A "Why" Dress Thread split from OCdt Speaks at Freedom Rally

[kev994]

Not going to lie, you have completely lost me with the ponytail thing as no one actually explained what the issue is. From what I have gathered, it appears that women are not allowed to turn their heads for fear of their ponytails touching their shoulders.

I could be wrong on this one...but that's what it looks like to me.

There’s a maximum length, I think it’s the armpit, so she needs to either cut it or wear it higher so that it falls higher, but that second option doesn’t work if she needs to wear a helmet on the plane.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm always astounded that people don't know you are supposed to bring your DEUs into the tailor shop for proper fitting.

Pet peeve... DEU pants that are to long and bunch up at the ankle

 

[dapaterson]

As I read the folks here dumping on someone and trotting out various policies to justify their words, my eyes are drawn to the first volume of the Queen's Regulations and Orders, chapter 19, article 19.13...

No officer or non-commissioned member shall rebuke any person in the presence or hearing of anyone junior to that person in rank, unless a public rebuke is absolutely necessary for the preservation of discipline.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As I read the folks here dumping on someone and trotting out various policies to justify their words, my eyes are drawn to the first volume of the Queen's Regulations and Orders, chapter 19, article 19.13...

I'm reminded of a couple of COs who were quite comfortable jacking people up in front of everyone for minor issues, mainly just to prove 'I am the Alpha'. Must be good for your career as they're both doing very well right now career-wise.

Respect-wise, not so much of course...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As I read the folks here dumping on someone and trotting out various policies to justify their words, my eyes are drawn to the first volume of the Queen's Regulations and Orders, chapter 19, article 19.13...

Well, there goes officer of the watch training.

 

[Kilted]

I'm always astounded that people don't know you are supposed to bring your DEUs into the tailor shop for proper fitting.

Pet peeve... DEU pants that are to long and bunch up at the ankle

Not everyone has access to a tailor. We lost our only tailor for our brigade. I had to pay $75 just to get the badges put on a new DEU jacket. I don't know what tailoring pants would cost, fortunately, I don't wear them.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Sometimes I get the impression that the military didn't know what to do with MWOs and CWOs so they were like uhh yea it's super important to freak out like a maniac over small dress and deportment things. Go.

 

[OldSolduer]

Sometimes I get the impression that the military didn't know what to do with MWOs and CWOs so they were like uhh yea it's super important to freak out like a maniac over small dress and deportment things. Go.

The duties of CSM and RSM are more than dress and deportment. To concentrate on dress and deportment is folly I think. Taking care of the soldiers and officers is paramount IMO

 

[mariomike]

Men, Women, Sikh, Muslim, Natives, etc. If we are all equal and expect to be treated equally, why do we insist on separate standards?

Human Rights?

 

[Maxman1]

If they had done it without tac vests and marched normally, it probably wouldn't have been an issue. Although, it's not typically the type of parade you would have rifles on.

I tried to explain that to him, but he wouldn't listen.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I think, more correctly, some separate standards are imposed upon us in the names of diversity and inclusion. The intent is to broaden the appeal of the CAF to under-represented segments of society to meet certain recruiting targets established for political reasons so that the CAF is representative of the country it serves. While that's a laudable goal, it has never really been attained.

Human Rights?

My thoughts are much simplier. I understand what the goal is but the 'special exemption' has never sat well with me. If it is acceptable to jack one person up for say long hair but not another who is doing the same job with long you have a problem and are discriminating. The solution to make it acceptable is to modify the standards to one set standard for all. Either long hair is acceptable or it isn't. Either Turbans are acceptable or they aren't. Either beards are acceptable with one set standard or they are not. I know it is a radical concept for the CAF to have one standard applied evenly across the board, but they would be surprised to find most people (especially the people they need/want to recruit) are very accepting of those types of changes.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not going to lie, you have completely lost me with the ponytail thing as no one actually explained what the issue is. From what I have gathered, it appears that women are not allowed to turn their heads for fear of their ponytails touching their shoulders.

I could be wrong on this one...but that's what it looks like to me.

This is the current CAF direction; right, wrong, too restrictive...or otherwise...this is the wording.

Pony tail shall be worn in the centre of the back. Hair shall be a maximum length when gathered behind the head and does not extend below the top of the armpit.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Dress policy...personally, I think many aspects of the current policy are archaic. CAF Beard policy-CANFORGEN 158/18

But, my personal opinion doesn't count for much as work, right? There's rules for many things, dress is one of them and the current regulations tell us if we're supposed to enforce them...or not. We're all expected to enforce the rules as they exist.

Operations are different than photo ops. I know many people who bought and wore their own boots flying over the IMPACT JOA and have zero issue with that; but that probably wouldn't go over so well on a parade, right? We used to call that "being smart about being stupid', same as when we wore our american rainjackets in the field in G-town in the early 90s...after we were thru the range control gates. No one was dumb enough to wear them on base.

