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

[Metaphor]

https://www.army.mil/article/242719...quity_and_inclusion_and_people_first_priority

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army has announced major revisions to Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia, which will include guidance on wearing the new Army Green Service Uniform and several other key changes. In addition, the Army is also revising its grooming standards to support its People First priority and diversity and inclusion efforts.

...

New grooming standards, which will be reflected in a forthcoming memo (ALARACT), will also go into effect in February. Approved revisions include optional wear of earrings, lipstick and nail colors for women and clear nail polish for men. Earrings will remain unauthorized in field environments, combat-related deployments or locations where access to normal hygiene is not available.

Why the sexist double standard? Are earrings, lipstick and nail colours detrimental for male soldiers but do not interfere with the capability of female soldiers?

Approved hairstyle changes include no minimum hair length for female Soldiers, allowing multiple hairstyles at once (i.e. braiding, twists or locs). Soldiers will be able to wear ponytails if unable to form a bun, and may wear long ponytails while conducting physical training, in the combat uniform or when female Soldiers wear equipment such as, but not limited to, combat helmets.

Why the sexist double standard? Is a certain hair length detrimental for male soldiers but does not interfere with the capability of female soldiers?

“In an effort to stop hair damage and loss stemming from hairstyles like the bun, the Army approved healthier hairstyle options that are more inclusive of various natural styles,” said Clark.

More inclusive, unless you are male.

Soldiers will also be allowed to have a uniform hair color blend (also known as highlights) as long as it presents a natural appearance. However, purple, blue, pink, green, orange, bright red, fluorescent or neon colors, and some others will be prohibited.

In addition, the revised regulation will not contain potentially offensive language used to describe several hairstyles – for example, “Mohawk, eccentric, faddish, Fu Manchu, dreadlock” – which will be replaced with alternative verbiage.
“We are continuously assessing our policies to identify areas for improvement, then implementing policies that demonstrate our commitment to ensuring all Soldiers feel as though they are valued members of the Army team,” said Brito. “We know that actions speak louder than words when it comes to inclusivity and equity within our ranks, and we believe that the changes we announced today are one example of policies that put our people first.”

I know I'm a deplorable, but this policy seems to be exclusive and inequitable.

 

[Elixir]

... still looking for that damn violin.

 

[Metaphor]

... still looking for that damn violin.

Do you approve of the military's discriminatory standards?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Aussie outraged at US military serviceman protocols, news streaming exclusively at 11 PM at www.WhiteMaleRage.com.

*gets out popcorn and waits for Keith&Co to notice thread*

 

[Metaphor]

Aussie outraged at US military serviceman protocols, news streaming exclusively at 11 PM at www.WhiteMaleRage.com.

*gets out popcorn and waits for Keith&Co to notice thread*

Do you approve of the military's discriminatory standards?

 

[Jarhyn]

One of the things I am, in fact, most disappointed with with regards to the military is the gendered uniform standards. All soldiers should have access to all acceptable uniform standards. There should in fact be just one standard, within which various paths exist to fulfillment. Then, given Biden's ending the trans ban, I suppose they do. It would be nice if it didn't require a formal adoption of a specific gender identity though.

The different physical training standards, those I can understand. They don't exist to validate "this person is capable of a set of battlefield actions", but rather to determine "this person has the discipline to kick their own ass".

When it comes to uniform standards, it's more about whether someone has the ability to maintain their appearance and bearing to a high standard.

Nail polish, lipstick, and even locs imply that the soldier is putting in effort there. In fact, it implies more effort than male soldiers ever put in to look good and maintain a professional bearing.

The issue I see is in fact primarily the locs. Soldiers do a lot of shit around a lot of heavy machinery, fires, and automatic weaponry. Having stuff attached to your body that dangles down is a HUGE issue, unless there is also some regulation that demands they be properly secured. Not to mention the liability it creates in a fight, though even that is fairly limited: when you have a human by the hair, your hands are occupied and theirs aren't and that opens you up to a whole world of hurt, because if they're willing to take a bit of pain and lose a bit of hair or scalp or let their locs just get ripped off, they can fuck you up hardcore while you are fucking about.

Granted none of that matters much when a war isn't on. We have plenty of rules that ca change on a moment's notice it is understood that major deployments are coming up.

 

[Bomb#20]

The different physical training standards, those I can understand. They don't exist to validate "this person is capable of a set of battlefield actions", but rather to determine "this person has the discipline to kick their own ass".

See, this is why slippery slope arguments exist: because we as a society really do slide down those slippery slopes. First my company gets the bright idea that if they just make us write our own annual performance reviews it will relieve our managers of the yearly crush of all that extra managerial work, and the next thing you know, sergeants in the Army have gotten so bloody lazy they expect the soldiers to kick their own asses.

 

[Jarhyn]

The different physical training standards, those I can understand. They don't exist to validate "this person is capable of a set of battlefield actions", but rather to determine "this person has the discipline to kick their own ass".

See, this is why slippery slope arguments exist: because we as a society really do slide down those slippery slopes. First my company gets the bright idea that if they just make us write our own annual performance reviews it will relieve our managers of the yearly crush of all that extra managerial work, and the next thing you know, sergeants in the Army have gotten so bloody lazy they expect the soldiers to kick their own asses.

It was like that 12 years ago. It's not like it's a new idea.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[RVonse]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

So, the new discriminatory standards are not a 'real' problem, but some kind of problem nonetheless?

It's difficult to tell where you stand on this because you say 'I know recruiting and retaining quality personnel is a problem right now', as if this discriminatory policy is meant to, or will result in, increased recruitment and retention of 'quality personnel'. Do you believe that?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Dude. Really.
This goes right in line with the service having greater tolerance for transgenders. If you're a woman, you now can make that a little more obvious with traditional accessories. To a degree. Not in the field.

