US Military's discriminatary new standards: Female soldiers will now allowed lipstick, nail polish, and locs

[laughing dog]

The different standards are the product of an interaction between the capitalist profiteering military industry and a right wing conservative, trans-phobic mentality, which is closely allied with the sexist and homophobic mentality that tried to keep women and gays out of the military. The modern military is big business and they lose money when they lose people willing to enlist. Fewer males are enlisting, so they need women in their ranks. Dress codes that prohibit features of traditional gender norms for women can keep many females from enlisting/re-enlisting. So, the Army is engaging in what amounts to a marketing campaign to attract more female recruits. But the right wing conservatives that dominate the military won't tolerate men being allowed to adopt traditionally female gender norms, so they are not allowed the same choices the women are. Given the number of transphobes among military males who would react negatively to allowing males to violate gender norms, there is no possible net gain to enlistment and thus profits by allowing males to have the same increase choices that females are being given.

It beggars belief that the army will not allow a male soldier to wear red lipstick and red nail polish, but if that selfsame soldier says "I am a transwoman", they'll be able to crack out the Revlon ColorStay in Vigorous Violet and pairing it with essie's gilded goddess on their nails.

That you thinkt those two situations are the same with respect to effect on that hypothetical's soldier's life says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not a good idea. Soon, America's enemies will be wearing lipstick and nail polish too. And they might escalate with wigs and high heels.

Well, it's about time the nations dismantle their nukes and settle their differences with drag queen ho-downs. I'm all for it, and the streaming rights would more than pay the defense bills. We need the best, most highly-trained queens. It's more than snapping your fingers. It's bringing the strongest beat, the kind that can bring down the house. You give me a squad of your best drag queens, with two-foot orange beehives and strap-on merkins, plus the house remix of 'Walking on Thin Ice', and they'll bitch-slap the bloody hell out of any platoon of Russian queens, even if they come with a bootleg dub of 'Believe'.
Trump could finally get combat experience.

 

[Jarhyn]

The different standards are the product of an interaction between the capitalist profiteering military industry and a right wing conservative, trans-phobic mentality, which is closely allied with the sexist and homophobic mentality that tried to keep women and gays out of the military. The modern military is big business and they lose money when they lose people willing to enlist. Fewer males are enlisting, so they need women in their ranks. Dress codes that prohibit features of traditional gender norms for women can keep many females from enlisting/re-enlisting. So, the Army is engaging in what amounts to a marketing campaign to attract more female recruits. But the right wing conservatives that dominate the military won't tolerate men being allowed to adopt traditionally female gender norms, so they are not allowed the same choices the women are. Given the number of transphobes among military males who would react negatively to allowing males to violate gender norms, there is no possible net gain to enlistment and thus profits by allowing males to have the same increase choices that females are being given.

It beggars belief that the army will not allow a male soldier to wear red lipstick and red nail polish, but if that selfsame soldier says "I am a transwoman", they'll be able to crack out the Revlon ColorStay in Vigorous Violet and pairing it with essie's gilded goddess on their nails.

That you thinkt those two situations are the same with respect to effect on that hypothetical's soldier's life says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

Personally, I would like the reality wherein a male COULD wear red lipstick and nail polish regardless of gender identity. That said, the fact.that they probably wouldn't fit in very well with their stated "gender culture" would perhaps be problematic, especially in a group as culturally bound as the military.

 

[laughing dog]

That you thinkt those two situations are the same with respect to effect on that hypothetical's soldier's life says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

Personally, I would like the reality wherein a male COULD wear red lipstick and nail polish regardless of gender identity. That said, the fact.that they probably wouldn't fit in very well with their stated "gender culture" would perhaps be problematic, especially in a group as culturally bound as the military.

I agree. Sometimes cultural change takes longer than we would like. I think this discrimination is such small potatoes both in breadth, depth and scope, that it hardly merits the rage in the OP virtue signalling.

