The women’s hair standard has gradually loosened in the Canadian army, to the point where even ponytails (!) are acceptable, so long as they’re below a certain length. Aboriginals are allowed longer (though tidy) hair and Sikhs are allowed to wear turbans.
The reason for this is simple: recruitment is now so low that relatively minor issues like haircuts seem less important. Trying to apply strict standards will probably discourage some people from joining or staying in. After watching PBS play The Civil War again and seeing pictures of combatants with shoulder-length hair, one has to wonder how crucial a buzz cut really is to effective soldiering.
After 13 years in the reserves, I have to admit that seeing ponytails makes me do a double-take. It’s not a crucial thing, and I’ll get used to it, but it feels kinda wierd.
I always thought that the purpose of getting the buzzcut in bootcamp had less to do with practical or safety matters and more to do with creating a soldier where individuality is out and becoming indoctrinated into the military is the main goal. Cutting off your hair so that you look instantly different and so that everyone looks the same seems to be part of changing a person into a soldier and keeping him there. I guess it is the same reason why many cult leaders insist that their followers adopt a certain hairstyle or dress. It is suprising to me that the services allow such individuality among females in their hairstyles- especially when you consider that they make them wear the same uniforms, the same glasses, etc.
What army are you talkng about? Every time I replaced my glasses while on a military contract, I was given a choice from among at least 100 different styles. The crappy plastic frames were free, but I paid $50 to get the natty metal frames with the clip-on sunglasses.
For elite units with extremely high physical demands, the haircutting ritual can make perfect sense, since the training process naturally involves breaking down all individual limitations, fears, self-consciousness, etc, but the Canadian military (the only one with which I have any experience, natch) is having trouble filling ranks in support trades like communications and logistics.
What with better education standards, it’s harder for a recruiter to find slug-brained high-school droputs to talk into signing up. No-one is going to join because he got some girl pregnant, or because it was a choice between the army and jail. Besides, training really stupid people into being effective soldiers is a pain in the ass.
As a result, the people who join these days are there because they want to be, and if you throw in a lot of pointless rituals, some of them will lose interest. Fashion being what it is, men are more tolerant of buzz cuts than women, so why force the issue?
They may have just been talking about those horrible boot camp “BC” glasses. The ones that my husband still has, but tucked away in a drawer so that he never has to see them. I think that the first thing he did when he got out of basic was go to LensCrafters and got a real pair of glasses.
AFAIK, most if not all of the US services judge some kinds of “frosting” or whatever as an “extreme” hairstyle on men or women. A natural or otherwise uniform color is “normal” and not extreme. Going bald or going grey is OK, but tiger stripes or blonde tips on black are out.
Seriously, I don’t think that’s the reason. I still think it’s because it’s considered a fad style. The reg doesn’t specifically forbid “gay” hairstyles. Or punk hairstyles or Flock-of-Seagull hairstyles, etc.
Now commanders have a little leeway in what they consider a fad - and some commanders might be more likely to object to a buzzcut on a female because they associate it with being lesbian.
But the intent of the regulation is that military personnel resent a respectable image that is consistent with good order and discipline.
I would think a braid would be perfect, since it’s one of the only ways I can think of to get one’s hair out of the way and have it stay neat and in place.
In the USMC, the hair cannot fall below the lower edge of the collar while in uniform. Non-natural colors or styles are not allowed. Out of uniform though, their hair can be as long as they want. Even though my hair had to be at a maximum, a length of three inches, graduated down to zero at the lower hairline.
As for why there is a difference between the regulations between men and women, it is generally regarded that men have short hair due to hygienic and safety reasons based upon combat environments. Women, because they are not in combat units (don’t start on me… you know what I mean), are not required to have such a lack of hair to gather bugs, lice, be grabbed in hand to hand combat, etc.
My personal feeling however (NOW feel free to jump my ass… I don’t care) is that everyone serving in the same job capacity (military, cops, firefighters, etc) should be held to the exact same standards, appearance, uniform, and physical, regardless of sex. The reason that it is not, I feel, is purely because of the social differences (even though everyone is equal), as was previously mentioned. And that’s as far as I’m going to go with this one.
which was what I was thinking about braids - next to no daily maintenance, neat and professional looking, and out of the way - which is not true of virtually any other thing I could possibly do to my hair, other than shave it all off. (Which would probably be considered radical.)
Yeah, there’s a lot of office equipment around, but braids a-swingin’ in the breeze can get either caught on/in heavy machinery, or just prove to be a nuisance.
“Sorry sir, your jet’s out for maintenance. Someone’s ponytail got sucked up into the intake. . .”
Tripler
Whaddya mean my ammo tray is jammed with a barrette? :mad:
