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

[laughing dog]

Nobody thought 'why don't we just allow people to wear nail polish if they want to'. No. Nobody approached this from an actual place of inclusion.

You are not a member of the US military. So what is the source of your claim that "nobody" thought or approached this issue from an actual point of inclusion? The fact they did not develop a policy that you approve of is not evidence that nobody thought about this in terms of inclusion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not stressed over any changes to the code that mean the sexes are treated equally. I don't know why you think I would be 'stressed' over that.

as i also pointed out, you made a point to bold that tidbit. this only makes sense if
A) it's significant and adds to your thesis,
Or,
B) you misunderstand the significance, and shot yourself in the foot on that one.

I know what ubiquitous means and I have not misused it.

That makes you wrong twice in ghe same sentence.

I don't know what an 'infinite quantity' of 'diversity, equity and inclusion' is. But I do know that introducing standards that discriminate by sex reduces diversity, equity and inclusion.

i took it as changing the women's standards to be more inclusive of the wide variety of women's standards reflected in civilian society.
NOT to mean inclusive as in expanding specifically women's standards to apply to men, women, and officers.

Uh huh.... i have imagined that. And like i said, i doubt it's 'any variant at all.' But feel free to show the actual standards, rather than a journalist's take on the press release.

The standards are different by sex.

Yes. But i think you exaggerate the differences to the point of lampooning your thesis.

Also, what journalist take? Is https://www.army.mil/ a civvie website?

That's a news story written by a journalist, a summary. Not the actual standards. I doubt the standards fully reflect uour interpretation of the story.

if you open a dictionary, words often have many meanings. The idea the Army was trying to convet was not thd one lodged in your bonnet.

Well, except the word ubiquitous. All people know that only has one meaning.

The existing meanings for that word do not support the way you try to use it.

by which you mean infinite inclusion.

I don't know what 'infinite inclusion' means, but you sure seem to have an idea.

Yep. I really thought i madd that clear up above.
They do not use "inclusive" to mean EVERY MF IN UNIFORM, Male, Female, Transitioning, or 2nd LT.

Tell me, how is criticising the military for needlessly discriminating by sex a claim to want 'infinite' inclusion?

Your misuse of "inclusive" to create a bitch-hook to hang your diatribe on. The Army is not claiming to even try to do what you're criticizing the Army for failing to achieve.

 

[Elixir]

What a fucking snowflake.

 

[Metaphor]

Nobody thought 'why don't we just allow people to wear nail polish if they want to'. No. Nobody approached this from an actual place of inclusion.

You are not a member of the US military. So what is the source of your claim that "nobody" thought or approached this issue from an actual point of inclusion? The fact they did not develop a policy that you approve of is not evidence that nobody thought about this in terms of inclusion.

Either nobody thought of it, or it was advanced and rejected. We have the final policy as evidence of what survived any deliberation process.

It obviously did occur to people that men might want to wear nail polish, too. But nothing as girly as colours. And so, whilst at some point they might have considered breaking out of their sex discrimination mentality, they chose not to.

In a way, 'considered and rejected' is worse than 'didn't even think of it'. It's conscious, deliberate discrimination.

These new standards do not increase inclusion. They discriminate by sex and reinforce arbitrary gender role stereotypes. They set back diversity, equity and inclusion, both directly (by discriminating) and indirectly (by promoting a culture that reinforces that arbitrary discrimination by sex on aesthetic standards is acceptable).

 

[Metaphor]

as i also pointed out, you made a point to bold that tidbit. this only makes sense if
A) it's significant and adds to your thesis,

Of course it does. It shows that in the same breath, the military removed an arbitrary discrimination by sex and then added a number of new ones.

i took it as changing the women's standards to be more inclusive of the wide variety of women's standards reflected in civilian society.
NOT to mean inclusive as in expanding specifically women's standards to apply to men, women, and officers.

Men in civilian society wear nail polish and long hair too. But even if they didn't, so what?

Yes. But i think you exaggerate the differences to the point of lampooning your thesis.

I couldn't lampoon the military any better than its actual policy that allows the masc4masc clear nail polish for men, but nail polish in any colour for women.

That's a news story written by a journalist, a summary. Not the actual standards. I doubt the standards fully reflect uour interpretation of the story.

If I'm mistaken about what the standard actually allows (that is, it does not discriminate by sex), then the person who wrote that summary on a military website should be fired.

But it seems pretty clear cut to me. Perhaps you can point out what I'm mistaken about.

Your misuse of "inclusive" to create a bitch-hook to hang your diatribe on. The Army is not claiming to even try to do what you're criticizing the Army for failing to achieve.

I see. So, the army isn't trying to be 'inclusive' with this new policy in the way I understood 'inclusive' to mean in 'inclusion, equity, diversity'.

So, let's say the army (and evidently, you) have a ...less inclusive understanding of the word 'inclusive' than I do.