 

[Metaphor]

The different standards are the product of an interaction between the capitalist profiteering military industry and a right wing conservative, trans-phobic mentality, which is closely allied with the sexist and homophobic mentality that tried to keep women and gays out of the military. The modern military is big business and they lose money when they lose people willing to enlist. Fewer males are enlisting, so they need women in their ranks. Dress codes that prohibit features of traditional gender norms for women can keep many females from enlisting/re-enlisting. So, the Army is engaging in what amounts to a marketing campaign to attract more female recruits. But the right wing conservatives that dominate the military won't tolerate men being allowed to adopt traditionally female gender norms, so they are not allowed the same choices the women are. Given the number of transphobes among military males who would react negatively to allowing males to violate gender norms, there is no possible net gain to enlistment and thus profits by allowing males to have the same increase choices that females are being given.

It beggars belief that the army will not allow a male soldier to wear red lipstick and red nail polish, but if that selfsame soldier says "I am a transwoman", they'll be able to crack out the Revlon ColorStay in Vigorous Violet and pairing it with essie's gilded goddess on their nails.

That you thinkt those two situations are the same with respect to effect on that hypothetical's soldier's life says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

I didn't call them "the same". I pointed out one of the absurdities that results from the interaction of US Army sex and gender policies.

I find it absurd that a male who wants to wear lipstick is forbidden from doing so, but a trans-identified male is not forbidden from doing so. What I would have found absurd a few years ago - though no longer - is leftists defending a government agency doubling down on sex-based stereotypes and approving of discrimination by sex in aesthetic standards.

 

[Jarhyn]

That you thinkt those two situations are the same with respect to effect on that hypothetical's soldier's life says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

Personally, I would like the reality wherein a male COULD wear red lipstick and nail polish regardless of gender identity. That said, the fact.that they probably wouldn't fit in very well with their stated "gender culture" would perhaps be problematic, especially in a group as culturally bound as the military.

I agree. Sometimes cultural change takes longer than we would like. I think this discrimination is such small potatoes both in breadth, depth and scope, that it hardly merits the rage in the OP virtue signalling.

Not to mention that while I happen to think that usually discussions of 'virtue signalling' say more about those who accuse others of it (that generally this accusation is more an attempt to discount actually having 'virtue' and acting in accordance with principle), that there are absolutely instances of virtue signalling happening... Such as loudly decrying advances towards relaxing appearance standards because ThEy StIlL DiScRiMiNaTe.

Ideally, we would just 'Do not increment, but go DIRECTLY to CORRECT', when we all can already see what that is. I will always present what I think that is, right at the front of my position on incremental changes. But, I realize that it takes a while for some, and I'll take what I can get!

But when you have some who scream loudly no matter the change and always pose it as "DiScRiMiNaTiOn AgAiNsT MeN", it can absolutely be exhausting.

Heaven knows that he would find some way to be angry with letting men wear locs, too... Again, I would love to be proven wrong.

 

[bilby]

Yes, these military standards discriminate against men. I know recruiting and retaining quality personnel is a problem right now. And, in the grand scheme of real problems within the military right now, this ranks way below the problem of suicides and rape.

So forgive me if this causes me to yawn.

I agree with Laughing Dog, there are much bigger fish to fry.

This: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/world/asia/china-masculinity-schoolboys.html should be a much bigger concern for the military. In order to remain competitive our military actually needs masculine men. And the Democrat party,their identity politics, and other do gooders are rapidly ruining our next generation of boys.

In order to remain competitive?

Who, exactly, do you see the US military as being 'competitive' with?

The US Armed Forces could lose 90% of their current capability, and STILL be able to kick the arses of the next biggest national military force.

The US military is massively larger and more powerful than it could possibly need to be for war fighting. Its obscene bloatedness way beyond what would be needed to defend the USA, her allies, and her global interests, is a consequence of these roles being only secondary to the unstated real purpose of the vast spending that such a force entails.

Every capital based economy needs a mechanism to put money back in at the lowest consumer level. A full employment strategy coupled with a generous minimum wage and high pay levels for workers across the board can achieve this, but that's politically unacceptable, so it's not going to happen.

In the presence of widespread unemployment, and/or paltry wages, another mechanism to get money to the poor is needed. The developed world typically has social spending mechanisms to do this - poor people are simply given money by the government.

