Nothing wrong with a little hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dyl0j3WU6Y
;D
And see the actual USN LSO's in this scene from the Final Countdown, at 1 min. 10 sec. That was actually accepted hair styles in the USN in the 70's. I don't think it would pass today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4bshTKiwYc
More seriously, however, I disagree that having "different" clothing or dress instructions for men and women is either proof of backwardness on the part of the CF or that "desexualized" instructions are something whose time has come.
I have many reasons for believing this to be the case:
1- Even though we live in "our" world, our members must also spend their private life in the society in general. We cannot ask for our female members to wear "men's" haircuts that, while found in society from time to time are even today the rare exception to what is generally worn by women in the Canadian public. To do so, would expose them to attracting attention to themselves in public. So they should be allowed to wear short haircuts if they wish (already the case) but should also be allowed to wear haircuts close to the lenght generally found in society, which is also already the case in the regulation.
2- As representatives of the state, we are required to project a good image in public. This means reasonably conservative dressing in public. A good test for this is what is generally accepted as business dress in society. And as of right now, our dress standards are pretty well in line with what is acceptable and done in society, including the difference between men and women dress and deportment.
This doesn't mean that some changes couldn't be done.
For instance, headdress: In the Navy, as an example, the ball cap and berets are already similar, why not the service cap too? If you look at cruise ships and merchant ships where officers wear caps, they use the same for men and women. This logic IMHO could apply to the Army and Air Force too - especially as they are moving to beret and/or wedge caps only.
Another instance would be longer haircuts/beards for men. It is perfectly acceptable for men to wear those in society, why not in uniform? I would only make exception for actual operational deployments, where short cuts and no beard could still be the rule.
Also, small studs and hearings, together with light make up is accepted for men today in business attire, so again here, some modification could be done for personnel not deployed operationally that would be in line with what is acceptable in society. Again, same rule for all operationally deployed: none of it.
Finally, as regards women uniforms, I personally would have no problem with the elimination of the skirts from the available attires (and my wife who served for 15 years wholeheartedly hated the damn things, which she only appreciated on those rare 30 degrees/100% humidity days). Considering the limited number of times we dress in CF these days, it would not be a great loss.
However, this doesn't mean adopting a single uniform (male pattern) for all. The blouse should remain. In society today, business attire does not include male shirts or suits for women. Besides, no matter what, you would need two different cuts: the human body has not changed and men and women do not have the same usual body shape. We can't change that, except for loose fitting clothing such as the operational dress.