Does that mean a policy discriminating needlessly by sex is a good policy?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Either nobody thought of it, or it was advanced and rejected. We have the final policy as evidence of what survived any deliberation process.

No, we do not. You quoted where they say,

We are continuously assessing our policies to identify areas for improvement, then implementing policies

so, you cannot say this is yhe final policy.
If enough men DEMAND to be inspected by women's standards, maybe they'll change it again.

These new standards do not increase inclusion.

you might reread what they said was to be included. By that, inclusion increased.

 

[Metaphor]

No, we do not. You quoted where they say, so, you cannot say this is yhe final policy.

It will be the current policy on 24 February. These standards are the ones that have been agreed to and implemented. The draft policies that led up to it are not the final policy.

The policy may change in the future, sure. In fact, I hope it does. Because this one discriminates by sex.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Of course it does. It shows that in the same breath, the military removed an arbitrary discrimination by sex and then added a number of new ones.

So, you were stressed by it, then you weren't, now you are for a different reason....
It's a rollercoaster.

Men in civilian society wear nail polish and long hair too. But even if they didn't, so what?

So, the military lags on gender freedoms. But the same military is being destroyed by progressive policies like women in combat, transexuals, LGBT tolrrance.
It's a rollercoaster.

Yes. But i think you exaggerate the differences to the point of lampooning your thesis.

I couldn't lampoon the military any better than its actual policy that allows the masc4masc clear nail polish for men, but nail polish in any colour for women.

Still don't think that's an accurate claim.

That's a news story written by a journalist, a summary. Not the actual standards. I doubt the standards fully reflect uour interpretation of the story.

If I'm mistaken about what the standard actually allows (that is, it does not discriminate by sex), then the person who wrote that summary on a military website should be fired.

Yes, yes, that's exactly the inability to grasp details from reading material that makes you such a fussbudget.

But it seems pretty clear cut to me. Perhaps you can point out what I'm mistaken about.

i did, you indist on reading a whole different point into it.

Your misuse of "inclusive" to create a bitch-hook to hang your diatribe on. The Army is not claiming to even try to do what you're criticizing the Army for failing to achieve.

I see. So, the army isn't trying to be 'inclusive' with this new policy in the way I understood 'inclusive' to mean in 'inclusion, equity, diversity'.

Nope.

So, let's say the army (and evidently, you) have a ...less inclusive understanding of the word 'inclusive' than I do.

You're crying that MEN aren't included in an individual standard that's specifically for women. Yes. The Army is not using 'inclusive' in the aazzy you are demanding they do.

Does that mean a policy discriminating needlessly by sex is a good policy?

i have not yet claimddd it is a good or bad policy. Just that your take on it is a hot mess of self-indulgent outrage.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, we do not. You quoted where they say, so, you cannot say this is yhe final policy.

It will be the current policy on 24 February. These standards are the ones that have been agreed to and implemented. The draft policies that led up to it are not the final policy.

The policy may change in the future, sure. In fact, I hope it does. Because this one discriminates by sex.

So, they make a change, and make it ckear they are open to furth we change. That's a lot better than either letting the idea die in endkess committee meetings and fact-finding, or issuing it once as a monolith, no review until the next SECARMY.

 

[Metaphor]

So, you were stressed by it, then you weren't, now you are for a different reason....

I am saddened and frustrated that the military discriminates by sex in its dress policies.

It's a rollercoaster. So, the military lags on gender freedoms. But the same military is being destroyed by progressive policies like women in combat, transexuals, LGBT tolrrance.

I did not mention women in combat, transexuals, or LGBT 'tolrrance'. I mentioned discriminating by sex.

Still don't think that's an accurate claim.

You are simply and plainly wrong.
https://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2021/01/27/?s_cid=standto?

• Solid lip and nail colors (non-extreme) for female Soldiers
• Clear nail polish for male Soldiers

This kind of standard reminds me of the old joke 'it isn't gay if you don't touch penises'.

You're crying that MEN aren't included in an individual standard that's specifically for women. Yes. The Army is not using 'inclusive' in the aazzy you are demanding they do.

It is getting increasingly difficult to follow your posts. What is 'aazzy'?

i have not yet claimddd it is a good or bad policy.

Yes, I know. That's why I asked you the question. Do you think the army explicitly and deliberately discriminating by sex in dress standards is a good policy?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Still don't think that's an accurate claim.

You are simply and plainly wrong.
https://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2021/01/27/?s_cid=standto?

• Solid lip and nail colors (non-extreme) for female Soldiers
• Clear nail polish for male Soldiers

Yeah. That's what i expected. Not ANY color. They still limit it to 'non-extreme.' So, LOTS of colors, but not ALL of them.

This kind of standard reminds me of the old joke 'it isn't gay if you don't touch penises'.

No, no, it's not gay if you throw ip afterwards. If you enjoy it, it's gay. That's why we used to blow each other once a month on patrol. Long as you threw up, it wasn't a homosexual act. If you stopped barfing, you'd turned gay and couldn't participate anymore.