But in the USA, this too is politically unacceptable. So they get poor people with no real job prospects, and recruit them into the military. It's a shockingly inefficient way for governments to funnel cash to the poor, but it's certainly better than nothing, and it allows the US economy to stagger onwards, without too many inconvenient corpses littering the highways and upsetting the sensibilities of the wealthy.

A lot about US military spending appears completely nonsensical, until you consider that it's benefits are focused not on defense, nor on prosecuting foreign wars, but on redistribution of wealth to the otherwise hopeless poverty stricken elements of US society.

 

[laughing dog]

That you thinkt those two situations are the same with respect to effect on that hypothetical's soldier's life says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

I didn't call them "the same". I pointed out one of the absurdities that results from the interaction of US Army sex and gender policies.

I find it absurd that a male who wants to wear lipstick is forbidden from doing so, but a trans-identified male is not forbidden from doing so. What I would have found absurd a few years ago - though no longer - is leftists defending a government agency doubling down on sex-based stereotypes and approving of discrimination by sex in aesthetic standards.

You wrote "It beggars belief that the army will not allow a male soldier to wear red lipstick and red nail polish, but if that selfsame soldier says "I am a transwoman..." which requires that the situations and repercussions for that selfsame soldier to be the identical. It is not. To ignore that difference is to exhibit shallow thinking.

BTW, why are you babbling about leftists?

 

[Metaphor]

You wrote "It beggars belief that the army will not allow a male soldier to wear red lipstick and red nail polish, but if that selfsame soldier says "I am a transwoman..." which requires that the situations and repercussions for that selfsame soldier to be the identical. It is not.

That's the fucking point. The outcomes are not identical. In one case, the male soldier is forbidden from doing what he wants (wear lipstick and nail polish), and in the other case, he is not.

I don't know any males who routinely wear lipstick, but I do have male friends - heterosexual ones even - who sometimes paint their nails.

Why should males who are trans-identified (or say they are trans-identified) be allowed to paint their nails, but males who do not are forbidden?

BTW, why are you babbling about leftists?

I would have hoped leftists would not support the army introducing more discrimination by sex. Instead, there is post after post from heterosexual men defending these new, sexist standards using conservative arguments about the necessity of incremental cultural change (which apparently was not necessary for gays or transgenders entering the army), as if a man painting his nails would destroy the morale of his platoon.

 

[Jarhyn]

That you thinkt those two situations are the same with respect to effect on that hypothetical's soldier's life says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

I didn't call them "the same". I pointed out one of the absurdities that results from the interaction of US Army sex and gender policies.

I find it absurd that a male who wants to wear lipstick is forbidden from doing so, but a trans-identified male is not forbidden from doing so. What I would have found absurd a few years ago - though no longer - is leftists defending a government agency doubling down on sex-based stereotypes and approving of discrimination by sex in aesthetic standards.

You wrote "It beggars belief that the army will not allow a male soldier to wear red lipstick and red nail polish, but if that selfsame soldier says "I am a transwoman..." which requires that the situations and repercussions for that selfsame soldier to be the identical. It is not. To ignore that difference is to exhibit shallow thinking.

BTW, why are you babbling about leftists?

IKR? Like, the leftists agree that this policy is, in fact, sexist, and would see both standards opened to all comers. The issue is not that leftists aren't sincere and egalitarian but rather that the conservatives insist on these half-steps, if any steps at all, that never actually get to egalitarian policy.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Who, exactly, do you see the US military as being 'competitive' with?

The US Armed Forces could lose 90% of their current capability, and STILL be able to kick the arses of the next biggest national military force.

In a global war, not against Russia without getting kicked as well (MAD).
In a local war, do you think even at 100$% they will beat China if it attacks Taiwan, not now but say in the late 2020s, or around 2030? If so, why do you think so?

The US military is massively larger and more powerful than it could possibly need to be for war fighting. Its obscene bloatedness way beyond what would be needed to defend the USA, her allies, and her global interests, is a consequence of these roles being only secondary to the unstated real purpose of the vast spending that such a force entails.

For defending America? Sure. For defending Taiwan? I would ask why you think so?

