Looking like that is no better or worse than any of the myriad of other possible choices; it's a cultural construct, and thus should not ever be viewed as if it's part of some even remotely objective criteria.

But the fact that the institution latched onto those aesthetics, and forbade any others, has continually made it a worse place for anyone who isn't naturally inclined to follow said aesthetics. It inherently creates one group, for which the standard was designed, which is an "in-group", and excludes all others who might want anything else, whether that desire stems from reasons of personal preference, cultural practices (recent or traditional) or religious obligation.

That group you speak of is society. The people who are pushing all these new regs for "inclusivity" are the noisy minority.

I think you seem to be failing to grasp the point that these changes are being implemented, to quote the CFCWO, "to better reflect the changing tastes of the Canadian society we serve".

Society has moved on from the notion that everyone needs to look like a proper English gentleman. So should we.

 

[Remius]

So I actually talk to the troops in my unit. The common thing I hear is they want deployments, they want courses, they want good training and kit that works and kit that is relevant. Also unanimously from the female side is wanting something down about culture issues, not specifically in the unit but CAF wide.

No one has asked for pink hair or face tattoos. Not that some wouldn’t take advantage of the new rules but it does t seem to be their most pressing concern. Some welcomed beards, some welcomed legalized pot. Some will welcome pink hair and some will welcome whatever else.

I can guarantee that after the new dres regs are in force that they will all still be asking for deployments, courses and good training and kit that works and kit that is relevant. And we will still be bleeding people.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'll also be blunt: I think this viewpoint is a clear indication that you're just a terrible person.

You are welcome to your opinion of me, but the job of the CF is to go out kill people and break their things and 99% of that crowd, will not further that objective. If I was running a coffee shop or a gardening supply place, I would not care about their gender choices. But with a job like the Forces, they are not worth the effort. My daughter wanted to go RMC and Officer, except now she is a diabetic and will not qualify. Yes she be a great officer and a benefit as long as she does not have to deploy. If she did she be a drag on any unit as she needs Insulin every day. The harsh reality is that she is not viable for the job any longer. The same applies to emotionally needy and unstable people.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I'd like to point out that in the RN/RCN it wasn't even a hundred years ago that seamen wore their hair long and in a ponytail. The ponytails disappeared shortly before WWII, but hair could be worn long (touching the shoulders) until unification, when Army hair styles took over.

And in the RCAF, if you didn't have long hair flowing in the wind while flying your Sopwith Camel, then you had a nice long white silk scarf doing it.

Most of the lads that took on the Fenians and the Metis looked like this:



They would have balked at what most of us would say a soldier is supposed to look like. I'm certain they would say it's bizarre to see a woman in the ranks, and would marvel at something as simple as a washing machine.

Traditions are good, until they get in the way of progress. Adapting traditions to meet contemporary values is the only way they survive. It's the same reason I have never had to piss in a wine bottle at a Mess Dinner. "This is stupid... let's not keep doing this..."

 

[Remius]

Most of the lads that took on the Fenians and the Metis looked like this:

View attachment 71930

They would have balked at what most of us would say a soldier is supposed to look like. I'm certain they would say it's bizarre to see a woman in the ranks, and would marvel at something as simple as a washing machine.

Traditions are good, until they get in the way of progress. Adapting traditions to meet contemporary values is the only way they survive. It's the same reason I have never had to piss in a wine bottle at a Mess Dinner. "This is stupid... let's not keep doing this..."

Creepy guy in the tent staring into your soul…

Also those look like the Arctic tents we still have. Might actually be them lol

 

[FSTO]

Who even wears hats anymore in Canadian society!?

Umm, all those folks who wear baseball hats, backwards I might add.

 

[Thunderbug]

I challenge you to wargame this policy and come up with scenarios (realistic scenarios - not far fetched ones) where this policy would actually be an issue.

A member at a unit located in a metropolitan city with a strong LGBT culture gets an LGBT pride symbol tattooed on their face, as an outward expression of their identity. Their CoC at the time is supportive as it does not contravene the regulations on tattoos being affiliated with hate groups, etc, and there is no impact to the performance of their duties.

Three years later the member is posted to another city and unit, which will be deploying shortly on an operation in a country where homosexuality is illegal and there is a strong anti-LGBT sentiment based on religious and cultural norms. While a SOFA exists preventing the member from being prosecuted under the country's dubious legal system, there are concerns that the member may become the target of a capable adversary who would exploit their image to undermine the mission and sow distrust among the strongly conservative host nation forces.

Covering the member's face for six months is neither practical nor dignified. Based on the climate in the operating environment, there is no reasonable way to conceal the tattoo.

Not deploying the member, or forcing them to cover the tattoo while on deployment, could be seen as homophobic and could result in negative media attention being drawn to the mission. The issue in question isn't the member's identity or orientation, but rather how a permanent political and cultural symbol which is acceptable in Canada could result in operational tensions with host nation forces in theatre.