I've said it two dozen times or so...change the regs to the 'actual' desired standard...or enforce the ones that exist. Part of my job is to correct the ones I see...and if they don't matter, change the policy so I don't have to waste my time doing that.

Shit, or get off the pot, NDCDC...maybe start with deleting para's 8-10, Chap 1 of 265, thanks.

DAP, your ref to 19.13? This might help you out some....I'm sure that stretch really hurt...

 

[mariomike]

My thoughts are much simplier.

It was not my thought. Or, opinion.

It was my - guess - as to what could possibly be going through their minds.

You asked a question, I typed in a two-word guess. I was careful to end it with a question mark, rather than a period. Because I'm not psychic, or an expert.

My personal "thoughts"? Like yours, mine are also pretty simple.

They could likely be found in whatever grooming standards were in effect when I joined.

Yes, I understand they likely would not be popular with some on the internet forums of today.

Also, possibly not in sync with Human Rights?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This thread has more humorous twists and turns than a Mel Brooks movie.

 

[Kilted]

My thoughts are much simplier. I understand what the goal is but the 'special exemption' has never sat well with me. If it is acceptable to jack one person up for say long hair but not another who is doing the same job with long you have a problem and are discriminating. The solution to make it acceptable is to modify the standards to one set standard for all. Either long hair is acceptable or it isn't. Either Turbans are acceptable or they aren't. Either beards are acceptable with one set standard or they are not. I know it is a radical concept for the CAF to have one standard applied evenly across the board, but they would be surprised to find most people (especially the people they need/want to recruit) are very accepting of those types of changes.

If we do go to one hair standard, does that mean that either all women must have short hair, or all men must have long hair? Or is it a choice where we will see everyone basically doing whatever they what? Which in reality, in a lot of cases is what we already have. If long hair is mandatory, then we will start to see religious exceptions for short hair.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If we do go to one hair standard, does that mean that either all women must have short hair, or all men must have long hair? Or is it a choice where we will see everyone basically doing whatever they what? Which in reality, in a lot of cases is what we already have. If long hair is mandatory, then we will start to see religious exceptions for short hair.

Allow all standards already included in the dress manual to be followed by anyone (a man that wants a pony tail can have one and a female that wants short hair can have it too).

 

[Weinie]

Allow all standards already included in the dress manual to be followed by anyone (a man that wants a pony tail can have one and a female that wants short hair can have it too).

Shouldn't the end result be how well the person with the ponytail or short hair performs the job? I'm not particularly fussed over whether someone meets the perfect caricature of the epitome of the desired CAF personage, I have dealt with chubby folks who were amazing at their jobs, bags of shyte who delivered (and sucked) , and super soldiers who folded under pressure. At the end of the day, I looked at them to do their job. Full stop.

The tangent this thread has taken is ridiculous. Look around you, measure the effect of what your folks deliver, (notwithstanding their dress/deportment/appearance) and then determine what really matters.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Shouldn't the end result be how well the person with the ponytail or short hair performs the job? I'm not particularly fussed over whether someone meets the perfect caricature of the epitome of the desired CAF personage, I have dealt with chubby folks who were amazing at their jobs, bags of shyte who delivered (and sucked) , and super soldiers who folded under pressure. At the end of the day, I looked at them to do their job. Full stop.

The tangent this thread has taken is ridiculous. Look around you, measure the effect of what your folks deliver, (notwithstanding their dress/deportment/appearance) and then determine what really matters.

I agree with 100% you Weinie. However, some people view making sure people adhere to the dress manual at all times their life mission. I have always been fairly lenient when it comes to dress standard. I don’t really care than someone has longish hair, or that someone works 8 hours a day every day as long as their job is done effectively, on time and they don’t complain when it comes time to work longer hours/do more work. I let people be adult and manage themselves until their prove they need closer supervision.
I always found we (the CAF) spent way too much time enforcing dress rather than focusing on what really matters: the work we are paid to do.

 

[Weinie]

I agree with 100% you Weinie. However, some people view making sure people adhere to the dress manual at all times their life mission. I have always been fairly lenient when it comes to dress standard. I don’t really care than someone has longish hair, or that someone works 8 hours a day every day as long as their job is done effectively, on time and they don’t complain when it comes time to work longer hours/do more work. I let people be adult and manage themselves until their prove they need closer supervision.
I always found we (the CAF) spent way too much time enforcing dress rather than focusing on what really matters: the work we are paid to do.

I somewhat agree that there has to be a minimum standard (for entry). But to enforce that standard at a level that questions the ability/capability precludes some to serve(or continue to serve) within the org, or to unilaterally castigate them, is idiotic.

At the end of the day, we need to support Ops. Who cares what the Cpl/MCpl/Sgt who effectively enables Ops looks like, according to the dress manual? FFS.