 

[Metaphor]

IKR? Like, the leftists agree that this policy is, in fact, sexist, and would see both standards opened to all comers.

Is Jarhyn reading a different message board? Because I see a lot of sarcasm from leftists and a lot of personal attacks on me for supporting a non-sexist standard.

The issue is not that leftists aren't sincere and egalitarian but rather that the conservatives insist on these half-steps, if any steps at all, that never actually get to egalitarian policy.

What conservatives insisted on this 'half step'?

(Ironically for Jarhyn, this isn't a half-step towards eliminating discrimination by sex. It deepens the discrimination by sex by introducing even more sex-segregated standards.)

 

[Patooka]

IKR? Like, the leftists agree that this policy is, in fact, sexist, and would see both standards opened to all comers.

Is Jarhyn reading a different message board? Because I see a lot of sarcasm from leftists and a lot of personal attacks on me for supporting a non-sexist standard.

Nope, you're reading the wrong message board I suspect. All I see is a bunch of leftists treating you with deserved ridicule because you believe addressing this crap should be a priority. What's next on your to do list, ensuring the Mormon Tabernacle Choir represents both genders equally?

 

[Swammerdami]

Is Jarhyn reading a different message board? Because I see a lot of sarcasm from leftists and a lot of personal attacks on me for supporting a non-sexist standard.

You'll be happy to know, Metaphor, that your posts do not appear for me unless someone quotes you. So all I know about your peeve is that some soldiers are permitted to wear lipstick, others aren't.

I just read that the Acting Secretary of Defense on January 6th had deliberately hobbled the National Guard. They were not permitted any weapons or even protective helmets; were not permitted to aid police; etc. Was this connected to The Lipstick Scandal?

 

[Patooka]

Is Jarhyn reading a different message board? Because I see a lot of sarcasm from leftists and a lot of personal attacks on me for supporting a non-sexist standard.

You'll be happy to know, Metaphor, that your posts do not appear for me unless someone quotes you. So all I know about your peeve is that some soldiers are permitted to wear lipstick, others aren't.

I just read that the Acting Secretary of Defense on January 6th had deliberately hobbled the National Guard. They were not permitted any weapons or even protective helmets; were not permitted to aid police; etc. Was this connected to The Lipstick Scandal?

Get your priorities, straight man. Lipstick is far more important than recruitment quotas, losing trained personnel to the private sector, a climate of not taking accusations of sexual assaults seriously, the increasing number of active military people living below the poverty line or the uncertainty of whether white supremacists have infiltrated key positions. The rules on nail polish need to be consistent first also. What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Metaphor]

The hypocritical lefties on this board never fail to deliver.

 

[Metaphor]

You'll be happy to know, Metaphor, that your posts do not appear for me unless someone quotes you. So all I know about your peeve is that some soldiers are permitted to wear lipstick, others aren't.

Congratulations on your ignorance.

 

[Patooka]

The hypocritical lefties on this board never fail to deliver.

So long as you're the victim and are righteously outraged over shit that doesn't change your life, right?

 

[Metaphor]

The hypocritical lefties on this board never fail to deliver.

So long as you're the victim and are righteously outraged over shit that doesn't change your life, right?

I am not a direct 'victim' of this sexist policy, nor am I 'outraged'. As I've already explained, I am saddened and frustrated that the US military introduced additional sexist policies. I want governments to stop needlessly discriminating by sex, which is why I supported and argued for same-sex marriage in Australia and why I opposed the sex-linked maternity leave policies formulated in Australia.

And I'm also disappointed, but not surprised, that the responses from the leftists on this board have ranged from 'it's too radical a move to have the US Army not discriminate by sex in aesthetic standards' (without offering an iota of evidence) to personal attacks on me, which, while I am sure they are satisfying for the people who made them, contribute nothing to the conversation.

And of course, there are the people who have me on ignore who have proudly advertised their ignorance of both the issue and my stance on it.

So: let the record show that the leftists on this board vocally support sexist, gender-stereotype standards in the military. I see your true colours.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Was this connected to The Lipstick Scandal?

It was to make sure no latent, unmanly homosexual got a gun, ehich the 2nd Amend reserves for Decent American Mens.