All things beardy-2005 to 2018 (merged)

[Loachman]

the fashion crime of the curly moustache

Just because you can't grow one...

 

[ballz]

I understand why we must have a "conservative" appearance in the military and I am okay with that, all professions tend to breed some form of professional decorum into their people... but what exactly is a "conservative" look is always changing and the machine is quite unable to adapt until something fails and then they react (it is quite sad, really).

There was a time when people shaved every day, no matter what, because you "looked like a bum" if you didn't. That is not the case today, the CAF just hasn't caught on yet. A wise dude named Chris Haueter correctly observed once that "the new and the old are always at war, in any art, be it music, drawing, martial arts, whatever it is..." And in the military the "old" runs the place and the "new" has very little influence. This is to our detriment in many many ways, but that's a whole other conversation to have.

In any case, I don't think today's taxpayers consider having a beard or a goatee an "unprofessional" representation of themselves. I also don't think the taxpayers on the whole would think that a man having earrings would be unprofessional either, but I am sure the military will wait for some crisis to be manufactured instead of being a capable, thinking machine and changing the dress regs before someone successfully makes a spectacle of the CAF and it's sexist dress regulations.

Anywho, I'll be a civie soon and I can be happy to no longer waste oxygen worrying about this kind of petty stuff. :nod:

 

[Halifax Tar]

:goodpost:

 

[mariomike]

In any case, I don't think today's taxpayers consider having a beard or a goatee an "unprofessional" representation of themselves. I also don't think the taxpayers on the whole would think that a man having earrings would be unprofessional either, but I am sure the military will wait for some crisis to be manufactured instead of being a capable, thinking machine and changing the dress regs before someone successfully makes a spectacle of the CAF and it's sexist dress regulations.

I am convinced that taxpayers do not support relaxed grooming standards for their uniformed services.

This study concerns police officers, but I believe it is also relevant to the uniformed services,

"Strict grooming standards have been deemed by many police agencies as necessary to ensure safety, discipline, and uniformity; to promote an esprit de corps; and to foster public respect for police. Some police associations have sought to challenge grooming regulations on the grounds that they infringe on officers’ rights and on the assumption that they are outdated. The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that grooming standards and other restrictions infringe on an officer’s freedom of choice in personal matters. The Court ruled that a police department need only have a rational basis to constitutionally restrict an officer’s freedom of choice in this area. This study was designed to assess current public attitudes toward police officer grooming. Questionnaires were mailed to 7 randomly selected groups of 200 citizens in British Columbia, Canada. Each questionnaire was accompanied by a computer-manipulated photo of a police officer exhibiting one of six selected grooming standards, such as a shaved head, goatee, pierced ear, full beard, shaved head with goatee, and no distinguishing grooming feature. Respondents were asked to rate the pictured officer in terms of eight qualities: knowledge of the law, reliability, being objective, trustworthiness, concern for the public, hardworking, courtesy, and fairness. The results indicate that the general public does not support relaxed grooming standards and suggest that there are several negative consequences of officers being allowed to deviate from conservative grooming standards. Respondents believed that relaxing standards would erode confidence in the police, especially in terms of respect, trust, and pride. Grooming policies should remain in place until more conclusive evidence suggests otherwise."
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=203446

Why is this important? It is the people in our community who encourage our representatives to vote on a strong pay and benefit package for our uniformed services.

 

[RocketRichard]

Just because you can't grow one...

Civilians and military generally love the handlebar stache'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eaglelord17]

The main reason beards were done away with in WWI was the fact there was gas attacks. It also wasn't until after WWI that shaving became a popular thing in society, mainly a hold over from when men came back from the trenches and kept it up.

If the argument against beards is because of CBRN then make it so that when you have to carry a gas mask on you 24/7 you have to shave (or firefighting or what have you). If it is because it doesn't look 'professional' then google 'professional' on images and you will notice that quite a few of the individuals in the photos have beards.

