All things beardy-2005 to 2018 (merged)

[Michael OLeary]

Sigh.  I left out the 

No worries, it's not like I'm taking this seriously. 

As to which of your rights is being violated:  it's that pesky "equality" thing - why should a land-based MARS officer or a vechicle technician be permitted to express themself with a beard (within parameters spelled out in regulation) while you are not?  What Bona Fide Operational Requirement (the test used to determine legitimacy) exists that demonstrates that a beard on your face would impair the operational effectiveness of the CF?

Oh, the right to equality of self expression, I know that one.  ;D

 

[Jarnhamar]

Army.Ca is an unofficial site, not associated with DND or the CF.  It's a place where people with an interest in Canada's military can discuss, debate, argue and socialize about issues facing the military.  This is a discussion/debate/argument about lumberjack commandos beards in the CF.  It's not an official CANFORGEN announcing a ZZ-Top look-alike context for CF members.  It's not anyone passing orders or asserting any military authority or stating "I am making an official statement on behalf of the CF". It's a gang of people expressing opinions.

IMHO it used to be this way, feels a little more official the last couple of years.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

IMHO it used to be this way, feels a little more official the last couple of years.

How so? Is it because some people decide that they would rather tow the party line instead of rise up against the establishment at every opportunity? That would be their perogative.

 

[vonGarvin]

As to which of your rights is being violated:  it's that pesky "equality" thing - why should a land-based MARS officer or a vechicle technician be permitted to express themself with a beard (within parameters spelled out in regulation) while you are not?  What Bona Fide Operational Requirement (the test used to determine legitimacy) exists that demonstrates that a beard on your face would impair the operational effectiveness of the CF?

You know what I hear?  "Whinge, whinge, whinge".  If you want to know what operational imperative states that male infantry officers who aren't sikh or native must not have beards: there are none.  Nada, zero, zilch.  So, here's my advice to you: suck it up OR you can convert to whichever religion states that you must have a beard.  If you want to wear ear rings, put in for a sex change: it's your right!  Hell, put on a face tattoo so that you look like Darth Maul for all I care!  And tattoo some obscenities on it: it's your right! 

Someone call 911, I'm having a coronary!

Like it or not, you were not forced into service.  Neither were you forced into the army/navy/airforce.  It's your choice.  Upon entering, you were told that you would be expected to look a certain way, etc.  So, if for other than tradtional reasons, gender reasons, or cultural reasons, you will be clean shaven.  Yes, I know, "the Charter!".  So bloody what. 


Fucking entitlement my ass.  Get out if you don't like it.  And if you think it's inequality, go to divorce court sometime and sit in the back and see how differently men and women are treated.  Or check out how natives are treated under our laws.  Life ain't fair, and then it ends. 

In a world full of starving children, etc, your complaint that your rights are violated is about the lamest I've heard in quite some time.  Yes, I have seen your sig block, so this is MY opinion:

Having a certain "look" based on gender, culture or traditional trade within the CF is how we project a professional look.  And though you don't like it: looks matter.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .
The uniformity rules of the past were easy to enforce without anyone asking questions. Why do we all have to shave our beards? Cause everyone does. Why can't we wear earings in the mess? Cause everyone does. What we have created with our regulations is a mix of many cultures (some natives growning hair long, Metis with pony tails, Muslims with beards, women with earrings, cornroll haircuts,women with VERY unnatural hair colours disregarding the regs in other units (see em at tim hortons in passing), etc etc etc)

Basically we have created a pile of exceptions. Does having a beard make anyone less of a leader? in my mind no. Does a first nations male member with long braids of hair make him less effective than a woman soldier with long hair? I think not.

I remember getting a safety breif from a pioneer back in the late 90's in gagetown that resembled ZZ top, fought with soldiers in Afganistan with handlebar mustaches. yet growing a modest beard, or a goatee is inapproperate and a safety hazard?

I think DAPATERSON has a great point of asking the question WHY. Luckly there are officers like him who wonders why policy is in place. I personally just enforce the policy in the dress regulations on my small amount of subordinates. I hope one day we will get away from stringent personal grooming standards. It doesnt effect anything. A white guy with a beard looks no differnt than a muslim with a beard. One is because of religion one would be due to choice. The standards are there for beards....why can't we use one rule for all?

Paraphrasing Will Shakespeare.