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah. That's what i expected. Not ANY color. They still limit it to 'non-extreme.' So, LOTS of colors, but not ALL of them.

It's not about the particular fucking colours. It's about the sex discrimination.

No, no, it's not gay if you throw ip afterwards. If you enjoy it, it's gay. That's why we used to blow each other once a month on patrol. Long as you threw up, it wasn't a homosexual act. If you stopped barfing, you'd turned gay and couldn't participate anymore.

I'm so pleased for you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah. That's what i expected. Not ANY color. They still limit it to 'non-extreme.' So, LOTS of colors, but not ALL of them.

It's not about the particular fucking colours.

Yes, it is. You made a claim, i had a quibble. You have to use scroll and page technology to find it at this point. You persisted in your claim. I persisted in resisting.


You went and found evidence that your claim was plainly wrong.
I feel nicely chuffed at being right. So, thanks.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, we do not. You quoted where they say, so, you cannot say this is yhe final policy.
If enough men DEMAND to be inspected by women's standards, maybe they'll change it again.

These new standards do not increase inclusion.

you might reread what they said was to be included. By that, inclusion increased.

I pale to think how apoplectic Metaphor and the like would be if every soldier could choose whichever of the inspection standards to apply.

I would damn near expect him to throw a downright tantrum about it. But, maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, we do not. You quoted where they say, so, you cannot say this is yhe final policy.
If enough men DEMAND to be inspected by women's standards, maybe they'll change it again.

These new standards do not increase inclusion.

you might reread what they said was to be included. By that, inclusion increased.

I pale to think how apoplectic Metaphor and the like would be if every soldier could choose whichever of the inspection standards to apply.

I would damn near expect him to throw a downright tantrum about it. But, maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

The usual suspects would decry a sissifying policy allowing men to show up for parade in skirts, even if they were camo.
Though the Black Watch and the units that fought them might have z different opinion...

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, it is. You made a claim, i had a quibble. You have to use scroll and page technology to find it at this point. You persisted in your claim. I persisted in resisting.

I claimed that men were allowed clear nail polish while women were allowed colours. Your quibble (that any colours excluded some fanciful designs) was pointless.

 

[Metaphor]

No, we do not. You quoted where they say, so, you cannot say this is yhe final policy.
If enough men DEMAND to be inspected by women's standards, maybe they'll change it again.

These new standards do not increase inclusion.

you might reread what they said was to be included. By that, inclusion increased.

I pale to think how apoplectic Metaphor and the like would be if every soldier could choose whichever of the inspection standards to apply.

I would damn near expect him to throw a downright tantrum about it. But, maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

I doubt you hope you are wrong, but I am glad to inform those playing at home that Jarhyn is, indeed, quite wrong.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, it is. You made a claim, i had a quibble. You have to use scroll and page technology to find it at this point. You persisted in your claim. I persisted in resisting.

I claimed that men were allowed clear nail polish while women were allowed colours.

So, you did not scroll back. I did. This is not the claim you made where i had a quibble.

Your quibble (that any colours excluded some fanciful designs) was pointless.

Of course you would say so, as you were wrong. And not pointless!

This does display
1) your (in)ability to read for content
2) your (in)ability to think things through
3) your oft-demonstrated inability to admit to error

You were wrong, you doubled down on the wrongness, and now you want to avoid the significance of having proven yourself wrong

 

[Metaphor]

So, you did not scroll back. I did. This is not the claim you made where i had a quibble.

Your quibble (that any colours excluded some fanciful designs) was pointless.

Of course you would say so, as you were wrong. And not pointless!

This does display
1) your (in)ability to read for content
2) your (in)ability to think things through
3) your oft-demonstrated inability to admit to error

You were wrong, you doubled down on the wrongness, and now you want to avoid the significance of having proven yourself wrong

The original article said:
Approved revisions include optional wear of earrings, lipstick and nail colors for women and clear nail polish for men.

I said:
I couldn't lampoon the military any better than its actual policy that allows the masc4masc clear nail polish for men, but nail polish in any colour for women.

You said:
Still don't think that's an accurate claim.

I was wrong about what you were quibbling about. I thought you were contesting the sex discrimination aspect. Instead, you were contesting the 'any colour' aspect, which the actual standards restrict to 'non-extreme' colours.

If you feel chuffed that you correctly predicted that the nail polish allowed for women did not include 'extreme' colours, I am glad you have found something to be proud of in your day.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You said:
Still don't think that's an accurate claim.

Still.
I said "still" because this was not the first claim you made.
Scroll a teensy bit further. You were very specific. And exaggerated

Which you then went and found support for....for me.

If you feel chuffed that you correctly predicted that the nail polish allowed for women did not include 'extreme' colours, I am glad you have found something to be proud of in your day.

you misunderstand.
I'm chuffed that YOU proved i had nore understanding of the Army's actual position, sight unseen, than you did after reading the press release.