Personally I am more concerned with having a universal standard than anything else. I don't care if your male, female or something other than those two, we all do the same job, and I expect the same treatment as anyone else.

 

[dapaterson]

So, does that mean that men should be allowed to wear earrings?

 

[SupersonicMax]

These pet-peeves that in the end don't matter really annoy me..  If we spent half the time worrying about important stuff rather that things that don't matter in the end and don't affect the end result (overly concerned about dress, missing an empty line between the last paragraph of a meme and a signature block, etc), and worked on matters of importance (promoting and accepting innovation, caring for our subbordinates, supporting the operatinal units, etc), we could accomplish so much more day-to-day and we could cultivate a motovational atmosphere at work... But we are very much to our detriment a process-driveb organization rather than a result-based organization. 

 

[ballz]

So, does that mean that men should be allowed to wear earrings?

Yes and that's exactly the kind of spectacle the military is incapable of avoiding. Here we are on this Op HONOUR tirade, making people take "gender-based analysis" training, and we have dress regs that go directly against it and somebody will undoubtedly, eventually, make a public spectacle of it the longer it stays that way.

These pet-peeves that in the end don't matter really annoy me..  If we spent half the time worrying about important stuff rather that things that don't matter in the end and don't affect the end result (overly concerned about dress, missing an empty line between the last paragraph of a meme and a signature block, etc), and worked on matters of importance (promoting and accepting innovation, caring for our subbordinates, supporting the operatinal units, etc), we could accomplish so much more day-to-day and we could cultivate a motovational atmosphere at work... But we are very much to our detriment a process-driveb organization rather than a result-based organization. 

Yup. You know how other professions manage to maintain the public's trust with a more relaxed grooming standard? Professional competence. If only we could get some more of that, maybe we could stop worrying about hair cuts so much.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So, does that mean that men should be allowed to wear earrings?

Why not?  I think anybody with a semblance of a brain recognizes that how someone dresses has nothing to do with competence.  In fact, I have seen many well groomes individuals dressed in nice expensive suits with shiny shoes I wouldn't trust looking after a goldfish.

I have also met many people that Chiefs would yell at do a job second to none.  As long as people are effective and don't put themselve and others in danger in the exercise of their job, I don't care how shiny their boots are or how many loose threads are left on their seams.

 

[the 48th regulator]

So, does that mean that men should be allowed to wear earrings?

If women are allowed, then yes.

dileas

tess

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As i have said before, this whole hair length/grooming thing has been changing all the time and is society driven at any given time - to an extent. In particular, i think in the CAF, the standard have tended to be dictated by the Army.

Before unification, the Navy had much less strict view of haircuts than the Army. Let's face it, Sailors used to have long hair and wear them in agony tail way before "man buns" were in modern fashion. Where do you think that the "blue collar" of the sailor uniform comes from? It waste protect the gun shirt from the stains of the greasy hair (usually tarred  - hence the nickname jolly jack tar). Here is a video from the late 70's 80's. it's US Navy (the Final Countdown - but the LSO's are actual US Navy) but you can see at 58 seconds in that the hairdo of that era were much longer than they are now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwgU42XSpw

All I am saying is the "neat' current haircuts are not something that is required by any special needs of the service, nor would the population at large be shocked by longer hairdos and beards, so long as they are reasonable and clean. Those that think so are deluding themselves on which aspects the population cares about.

 

[armyvern]

... Ask the fremale soldiers about collar length hair and they can tell you some stories about subjectivity.

Not really; as per, when it reaches the bottom of your collar, it goes up or gets cut.  Pretty simple rule actually and the women know the rule ... many of their male supervisors do not judging by the amount of females I have to correct with braids half way to their ass getting passed by while their male supervisor shits on the male next to her for his not being high and tight enough.