You should be women soldiers,
And yet your beards forbid me to interpret
That you are so.
(Macbeth Act 1 Scene 3)

The turn in this discussion reminded me that I posted a comment (that followed a similar vein) in another thread a couple of years ago.  I’ve highlighted yellow those portions that would be (IMO) relevant to this ‘pogonotic’ argument.

The discussion in this thread has oft strayed from the topic of the opening post to a discussion about unfair application of dress regulations (particularly hairstyles) in the CF.  Perhaps the mods should split this off.

But here I go, wading into it anyway.  This is not a new discussion and in fact was probably the most common point brought up when I conducted "Diversity Training" back in the 90s.  Though women in field units were relatively common by then, turbaned Sikhs weren't and braids for soldiers of aboriginal ancestry were just being authorized.

The close cropped look affected by soldiers is not new and while there was “some” basis for its adoption (and codification in regulation) as a means of preventing disease, it is not the whole story, nor was it probably the primary reason.  Military fashion (including hairstyles) has usually been a conservative reflection of civilian styles, though often with a lag of a few years.  I found this quote from a noted costume historian, "In the perspective of costume history, it is plain that the dress of any given period is exactly suited to the actual climate of the time." 

We put people into uniforms for reasons of identification and tradition.  Generally, adopting a similarly conservative hairstyle also suits that purpose.  That a short hairstyle is easier to keep clean is an added benefit, one that was also evident to civilians who adopted it.  It should be mentioned that standards of personal cleanliness in the past (whether military or civilian) were not at the level practised today, nor was it as easy to keep clean back then even if one wanted to.

I've tried to find some of the reference material I used back then when discussing this topic but it may have been trashed in a subsequent move.  In essence the point I would try to make was that we want male soldiers to look (and act) like (small c)conservative males, females to look like conservative females; if someone (either male or female) has valid, traditional religious or spiritual reasons why they should deviate from that norm, then we want them to look like a conservative practitioner of that religious or spiritual tradition.  It has often been discussed about the religious basis for Sikhs' dress and hair; the authorization of braids for Aboriginals was based on a legitimately recognized "spiritual" (religious?) tradition of long hair.  Acknowledging that the military needs more than males of white, European, Christian descent is not pandering or accommodating; it is recognizing reality.

I tried to find something on the net about the historical basis of short military hair styles that I could quote in my argument, but found nothing that particularly suited.  Here, however, are a couple of things that may give some perspective.

In August 1914, I was a full Lieutenant of twenty-six.  It was to take the experiences of the 1914-18 war to show me what was wrong in the Army.  My battalion mobilized at Shorncliffe.  The mobilization scheme provided, amongst other things, that all officers’ swords were to go to the armourers’ shop for sharpening. It was not clear to me why, since I had never used my sword except for saluting.  But of course I obeyed the order and my sword was made sharp for war.  The C.O. said that in war it was advisable to have short hair since it was easier to keep it clean; he had all his hair removed with the clippers by the regimental barber and looked an amazing sight; personally I had mine cut decently by a barber in Folkestone.  Being totally ignorant about the war, I asked the C.O. if it was necessary to take any money with me; he said money was useless in war as everything was provided for you.  I was somewhat uncertain about this and decided to take ten pounds with me in gold.  Later I was to find this invaluable, and was glad I had not followed his advice about either hair or money.

That was the perspective of a young Subaltern in the Royal Warwickshire Regiment by the name of Montgomery.  Wonder what became of him?

http://badgersforward.blogspot.com/2008/03/prince-harry-and-military-culture.html

Last fall I worked with a British Army Captain and we discussed this very issue. According to him a British Army officer would never have a "high and tight" or shaved head because it indicates that one cannot afford a proper haircut. He told me only a "squadie" would have such a haircut. Additionally he said the Blues and Royals have a tradition of even longer hair than the norm.

Of course extremely short hair has not always been the norm in the US Army, in fact it is a recent phenomenon.

The highlighted sentence may even be a partial explanation why soldiers of past times had such atrociously bad haircuts.  It was cheaper to crop it short, (even when you had to put on a powdered wig in the fashion of the day).

