Upcoming Changes to the Dress Manual

[Halifax Tar]

So I have seen it, a few times on social media; and on here.  I keep hearing this summer we are going to see some, what seems to be, drastic changes to the personal grooming standards laid out in the dess manual.  I hear things like a free for all on beards, long hair for men, goatees, earrings for men....ect, ect.

I have heard sailors in my unit lines mumbling about it now.  Has anyone actually been briefed on this topic ?  Or this pure rumor mill stuff going on ?

 

[McG]

I understand it was briefed at the Army's command team course.

 

[FSTO]

I can't help but think of this when I think of the lads having a hairy free for all!

 

[dimsum]

I can't help but think of this when I think of the lads having a hairy free for all!

Well, no one will have trouble finding these guys if they bail out.

 

[Stoker]

I heard it from 3 different sources. One from a briefing at a leadership course and the others at a town hall. From what I understand to attract more recruits some grooming regs maybe changing. Longer hair to be allowed, goatees, earrings for males. I don't know if this is something that will happen or any other details. It really doesn't surprise me as if somebody asked me a year ago if we would be allowed wifi on the ships, I wouldn't have believed it. Wholesale change is here and more change is coming.

 

[brihard]

Oh man. The social media poo-storm form the retired crowd on this is going to be phenomenally epic.

 

[Stoker]

Oh man. The social media poo-storm form the retired crowd on this is going to be phenomenally epic.

Its already started on the RCN retired pages on facebook.

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

I heard it from 3 different sources. One from a briefing at a leadership course and the others at a town hall. From what I understand to attract more recruits some grooming regs maybe changing. Longer hair to be allowed, goatees, earrings for males. I don't know if this is something that will happen or any other details. It really doesn't surprise me as if somebody asked me a year ago if we would be allowed wifi on the ships, I wouldn't have believed it. Wholesale change is here and more change is coming.

That’s what I also heard from members in Ottawa when I was on my ILP last fall.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm glad. At least it's being talked about and discussed as opposed to a nil return we've seen until now.

I've worked with soldiers from different countries (think Dutch, etc) that have had these grooming standards since the begining of the '70s.

In my mind, it hasn't affected their professionalism one bit. They certainly seemed a much happier bunch than Canadian troops.

Gender obliteration is a federal government intiative. Men can have long hair and earrings, women can have beards and moustaches. Identify as a rock if you wish.

The CAF works for the government, they carry out the MND's instructions, as passed from the PMO, and follow the governments lead on policy.

I might be wrong, but I don't see any amount of discussion making any difference to the current governments wishes.

Let it Grow! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXDf9UwHGF4

 

[jollyjacktar]

Let it Grow! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXDf9UwHGF4

You never seem to have a lighter to wave aloft when you want one for times like this. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Its already started on the RCN retired pages on facebook.

I would say those are retired CAF Maritime Command retirees.

Hate to break it to people, but the old RCN (i.e. pre-unification) was pretty well like the pics of the 60's and 70's US Navy posted above. The idea of short hair is actually something that came in from the army as a result of unification - not before. Similarly, the idea of some seamen wearing hear rings is actually definitely not something unusual for seamen from the old days - in fact it was quite acceptable then, regardless of the slightly  "pirate" look that resulted.

I've said it before, the short hair do thingy is NOT a naval tradition, it's a "modern army" one. The navies do not have problems in itself with people having long hair (the old naval collar's purpose was to protect the gun shirt from the tar/grease in the seamen's hair).

 

[jollyjacktar]

C'mon now OGBD, we usually shower on a semi-weekly basis now.  Geeze 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There's enough fresh water for that ???


;D

 

[Stoker]

I would say those are retired CAF Maritime Command retirees.

Hate to break it to people, but the old RCN (i.e. pre-unification) was pretty well like the pics of the 60's and 70's US Navy posted above. The idea of short hair is actually something that came in from the army as a result of unification - not before. Similarly, the idea of some seamen wearing hear rings is actually definitely not something unusual for seamen from the old days - in fact it was quite acceptable then, regardless of the slightly  "pirate" look that resulted.

I've said it before, the short hair do thingy is NOT a naval tradition, it's a "modern army" one. The navies do not have problems in itself with people having long hair (the old naval collar's purpose was to protect the gun shirt from the tar/grease in the seamen's hair).

No lots of currently serving members on those pages don't like it either.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Not that l am interested in growing long hair, a goatee or wear earrings.  I don't take issue if others do.  Meh! I say.  There's little enough joy in Tinseltown as it is, if this brings up the morale of some?  Then it's ok by me.  Bout time the adults tried to get with the times some and stop being pains in the asses for a change.

 

[Stoker]

The same people (or their ilk) who thought that the world would end as a result of a host of things, including: unification, women serving on ships and in the combat arms, homosexuals serving in the military at all etc, and also thought that drinking during the day, strippers in the mess at lunch, driving home drunk, hazing, and abusive leadership were all good things.

Just saying.

To be honest I don't really care myself but I would imagine its not uncommon for some to not like some of these proposed changes. As for your examples I wouldn't compare it to hazing , drunk driving or drinking.

 

[NavalMoose]

The same people (or their ilk) who thought that the world would end as a result of a host of things, including: unification, women serving on ships and in the combat arms, homosexuals serving in the military at all etc, and also thought that drinking during the day, strippers in the mess at lunch, driving home drunk, hazing, and abusive leadership were all good things.

Just saying.

That's quite the broad brush you're using there. Just because a person thinks that males should have short hair and no earrings doesn't mean they condone those other activities you mention.  Apples and oranges.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I've worked with soldiers from different countries (think Dutch, etc) that have had these grooming standards since the begining of the '70s.

I think it was them or maybe the Sweds...anyways, I remember one who was at the DFAC who had a haircut that reminded me of the 2 guys from ABBA.  No one stopped the press because of it.

Anyone remember when squareback haircuts were first permitted?  I'm sure that caused a few heart attacks  ;D.  Earrings, hair on men longer than 3 inches along the neckline...blah blah blah.  I care more about 'why are there no flight suits in the system' and stuff that actually negatively impacts ops and trg.  Commanders/applic authorities will have to ability to put in place rules/restrictions for 'about to be newly approved dress items' for operational/safety reasons.

 

[OldTanker]

Well, this old retiree doesn't see anything wrong with this. I'm not sure a goatee or earrings, on any gender, will affect operational efficiencies.  :2c:

 

[mariomike]

I'm not sure a goatee or earrings, on any gender, will affect operational efficiencies.  :2c:

I understand operational efficiencies are important. Opinions on personal appearance may vary among current and former members.

But, what importance - if any - is the personal appearance of CAF members to the public?

Reason I ask is, it is the public who encourage their political representatives to vote on strong pay and benefit packages. 

Studies I have read indicate that personal appearance of uniformed services - not just operational efficiency - is important to  taxpayers.