When it does reach the bottom of their collar and is still not quite long enough to put up into a bun, they can avoid cutting by submitting a memo to their RSM/Chief to request a 60 days "Transition Period" whereby they can wear it still down but only for 60 days max to grow it out ... and, if it becomes long enough to bun/braid within that 60 day period, the time ends on that earlier day.  Even with the braid, your hair can be 4 or5 inches longer than your collar, but not reach your collar-bottom when it's braided so it's still OK to wear down (as long as it does not extend past the collar-bottom).

In DEUs = hair goes up. Full stop. No braids hanging down.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Writing a memo to grow hair to comply with regulation....  waste of time isn't it?

 

[armyvern]

Writing a memo to grow hair to comply with regulation....  waste of time isn't it?

She'd be writing the memo to gain approval to wear her hair for max 60 days in a manner that is NOT in compliance with the dress regs.  Just like a beard chit.  We do have rules and regs.


A max 60 day period to allow her to wear it longer than her collar-bottom as it isn't quite long enough to braid/bun yet.  Depends on hair type - not all women need the 60day transition period.  My hair is extremely curly, by the time it actually reached my collar bottom and had to be put up, it was nice and long and braidable.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Writing a memo is still silly.  Why not inform your supervisor verbally?  Do officers have to go through the Chief too?  What about the CO.  Would she have to go through the CO? 

Added bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is inneficient.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Writing a memo is still silly.  Why not inform your supervisor verbally?  Do officers have to go through the Chief too?  What about the CO.  Would she have to go through the CO? 

Added bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is inneficient.

Not that I agree with it but it is my understanding that the reason for gaining CoC approval is so that member X has back up when someone of higher rank goes to jack them up for being out of dress or not meeting the standards.  Its a form of excusal, I think.

As for higher ranks, well everyone has a CoC, no matter the rank; and I can only hope those at senior levels follow the same protocols as is expected of those under them.  You know, leadership and all that stuff

 

[mariomike]

You know how other professions manage to maintain the public's trust with a more relaxed grooming standard? Professional competence.

"Other professions" have more relaxed grooming standards not because their employers liked the idea, but because their unions took it to arbitration.

Ref: Borough of Scarborough and International Association of Fire Fighters (1972), in which the arbitrator made the statement quoted in many subsequent grooming standard arbitrations that “there is no absolute right in an employer to create an employee in his own image."

The issue in this case was sideburns. It was quoted in an arbitration by another union 40 years later regarding tattoos and piercings.

The opinion of the employer was,

"The general appearance of the fire fighters to the taxpayer and general public is extremely important as dress and personal grooming reflects well-disciplined, well-trained capable people, employees of the Borough of Scarborough, who provide a fire protection function equally as good as their appearance projects."

 

[armyvern]

Writing a memo is still silly.  Why not inform your supervisor verbally?  Do officers have to go through the Chief too?  What about the CO.  Would she have to go through the CO? 

Added bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is inneficient.

Well, officers go to the Adjt now don't they.  I'm certain that you already knew that though.  Nice trolling though.

"For the sake of bureaucracy" is what allows one to pull out the memo (or the beard chit) when one gets picked up for not being in accordance with the dress regs. 

Better to have that chit/memo for those sorts of things to deal with the "doubters" immediately than to have even more inefficiency caused by receiving a few phones calls every day for 60 days, or for months while a troop has a beard, gets picked up for it and no chit to show the "doubter" that he is good to go.

And, there's no issue with the doubters querying said individuals either - it's their jobs after all to enforce standards and policy.

But then, you knew all that already too.  :

 

[SupersonicMax]

So, because a memo was written, everybody that could potentially jack a person up knows?  Not likely.  The effect of telling a supervisor is the same.

As far as COs writing memos for haircuts...  I wouldn't expect a CO to write a memo to the Unit chief or the Adjudant to ask for permission to grow hair.  Nor would I expect any officers to do so.  The adjudant is a Captain in a Squadron, just like most other officers.

If you receive multiple phone calls for people growing their hair from over-zealous people doubting someone's integrity, your unit has some serious issues unrelated to dress.

Treat people like adults.  You could be surprised how most will act like adults and go the extra mile.