The appearance of soldiers (and sailors and the johnny-come-lately airmen) is very much a reflection of society (i.e. a  community standard).  If you compare the pictures of those bearded soldiers in the Crimea or South Africa with contemporary photos of political leaders (or 'ordinary' citizens) you'll probably see a similarity in facial hair; likewise for the wars of the 20th century.  There may be some safety or hygiene aspect to restrictions on beards (or long hair) but if it could be quantified it would probably amount to no more than 15% of the justification.  Faintly recalling some statistics from one of the NBCD courses (operator? officer?) I attended years ago, some studies indicated that there was an 5% to 15% increased chance of a bearded person not achieving a seal with a mask.

I also had experiences similar to you:

. . .  After training in germany we seen some wacky haircuts by some of our instructors. From EMO haircuts,mohawks etc. It did effect their teaching first as we were all...."hey that guy looks differnt!!" However their instruction was top notch once we got past that.

After a few bubbly wasser we got asking them about their dress regulations. basically they touch up their looks on their facial hair if there is a large parade however other than that they are free to do as they please.

But those European "hippie" soldiers and likewise hirsute members of the IDF were conscripts and/or mandatory reservists.  I don't recall meeting one "professional" soldier of any of those military forces who did not maintain grooming standards similar to ours.  What one was allowed (either by regulation or custom) was considerably different between those who made a career in their militaries and those who were there primarily because the law demanded it.

 

[Pusser]

Thanks Blackadder1916 for an interesting read. :nod:  I have often made similar arguments in mess discussions (although without specific references).  I 've always thought it was interesting how military uniform fashions have usually followed civilian fashion (albeit a tad more gaudily adorned), right up until about 1960.  It seems that at about that time, military uniforms in Canada came to a screeching halt in maintaining semblance to civilian fashion.  After that we seemed to almost rebel against civilian fashion.  I remember when I joined and wider-legged, unpleated pants were fashionable, but we in the CF wore taper-legged pleated trousers.  However, just as civilian fashion came back around to tapered legs and pleats (fashion being cyclical), the CF immediately switched (or so it seemed) to wider legs without pleats! :  What can you do?

When I worked with the British Army in the late 90s, I noticed how their hair was always a bit longer than ours (i.e. beyond that point at which the coxswain would be having a stern conversation with you) and it was explained that this was to help soldiers blend in with the local society a bit more.  The IRA threat was still very real then and British Army personnel did not wear uniforms in public and those going on bus trips were always told to wear "civvy tops" when on board so as to not look like soldiers.  Although this concept was completely defeated when we boarded what one of my British Army colleagues described as a "big red British Army blow-me-up bus!" :  Even today, British Army officers tend to wear their hair longer than the soldiers do.

 

[iciphil]

Hi, I'm the original poster.

I realize the tone of the message was biased and for that I apologize. Furthermore, it sent the conversation in directions that I did not intend to.

My point is, being responsible, how do I make sure such a call is legit? ie: Because when there's a doubt about gun drill, I check the gun's BGL. But how in hell do I validate such an order ? Where do I look too? Canforgens, Landforgens? something else?

Just trying to find the source and be sure it is a legitimate order.  Of course i'll obey my superior, but it is my duty if I so want to find the source, and either defend myself through proper means, or just shut up and don't bother.

I'm in theatre now so, all's good for me.

thanks, 10 pages is quite something.

 

[vonGarvin]

Hi, I'm the original poster.

I realize the tone of the message was biased and for that I apologize. Furthermore, it sent the conversation in directions that I did not intend to.

My point is, being responsible, how do I make sure such a call is legit? ie: Because when there's a doubt about gun drill, I check the gun's BGL. But how in hell do I validate such an order ? Where do I look too? Canforgens, Landforgens? something else?

Just trying to find the source and be sure it is a legitimate order.  Of course i'll obey my superior, but it is my duty if I so want to find the source, and either defend myself through proper means, or just shut up and don't bother.

I'm in theatre now so, all's good for me.

thanks, 10 pages is quite something.

First of all, take care over there!  And thank you for your service!  As for how to validate an order... I'm not sure.  I'm certain we'll get back to you.

In the mean time, watch your acs, and give 'em Hell!

 

[TN2IC]

In the mean time, watch your acs, and give 'em Hell!

Good hunting... I"ll be watching my arcs too.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Don't forget to blouse your pants!