Men's traditional visual accessorizing, like facial hair, tattoos, dueling scars, buzz cuts, bulging biceps, tree-trunk necks, have been pretty well hashed out for the last thirty years.

Thirty years ago was when the Navy decided men could wear earrings off duty, out of uniform. We had to wear the clear inserts on duty to keep the holes from healing over. Which meant during a deployment, we had to wear the inserts for all 90 days....no off-time.

And we couldn't wear them in tube entries, or to the flooding Wet Trainer. No matter how tight, they still counted as "loose items."

I have no idea why you're stressed over women losing a minimum hair length requirement... That now matches men.

I imagine they only allow solid colors for the nail polish? Not those labor-intensive murals my manager likes to flash at people.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Aussie outraged at US military serviceman protocols, news streaming exclusively at 11 PM at www.WhiteMaleRage.com.

*gets out popcorn and waits for Keith&Co to notice thread*

Lousy smart aleck making me take someone off a well earned ignore....

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

You say that, but even in low-conformity populatioms, non cis-gendered people are about 2% of the population. The remainder are, at least endocrinologically, absolutely unaltered. In the population at large, that number is a whopping 0.42%.

So how exactly have we ruined a "whole generation" of boys? By teaching them to value the opinions of others? By teaching them to treat all people equally? By teaching them that it's OK to have emotions?

Because to me that's a recipe for stronger cooperation, better unit cohesion, and better mental health (less PTSD). That's a recipe for a stronger military, not a weaker one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In order to remain competitive our military actually needs masculine men.

I would have thought we needed reliable weapons, good intel, decent security, and serious improvement in acquiring and delivering dependable supplies. Maybe shoot a few corrupt vendors producing shoddy armor.
How much of modern combat actually require writing your name in the snow?

 

[Metaphor]

Dude. Really.
This goes right in line with the service having greater tolerance for transgenders. If you're a woman, you now can make that a little more obvious with traditional accessories. To a degree. Not in the field.

Men's traditional visual accessorizing, like facial hair, tattoos, dueling scars, buzz cuts, bulging biceps, tree-trunk necks, have been pretty well hashed out for the last thirty years.

Thirty years ago was when the Navy decided men could wear earrings off duty, out of uniform. We had to wear the clear inserts on duty to keep the holes from healing over. Which meant during a deployment, we had to wear the inserts for all 90 days....no off-time.

And we couldn't wear them in tube entries, or to the flooding Wet Trainer. No matter how tight, they still counted as "loose items."

I have no idea why you're stressed over women losing a minimum hair length requirement... That now matches men.

I imagine they only allow solid colors for the nail polish? Not those labor-intensive murals my manager likes to flash at people.

Dude, really, what?

I'm 'stressed' over the military discriminating by sex, and having the effrontery to say it's in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion. And the discrimination is deliberate. Imagine going to the trouble of allowing nail polish but restricting to (the presumably masculine) 'clear' variant for men, but any variant at all for women.

And, as I expected from the board, the first responses were not "I agree that the military should not discriminate by sex in this way", but they were to ignore the content of the OP and attack me for writing it.

People wrote this up. This was okayed by multiple people, including at the top. The impulse in the supposedly 'diverse, equitable and inclusive' military is to discriminate by sex.

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.

Here's an idea. Remove all references to sex in the new standards.

What is the military afraid of?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Incremental change is necessary in maintaining good order and discipline.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Dude, really, what?

I'm 'stressed' over the military discriminating by sex,

But...but...the part i asked about you 'stressing'over, and i was quite clear, was the part where there is no longer a difference between men and women. I did not understand why you bolded thst in ghe middle of your tirade. Still don't.

and having the effrontery to say it's in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Yes, but when grownups use those words, they don't use them as infinite qualities. They use them more like the way you, yourself misuse 'ubiquitous.'

They can be 'inclusive' of some specific groups of members without even implying they intended to be taken to mean EVERY MOTHEERFUCKER IN THE FORCE.
The US Army is not responsible for or to your difficulties with the language.

And the discrimination is deliberate.
Imagine going to the trouble of allowing nail polish but restricting to (the presumably masculine) 'clear' variant for men, but any variant at all for women.

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. Maybe you're right. A novel idea.

And, as I expected from the board, the first responses were not "I agree that the military should not discriminate by sex in this way", but they were to ignore the content of the OP and attack me for writing it.

No, they read the content, did not give a rat's, THEN twigged you for being SUCH a Metaphor.

People wrote this up. This was okayed by multiple people, including at the top. The impulse in the supposedly 'diverse, equitable and inclusive' military is to discriminate by sex.

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.

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.

by which you mean infinite inclusion.
That's not what thery mean.

Here's an idea. Remove all references to sex in the new standards.

but then the usual suspects couldn't bitch about the transgenders!

What is the military afraid of?

Spiders.

 

[Metaphor]

But...but...the part i asked about you 'stressing'over, and i was quite clear, was the part where there is no longer a difference between men and women.

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.

I did not understand why you bolded thst in ghe middle of your tirade. Still don't. Yes, but when grownups use those words, they don't use them as infinite qualities. They use them more like the way you, yourself misuse 'ubiquitous.'

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

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.

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

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.

by which you mean infinite inclusion.

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

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

 

[laughing dog]

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.

So, the new discriminatory standards are not a 'real' problem, but some kind of problem nonetheless?

Yes.

It's difficult to tell where you stand on this because you say 'I know recruiting and retaining quality personnel is a problem right now', as if this discriminatory policy is meant to, or will result in, increased recruitment and retention of 'quality personnel'. Do you believe that?

I have no idea whether it is a potential motivation or not. And, I really don't care on way or the other.