 

[LoKe]

I'm in the Navy, currently posted to Kingston, and I'm required to submit a memo in order to keep the beard I've had for two years.  Does anyone happen to have a copy of such a memo they could let me use?  Or point me in the right direction (as far as supporting references and justification)?

I would really appreciate the help!

 

[LoKe]

The ref is A-AD-265-000/AG-001, under Section 2, under paragraph 5. a (3) (a), how do you write that in as a reference?

Would this be proper?

Ref:  a.  A-AD-265-000/AG-001, page 2-2-3, para 3a

 

[Michael OLeary]

Ref A: A-AD-265-000/AG-001 Canadian Forces Dress Instructions

In your text, you can mention that "Ref A, page 2-2-3, para 3a states ....."

 

[LoKe]

Thank you very much!

 

[armyvern]

Let's see ...

You're posted to Kingston, wear a Navy uniform ... and are being required to submit a memo to keep your beard??

Exactly what Unit are you with?? As a guy wearing a Naval uniform, you do not have to request permission to have a beard everywhere you serve/every posting to new Unit. That would be like telling women they need new memos for long hair every time they switch jobs/units. You only need to request if you are clean shaven and are going back to having a beard.

From the CFDIs:

(Ch 6, Sec 2)

(3) Beards (see Figure 2-2-2) (3) Barbe (voir figure 2-2-2)
(a) Subject to procedures established
by commanders of commands,
permission to wear a beard shall
only be granted to all ranks who
wear the naval uniform, wherever
serving; all ranks on strength of an
infantry pioneer platoon; adherents
of the Sikh religion (see Section 3);
and personnel, on the direction of a
medical officer, subject to medical
reassessment at intervals not
exceeding six months. Other
personnel shall shave off their
beards.
(a) Conformément à la procédure
établie par les commandants et les
commandements, la permission de
porter la barbe n’est accordée
qu’aux militaires portant l’uniforme
de la marine, et ce, peu importe
l’endroit où ils servent; qu’aux
militaires faisant partie d’un peloton
de pionniers de l’infanterie; qu’aux
adeptes de la religion sikh (voir
section 3); qu’au personnel ayant
reçu des directives d’un médecin
militaire en vue d’un réévaluation
médicale dans au plus six mois.
Tous les autres militaires doivent
être rasés.
(b) Where beards are authorized, they
shall be worn with a moustache;
kept neatly trimmed, especially on
the lower neck and cheekbones;
and not exceed 2.5 cm (1 in.) in
bulk.
(b) Lorsque le port de la barbe est
autorisé, elle doit être
accompagnée de la moustache,
être bien taillée, particulièrement à
la base du cou et sur les joues, et
ne pas avoir plus de 2.5 cm (1 po)
d’épaisseur.
(c) When a beard is grown or removed,
identification documents shall be
replaced in accordance with
security regulations

 

[LoKe]

My original memo seems to have gone missing, and I've since been loaded on course and a memo is required.

 

[armyvern]

My original memo seems to have gone missing, and I've since been loaded on course and a memo is required.

Do you or do you not already have a beard?

If you do, print a copy of the ref and show it to your Section Comd; you do not require a memo as a naval uniform wearing pers to keep a beard that you already have.

 

[LoKe]

Do you or do you not already have a beard?

If you do, print a copy of the ref and show it to your Section Comd; you do not require a memo as a naval uniform wearing pers to keep a beard that you already have.

I do have it currently, but I have no proof that I was ever allowed to have the beard.  Maybe I'm confused but the refs seem to indicate I at least need permission, and my staff requires that I have a memo.

 

[armyvern]

I do have it currently, but I have no proof that I was ever allowed to have the beard.  Maybe I'm confused but the refs seem to indicate I at least need permission, and my staff requires that I have a memo.

You're Navy!! Personnel wearing the Naval uniform are allowed to wear beards ... unless shipboard (due to FF apparatus) or other operational requirement.

I will also guarantee you that your instructors are well aware of that factoid.

 

[Michael OLeary]

m
You're Navy!! Personnel wearing the Naval uniform are allowed to wear beards ... unless shipboard (due to FF apparatus) or other operational requirement.

I will also guarantee you that your instructors are well aware of that factoid.

You're right Vern, but he's probably caught by some generic "everyone on the course with a beard needs a memo", whether the justification is a quote from the Dress Manual or an attached chit from their unit MO (for the med excuses),